"The Iraq War's Claude Raines Moment"

That's how Jim Henley describes this piece, in which Richard Perle calls for heads to roll over faulty intelligence. Other heads, of course.

Comments

[Neb Okla]

At first I thought you were referring to a story written that reporter who was decapitated.

The news is always more interesting when I read it. 😮

[Jean Bart]

I assume you are referring to "Casablanca," correct?

[Gadfly]

"I'd start with the head head," Perle said.

I agree.

[Jean Bart]

Why does anyone take Perle remotely serious?

[Jean Bart]

"George Tenet has been at the CIA long enough to assume responsibility for its performance..."

There is a good reason why Tenet stays - as the phrase goes: he knows where the corpses are buried. They will not fire him because they do not want him writing an O'Neill style book.

[Jean Bart]

"George Tenet has been at the CIA long enough to assume responsibility for its performance..."

There is a good reason why Tenet stays - as the phrase goes: he knows where the corpses are buried. They will not fire him because they do not want him writing an O'Neill style book.

[Spoodge]

Photos of the bush aborted fetus - that's the only way I can possibly imagine how Tenet's been able to keep his job.

[Jean Bart]

"International inspectors have discovered uranium enrichment centrifuge parts in Iran that are much more sophisticated than the type Tehran has admitted to having, a senior Bush administration official said today."

You see the international inspections regime that the U.K., France and Germany pushed Iran to accept, and the Bush administration called "weak" at one point, works.

[Andrew]

Well...

speaking for myself, I am not a big fan of firing appointed officials in Washington-- I don't think it accomplishes much, and tends to paper over the real source of our problems.

Only elected officials should be fired...by the voters.

JB

The American inspections being conducted in Iraq right now, would be stronger still 😉

[Andrew]

JB

Let me add...I think the mullahs are building a bomb. I don't think the inspections (which ARE meritorious) are stopping them. Frankly...I am not sure a regime change would stop Iran from building a bomb-- it is more than likely that even a democratic regime in Iran would resume building a bomb, sooner or later.

[Jon H]

"The American inspections being conducted in Iraq right now, would be stronger still ;)"

Not run by Don "sieve" Rumsfeld, they wouldn't.

He'd secure Iran's petro industry, and leave the nuclear facilities unguarded.

[MALAK]

Careful Jon, Rummy may go midieval on your ass. He's got a black belt, don't you know.

[Phil]

People take Perle seriously, Jean Bart, because he's generally gotten it right in the past decade while his opponents were (and still are) woefully wrong.

I'm sorry I took so long to respond, but I was busy laughing at your claim as to how successful international inspection is.

[Jack]

The neocons' savaging of the CIA over the last two years is the best evidence yet that JFK really was killed by Oswald.

[Rick Barton]

First; a big bonus for me in this thread was that the Jim Henley link occasioned me to discover Julian's site;

http://juliansanchez.com/index.html

which is loaded with interesting and fun stuff that I'm anxious to explore further. (you can send me the $50 via PayPal or what ever Julian)

Richard Perle said:

George Tenet has been at the CIA long enough to assume responsibility for its performance...The CIA has an almost perfect record of getting it wrong in relation to the (Persian) Gulf...When you have an organization that doesn't get it right time after time, you change the organization

What?? The CIA was much more reticent in it's case for WMD than the Pentagon, where Perle's cohorts; Rumsfeld and Wofowitz held sway. When the CIA was unable to come up with good evidence for Iraqi WMD, the Neo-cons foisted a shaky case for WMD on the president and Powell to use to persuade congress and the public that the Iraq war was necessary.

Richard Perle, has been at the nexus of so many neo-con "pro-democracy" organizations that have a long history of advocating an attack on Iraq. In 1998, Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and five other future members of Bush's administration wrote Clinton and urged him to oust Saddam. Right after 9/11 prominent Neos including Wolfowitz made the case for skipping Afghanistan and going after Iraq instead.

Perle is now engaging in yet another misdirection, this one, to shift the blame away from himself, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the Neo-con establishment that has long been building the faulty case for war. That he is attempting to have the CIA and the DIA take the blame is ironic since the CIA was a thorn in his side in the push for war.

