Neoconservatives turn on Bush

rick_reno

Moderator
When these guys start jumping ship - things are bad.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A leading conservative proponent of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq now says dysfunction within the Bush administration has turned U.S. policy there into a disaster.

Richard Perle, who chaired a committee of Pentagon policy advisers early in the Bush administration, said had he seen at the start of the war in 2003 where it would go, he probably would not have advocated an invasion to depose Saddam Hussein. Perle was an assistant secretary of defense under President Reagan.

"I probably would have said, 'Let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists,"' he told Vanity Fair magazine in its upcoming January issue.

Asked about the article, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, "We appreciate the Monday-morning quarterbacking, but the president has a plan to succeed in Iraq and we are going forward with it."

Other prominent conservatives criticized the administration's conduct of the war in the article, including Kenneth Adelman, who also served on the Defense Policy Board that informally advised Bush. Adelman said he was "crushed" by the performance of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Adelman also said that neoconservatism, "the idea of using our power for moral good in the world," has been discredited with the public. After Iraq, he told Vanity Fair, "it's not going to sell."

The critiques come as growing numbers of Republicans have criticized Bush's policies on Iraq. The war, unpopular with many Americans, has become a top-tier issue in next week's congressional elections.

Perle said "you have to hold the president responsible" because he didn't recognize "disloyalty" by some in the administration. He said the White House's National Security Council, then run by now-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, did not serve Bush properly.

A year before the war, Adelman predicted demolishing Saddam's military power and liberating Iraq would be a "cakewalk." But he told the magazine he was mistaken in his high opinion of Bush's national security team.

"They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era," he said. "Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."
 
He's come a long way...

"During the 1970s he gained notoriety inside the Beltway as an influential staffer to Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, D-Wash"

Or maybe he hasn't. I never could understand how anyone could trust him enough to give him an unpaid job on a committee of Pentagon policy advisers.

John
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/midterms2006/story/0,,1939472,00.html

I just read the same article on the Guardian site. It seems that the neocons have discovered theres a big difference between theory and practice, especially when the practice is so utterly incompetant. Bremer's bright idea of disbanding the entire Iraqi army and government got rid of anyone with any competence and made for a lot of disgrunteled Iraqis. Now, as the neocons are discovering, we are persona nongrata and any Iraqi who works with is too. This, plus the escalating death squad killings, makes Bush's Iraq adventure a pretty hopeless mess.
 
Bush and family have NEVER been conservatives...

They are "Moderates"... :rolleyes: Fence-riders...

They are second-class running-mates for "real men" like Ronald Reagan... :D :D

Conservatives voted for the lesser of two evils and we got exactly what we voted for...
a half-fast conservative. :(
 
Richard Perle is a media slut who is desperately trying to rescue his "guru" reputation with the New Republic set. He was one of the major movers behind this and it is pathetic of him to stab in the back the people who listened to him. Transparent, self-serving, horse feces.
 
Perle says that VF hacked his comments...

Richard Perle
Vanity Fair has rushed to publish a few sound bites from a lengthy discussion with David Rose. Concerned that anything I might say could be used to influence the public debate on Iraq just prior to Tuesday’s election, I had been promised that my remarks would not be published before the election.

I should have known better than to trust the editors at Vanity Fair who lied to me and to others who spoke with Mr. Rose. Moreover, in condensing and characterizing my views for their own partisan political purposes, they have distorted my opinion about the situation in Iraq and what I believe to be in the best interest of our country.

I believe it would be a catastrophic mistake to leave Iraq, as some are demanding, before the Iraqis are able to defend their elected government. As I told Mr. Rose, the terrorist threat to our country, which is real, would be made much worse if we were to make an ignominious withdrawal from Iraq.

I told Mr. Rose that as a nation we had waited too long before dealing with Osama bin Laden. We could have destroyed his operation in Afghanistan before 9/11.

I believed we should not repeat that mistake with Saddam Hussein, that we could not responsibly ignore the threat that he might make weapons of mass destruction available to terrorists who would use them to kill Americans. I favored removing his regime. And despite the current difficulties, I believed, and told Mr. Rose, that “if we had left Saddam in place, and he had shared nerve gas with al Qaeda, or some other terrorist organization, how would we compare what we’re experiencing now with that?”

I believe the president is now doing what he can to help the Iraqis get to the point where we can honorably leave. We are on the right path.

— Richard Perle is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He has served as chairman of the Defense Department’s Defense Policy Board during this administration.
 
Back
Top