Perle: `Heads should roll' over Iraq

[subgenius]

WASHINGTON—Richard Perle, a chief proponent of last year's U.S. invasion of Iraq, yesterday called for the chiefs of the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency to step down because of their faulty conclusions that Saddam Hussein possessed mass-killing weapons.

Perle, a close adviser to U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said top officials made no attempt to skew the intelligence about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Instead, he implied, top policymakers relied in good faith on the conclusions of the intelligence agencies.

"George Tenet has been at the CIA long enough to assume responsibility for its performance," Perle told reporters, referring to the director of the agency. "There's a record of failure and it should be addressed in some serious way."

"The CIA has an almost perfect record of getting it wrong in relation to the (Persian) Gulf going back to the Shah of Iran," Perle said. He called for "a shakeup" in the U.S. intelligence establishment.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1077059707877&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

So if they had a perfect record of getting it wrong, why did they rely on them in going to war?
Isn't he admitting they are all stupid? Including himself.

[a_unique_person]

He should remember that old saying,

"Be careful who's toes you step on today, they may be connected to the butt you have to kiss tomorrow."

[JesFine]

Hasn't Perle been criticizing the CIA for underestimating the extent of Saddam's WMD programs?

Wow.

[a_unique_person]

In Australia, the Intelligence community is getting the same deal, but they are fighting back.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/13/1076548224395.html



Intelligence agencies told the Federal Government in the weeks before the Iraq war that some of the Bush Administration's claims justifying an invasion were exaggerated, according to one of Australia's most senior intelligence officials.

Assessments provided to Prime Minister John Howard stated that US Secretary of State Colin Powell's prewar address to the United Nations "went beyond the available evidence" in at least two areas, the official said.

It is believed these included claims of mobile biological weapons laboratories and alleged links between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

The official - who spoke on condition of anonymity - said the Government was told before the war that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction did not pose an immediate threat. Iraq's chemical and biological warfare capabilities were largely latent, they said.

In a private briefing attended by The Age, the official said the threat posed by Iraq last year did not justify its invasion.

[Cain]

Originally posted by JesFine
Hasn't Perle been criticizing the CIA for underestimating the extent of Saddam's WMD programs?

Wow.

See http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9890

Chutzpah—a Yiddish word that the dictionary defines as "unmitigated effrontery or impertinence, gall"—is best illustrated by a much-cited anecdote.

"Chutzpah is when a man kills his mother and his father and then throws himself on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he is an orphan."

In the last few days in Washington, however, prominent neoconservatives, particularly arch-hawk Richard Perle, are giving new meaning to the word.

...

"He (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction," Perle stated unequivocally as early as November 2001—even as his friends in the Pentagon were setting up their Office of Special Plans (OSP), an informal intelligence unit whose job it was to mine raw intelligence to find and disseminate the most threatening possible evidence of Iraq's WMD programs and alleged ties to Al Qaeda that the neoconservatives thought the CIA or even the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency had not given adequate credence.

...

Perle and his fellow-neocons' contempt for the CIA dates to the 1970s when he and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused the agency of being naive about Soviet strategic capabilities and intentions. That set the pattern. To Perle, the CIA, like the State Department, has long been a haven for naive and foolish "liberals" incapable of understanding just how dangerous and threatening the enemy—any enemy—really is.

"Over time, it has become an agency with very strong, mostly liberal policy views, and these views have again and again distorted its analysis and presentation of its own information," Perle wrote in An End to Evil, which was co-authored by former White House speechwriter, David Frum.

"The CIA is blinded, too, by the squeamishness that many liberal-minded people feel about noticing the dark side of third world cultures," he continued, arguing that this is especially true of the Arab world. "The CIA's reports on the Middle East today are colored by similar ideological biases—exacerbated by poor understanding of the region's culture and a politically correct disinclination to acknowledge unflattering facts about non-Western peoples."

[fishbob]

QUOTE]"The CIA has an almost perfect record of getting it wrong in relation to the (Persian) Gulf going back to the Shah of Iran," Perle said. He called for "a shakeup" in the U.S. intelligence establishment.[/QUOTE] Spinning hard to the right, Mr. Perle says something so dumb, with such disregard for recent history, with such bluster and effrontery, that he must be intentionally trying to look like an ass.