The Neos are pushing for Wolfowitz to be made head of the CIA, which would be a real power coup for the gang who conned us into war. The prospect of them controlling the CIA along with the pentagon is a vision of power unbridled.

What is to be done? We should make the case to Bush and the Republicans, that for Bush to regain the trust of Americans in foreign affairs he needs to jettison the Perle gang that misled him about Iraq.

[Jon]

The trouble with your comment, Rick, is that the Iraqi war was the right thing to do--both the arguments before and the situation after justify it. Now maybe you have arguments against this, but I'm still waiting. Instead, you waste our time with paranoia and claims that Bush and the American public were "conned." Come back when you have a serious argument to make.

(Here's a hint: Any serious argument won't fulminate against "neocon" conspiracies.)

[Rick Barton]

jon,

Saying that the Iraq war "was the right thing to do" doesn't make it so. And characterizing comments as "fulminating" does not refute them or the fact that Perle and the other Neos took advantage of 9/11 to foist an unsubstantiated case for the attack on Iraq on the president and the people.

The only way the war could be the right thing to do was if it was to terminate a real threat. There was none, but the neo's conned a president with good intentions into a terrible decision.

[Rick Barton]

jon,

Doesn't the absence of WMD make you, at least a little, suspicious?

[Rick Barton]

What about the Neo's incredible advocacy of going after Iraq instead of Afghanistan right after 9/11?

[dj of raleigh]

Intelligent has proven itself weak in the last generation.
We underestimated Iraq's nuclear program in the 80s,
the extend of bio/chem weapons in the early 90s,
about Iran's current nuke program,
about Libya's current nuke program,
about Pakistans role in selling nuke technology.
Inspections on the ground didn't go well
enough to give anyone any confidence.
Hans Blix thought there were WMD until the end.
How are we to trust JUST intelligence?

[MALAK]

Remember too, Rick, that the debates occurred before the bastards started flying planes into buildings. That does have a tendency to make ones foreign outlook somewhat less than modest.

[Gadfly]

Rick, if you're saying there's two more to go, you're wrong. We've shot our wad.

Unless, of course, you want them to draft your ass for the next one.

And I'll send my part of the bill to you.

[rick laredo]

Gadfly last question answered first, I was caught in the last draft ended up retiring from the Army. Enough said on that one.

First question, it appears that the other ?Rogue States? have gotten the message, Libya is eliminating its WMD arsenal, Iran is allowing UN inspections and No. Korea will disarm in exchange for economic assistance.

I?d gladly pay your part of the bill to ensure the plan works. It?s the best shot we have at eliminating terrorism.

Appeasement or ignoring the threat will not work

[Gadfly]

Sorry about that, Rick. After a year of 1A I was lucky enough to get a good number.

I guess we'll just have to disagree, respectfully, on the rest of that stuff. I see no hope for a military solution to Evil.

[sure-lock holmes]

deep breath:
MALAK: are you saying that iraq was the trigger puller on 9/11?

I heard the same grumbling from Left Wing enthusiasts to persecute and ban militia groups in the mid 90s. And many of the pro-big law and order right wing people who were against that then are for this now.

Could someone please explain, truthfully, why Iraq was all of sudden necessary post 9/11? The main reasons cited for moving in were there for years, but polls from 1998 showed that many of hte Right-wing who were for it now were against it now (Gallop archives). MALAK, what you're saying is all fine and good for Afghanistan, but the WMDs, the "gassed his 'own' people", the "brutal worse-than-Stalin" penny ante dictator was awful in the interwar years. Why focus on the deflected reason that Iraq = 9/11? The majority of truthful reasons cited were there pre 9/11. Why didn't the President run on that ticket? Your connection of 9/11 with Iraq is less concrete than the WMD reason. Or with the UN Resolutions justification. The Terror against the US = Iraq connection was a justification I never accepted (Libya fits the "madman, used gas on 'his people', perpetrated terror against the US, seeks WMDs" model better, yet most of the pro war (anti France, quick, point out France on a map) crowd forgor all about Libya). The UN and WMD justifications were enough and somewhat true. The 9/11 = Iraq is silly and it makes the hardcore Hawks (combined with their ignorant hatred of France -- baaaaaaaa) look silly.

