Neo-Con scum Richard Perle says maybe we didn't need to go to war in Iraq after all!

[jefferson_dem]

God Damn these NEO-CON bastards! After beating the drums of war, the fucking demon rats are now scurring about, running for cover.

Here's a preview of an upcoming interview in January's Vanity Fair, courtesy of repuke apologist Byron York -

************

RICHARD PERLE: OK, MAYBE WE DIDN'T NEED TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ

I just got a copy of excerpts from an article that will appear in the January issue of Vanity Fair. The article is not scheduled to hit newsstands until December 6, but for some reason — does anyone have any guesses? — Vanity Fair has rushed excerpts out now. In the article, a number of the main advocates of war in Iraq turn on President Bush and accuse him and his administration of bungling the plan for the war. Some quotes from the article:

Richard Perle: "I think that if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.'…Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."

Kenneth Adelman (who predicted that victory in Iraq would be a "cakewalk"): I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGFjOGQ1ZDZlMjQ2NDNlMTAyODlmZjExMzFhYTNkNzM=

[knitter4democracy]

1. Rats is too good a term.

Rats are better than that. Dangit! Why did they even bother saying anything, then?

[SeattleGirl]

2. Well, DUH, Richard

There are a lot of us out here who could have told you that!

[hippiechick]

3. Well, no we didn't NEED to, you Ratfuck Perle ...

... how's that Swiss Bank Account, asshat? :spank:

[lonestarnot]

4. Well Dee Dee fucking Dee mog fucker!

[saracat]

5. My God.Hell has frozen over!

[niallmac]

6. Does Spandau Prison take reservations?

[MikeNearMcChord]

9. It got torn down right after the death of Rudolph Hess

However maybe they can spruce up Devil's Island a tad, or maybe some shack on St. Helena. He should spend the rest of his life in a cell with the pictures of all the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who died in this war, forced to watch the taped funerals of those who dies 24/7 for the rest of his life.

[BootinUp]

7. "Well, maybe we could have" ??????????? YOU ASSHOLE

We did manage it, as your invasion and lack of WMD have proved!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[aquart]

8. I'm sure he will never be kidnapped and tortured to death.

I'm sure none of those smug, blithe, conscienceless bastards will ever be kidnapped and tortured to death.

That seems unfair.

[Stephanie]

10. What a fucking LIAR. The goal was never about keeping Saddam from distributing WMDs

THAT IS A FLAT OUT LIE. The GOAL was to TRANSFORM the Middle East, establish permanent bases and create American hegemony. God he is the lowest of the low. He'd better sell that villa in Provence and get himself a place in Paraguay like the shrub. He'll be up on war crimes with the rest of them.

[Make7]

11. From an October 2001 interview:

Edited to fix "Editor's Note" brackety thingy

What must one understand about Saddam Hussein and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, even before entering the debate on how we should deal with Iraq?

Well, about Saddam Hussein, the essential point is that he's a thug who has been willing to murder some of the people closest to him, who has used chemical weapons against his own people, who has invaded his neighbors. He is probably the most dangerous individual in the world today.

Capable of?

Capable of anything. Capable of using weapons of mass destruction against the United States, capable of launching other military maneuvers as soon as he thinks he can get away with it.

You have stated in the past that this is not a fringe issue. What do you mean by that?

The question of Saddam Hussein is at the very core of the war against terrorism. There can be no victory in the war against terrorism if, at the end of it, Saddam Hussein is still in power -- not only because he supports terrorism, not only because he trains terrorists [Editor's Note: see the interview with a defector on Iraq's alleged terrorist training camp.] and gives them refuge -- but because he is the symbol of defiance of all Western values. He succeeded in throwing the United Nations out. He's violated all of the undertakings that followed the end of the Gulf War. As long as he is there, we are in danger, and we are in danger from terrorist activity.

We haven't dealt with this threat. This threat has been there for quite a while. What are some of the reasons why?

We made a fundamental mistake at the end of Desert Storm: we didn't finish the job. Finishing the job would have meant the destruction of Saddam Hussein's military power, which, in turn, would have led to the destruction of his regime. The people who made that mistake were loath to admit it, so they described the situation in unjustifiably sanguine terms. He was, to use the phrase they adopted, in a box, and safely in a box, and we need not be concerned about him. I think that was wrong. It's been wrong all along, and it is demonstrably wrong today.

Why is it wrong?

It's wrong because he has weapons of mass destruction, because he has expelled U.N. inspectors. He has violated all of the terms and conditions of the U.N. resolutions that had been allowed to fall into disuse. He is winning. Because he is winning, and because he has awesome capabilities, he poses a continuing threat to us and to others.

....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/perle.html

- Make7

[pinto]

12. These neo-con policy wonks expected the Bush Administration to be competent,

that's really the complaint, here, I think. They underestimated the ability - or willingness - of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and his allies in this fractured administration to execute their goals militarily. It's a truly sad era in our international relationships all around. And a deadly exercise in unrestrained Executive power, from politicizing the Pentagon, to the troop deployments, the human losses and the funneling of some trillions in our nation's tax dollars for this whole disaster. The sooner the entire cabal is gone, the better. Policy wonks and adminstration, alike.

Lock, stock and barrel.

We can do better than this and we must.