It is just not possible to accidentally work yourself into such an asslike appearance. You would have to stop every once-in-a-while and say to yourself "hey, if I say this, I will look like an ass", so if you say it anyway, it must be deliberate.

Oops, gotta go now. The black helicopters just flew over the house.

[subgenius]

Boy, he relies on them, and then blames them (the CIA) for being liberal.
I think he's shooting himself in the foot because he apparently knew this all along.
So why would he rely on them? Curious. Painting himself into a corner.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by fishbob
QUOTE]"The CIA has an almost perfect record of getting it wrong in relation to the (Persian) Gulf going back to the Shah of Iran," Perle said. He called for "a shakeup" in the U.S. intelligence establishment. Spinning hard to the right, Mr. Perle says something so dumb, with such disregard for recent history, with such bluster and effrontery, that he must be intentionally trying to look like an ass.

It is just not possible to accidentally work yourself into such an asslike appearance. You would have to stop every once-in-a-while and say to yourself "hey, if I say this, I will look like an ass", so if you say it anyway, it must be deliberate.

Oops, gotta go now. The black helicopters just flew over the house. [/QUOTE]

I have come to suspect that they are all just making it up as they go along, hoping no one is analyzing exactly what they are saying. Or remembering.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by subgenius
WASHINGTON—Richard Perle, a chief proponent of last year's U.S. invasion of Iraq, yesterday called for the chiefs of the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency to step down because of their faulty conclusions that Saddam Hussein possessed mass-killing weapons.

...

So if they had a perfect record of getting it wrong, why did they rely on them in going to war?
Isn't he admitting they are all stupid? Including himself.

Wow! That is really, really something!

Just a couple of weeks ago Perle started selling his book where he basically said the war was really about showing countries like North Korea, Iran, and Libya, what would happen to them if they failed to heed the USA.

But now, he is saying that CIA is to blame for the war since they provided such bad data.

Ugh! I wonder if he will write another book about that too!

[subgenius]

Gosh the right wing here is strangely silent on certain issues.
Maybe this will get them going.
This is typical of how ignorant the administration and its advisors are.
They not only follow advice they know is unreliable, they then are obtuse enough to use that as an excuse.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by subgenius
Gosh the right wing here is strangely silent on certain issues.
Maybe this will get them going.
This is typical of how ignorant the administration and its advisors are.
They not only follow advice they know is unreliable, they then are obtuse enough to use that as an excuse.

The US right wing has been strangely silent for a couple of weeks now. Even I have noticed it, and that is just from the three bulletin boards I post on. From where I am sitting, it looks like the wheels are falling off the GWB bandwagon, and it looks like many of the people who have been supporting GWB and his cronies have begun to realise that something is not quite right.

[wollery]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
it looks like many of the people who have been supporting GWB and his cronies have begun to realise that something is not quite right. Not quite right? Is there a prize on this board for understatement of the month?

[JesFine]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Wow! That is really, really something!

Just a couple of weeks ago Perle started selling his book where he basically said the war was really about showing countries like North Korea, Iran, and Libya, what would happen to them if they failed to heed the USA.

But now, he is saying that CIA is to blame for the war since they provided such bad data.

Ugh! I wonder if he will write another book about that too! Not only that, but Perle endorsed Bush vs. the Beltway : How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060580127/qid=1077214775//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-3971596-8333641?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). "Chutzpah is when a man kills his mother and his father and then throws himself on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he is an orphan." Perfect.

[subgenius]

From the Amazon link:
"Mylroie's thesis hinges on her demonstration of a compelling case pointing to Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction and sponsorship of Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately, this mainly amounts to a rehash of the Bush Administration rationale for war that has generated so much skepticism."

Well now that the premise for her "thesis" is invalid, can people get their money back from buying the book?

Reminds me, I've got to respond to those "Join the Conservative Book Club" pop-ups. My libary (sic) is kinda thin.

I wonder if any of the "pundits" will pick up on Perle's quote beyond "Heads should roll" to see how he implicates the administration for (at the very least) relying on an agency with "a perfect record of being wrong" going back to the Shah of Iran.