Pause waiting for the typical comments by the sophmoric masses ("ad hominem", "straw man" - are those the only logical fallacies you know?)

signed,
an American in Paris who was for the War based on WMD and UN resolutions, and was for the war from 1991 onwards but simply can't believe the lies fed to us by the administration. Still, it was a good idea.

aka, Evelyn

[JimInNoVA]

Instead of firing Tenent, how about going after the congressmen that made HumanInt worthless by tying the hands of every spy in the field? One of the reasons our intel sucks so hard these days is because it relies almost entirely on SigInt. Let the CIA do its bloody job and train up some real spies again instead of using wiretaps and satalites to try to guess what the bad guys are doing.

[Jean Bart]

Phil,

From what I understand, Perle has generally gotten it wrong.

[MALAK]

Jon: Rummy has an oxblood coloured one too. Goes with his blue suit.

[Rick Barton]

Am I giving Bush too much credit when I say that he had good intentions concerning foreign policy?
Perhaps, but remember in the campaign and debates with Gore; Bush called for a "more modest foreign policy", and argued against; "nation building" while Gore took the opposite view.

[rick laredo]

The purpose of the Iraq war was to set an example for Iran, Libya and North Korea. Disarm or perish. All of these ?rogue? countries have gotten the message. The world is a better place because of what we have done.
Dispute away if you can.

[Gadfly]

Or maybe the message was "nuke up fast" before you get attacked.

I don't recall ANYBODY advocating a 200 billion dollar message being sent vis a vis an invasion of Iraq.

[rick laredo]

Hey Gadfly. I interpreted the message in this manner when GWB made the statement about the? Rogue Nations?. This was prior to the invasion. I believe $200B over the next 5 years is as good a guess as any, it averages out to $1,000/5yrs. for each American or $200 per year. Security comes with a price tag.

[Les]

Perle shouldn't be taken seriously because he doesn't care about obvious conflicts of interest. He's given seminars on ways to profit from possible conflicts discussed by the Pentagon Defense Board while he was head of it.

While Chairman, he also advised Loral Space and Communications, which had business with the Pentagon.

He worked for Global Crossing for $725,000, which needed Pentagon approval for a takeover deal, also while he was DPB head.

He approached big Saudi crook and arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi about investing tens of millions of bucks in Perle's Trireme Partners which deals in defense-related equipment, also while he was DPB head and also while he was deeply involved in preparing for the Iraq invasion. He's been a harsh critic of the Saudis, but he'll do business with them.

He threatened to sue Seymore Hersh (in England, no less, for it's more liberal libel laws) for writing about it. http://newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030317fa_fact

...but he's yet to do so for obvious reasons (he's unethical, but not stupid). Details here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2082676/

And he shouldn't be taken seriously because the title of his latest book is "The End of Evil."

[joe]

Before we jump on Perle too hard for doing lousy, self serving, ideologically blinkered intel analysis on Iraq, let's not forget. He also did lousy, self serving, ideologically blinkered intel analysis on the Soviet Union in the 70s.

They're a threat to us, right now. They have to be, and no amount of contradictory info is going to change my mind. Exactly someone who sould play a large role in setting defense policy.

[Rick Barton]

MALAK:

"flying planes into buildings...does have a tendency to make ones foreign outlook somewhat less than modest."

9/11 gave the government sanction, indeed the responsibility, of hunting down those to blame and kill them so they can't do it again. It did not give it sanction to fight wars that are not in this country's interest in order to build an American empire, keep the world safe for Ariel Sharon, and bring gold and glory to the Neocon gang who lied us into it.

btw, I have an uncle in Edmonton........eh?

[Rick Barton]

Raimondo has a great current column on Perle's blame game:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/

[Rick Barton]

Yeah, but at least the Soviets were an actual threat, as opposed to Iraq.

[joe]

But in both cases, Perle greatly exaggerated the scope of the threat, and our government based its military decisions on faulty premises.