Yeah, that's the ticket: "That jerk should be fired. I've taken his advice for years now and he's never been right."
How does that absolve you of responsibility?

I think its the funniest thing I've heard all year.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


The US right wing has been strangely silent for a couple of weeks now. Even I have noticed it, and that is just from the three bulletin boards I post on. From where I am sitting, it looks like the wheels are falling off the GWB bandwagon, and it looks like many of the people who have been supporting GWB and his cronies have begun to realise that something is not quite right.
Well judging by this forum, they sure like to go on at length dancing on the point of a pin about issues like Bush going AWOL.
Can never seem to concede the smallest point. The sign of insecurity in one's position.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by wollery
Not quite right? Is there a prize on this board for understatement of the month?

Understatement is so underrated. More people should try it.

Its like editing something. Takes a lot more thinking to say something in fewer words.

Someone (a president, I think) was asked to give a speech, and was asked how long he needed to prepare.
(Paraphrasing) He said, "If its 5 minutes I'll need 2 weeks. If its 10 minutes I'll need a week. If its an hour I can start right now."

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by JesFine
Not only that, but Perle endorsed Bush vs. the Beltway : How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060580127/qid=1077214775//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-3971596-8333641?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Perfect.

Mylorie is a crackpot
consipiricy theorist for the right (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html)
(in case anybody didn't already know)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Ignatius


Mylorie is a crackpot
consipiricy theorist for the right (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html)
(in case anybody didn't already know)
And the advisor to the Secretary of Defense endorsed her book.
That makes him......?

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by subgenius

And the advisor to the Secretary of Defense endorsed her book.
That makes him......?
"Who's more foolish: The fool or the fool who follows him?"

(I promise that this is my one and only Star Wars quote)

[Chaos]

Originally posted by wollery
Not quite right? Is there a prize on this board for understatement of the month?

I can start a monthly "JustGeoff Award" if you want. :)

[subgenius]

Good review of Perles' book by Pat Buchanan.
Fear is what Perle and his co-author David Frum are peddling to stampede America into serial wars. Just such fear-mongering got us into Iraq, though, we have since discovered, Iraq had no hand in 9/11, no ties to al-Qaeda, no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear program, and no plans to attack us. Iraq was never “the clear and present danger” the authors insist she was.

http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

I'm starting to like that guy and his rants against the neo-cons.
I believe he's right that they're a threat to conservatives. We need liberals and conservatives of reason, with a core of shared values.
On McLaughlin last week he slipped in (hard to get a word in edgewise on that show) a little nugget about the Bush presidency being illegitimate.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by subgenius
Good review of Perles' book by Pat Buchanan.
Fear is what Perle and his co-author David Frum are peddling to stampede America into serial wars. Just such fear-mongering got us into Iraq, though, we have since discovered, Iraq had no hand in 9/11, no ties to al-Qaeda, no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear program, and no plans to attack us. Iraq was never “the clear and present danger” the authors insist she was.

http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

I'm starting to like that guy and his rants against the neo-cons.
I believe he's right that they're a threat to conservatives. We need liberals and conservatives of reason, with a core of shared values.
On McLaughlin last week he slipped in (hard to get a word in edgewise on that show) a little nugget about the Bush presidency being illegitimate.

Sub:

Check out this weeks New Yorker and the article about Chaney and Haliburton (not accusing Chaney of fixing the bidding, BTW). THe article makes the very interesting case that the "subcontracting" of major defense functions to private enterprise (in this case, friends of the Administration) makes it very easy to fight and expand war without much political debate -- real army forces are minimized (thus the impact on the public is minimized) and political debate about reasons, etc. is stifled. It is the supply and support equivilent of smart bombs....it was a very interesting and depressing article.

[subgenius]

Its done under the rubric of "privatizing" governmental functions, a pet project of Dick that just coincidentally profits his cronies.
Not only were the Iraqi contracts no bid, Dick started the whole thing by commissioning a study to see if it was feasible to privatize certain military functions.
Who did the study? Halliburton.

We also have a huge shadow mercenary army of "advisors" doing our bidding throughout the world under "private" control.

But that's fodder for another thread.