Richard N. Perle did not offer any apologies. (File Photo)
Posted on 04/09/2005 9:31:38 AM PDT by Liz
Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr.--a conservative Republican from North Carolina--voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. So it jarred all the more yesterday when Jones turned his fury on Richard N. Perle, the Pentagon adviser who provided the Bush administration with brainpower for the Iraq war.
Jones, who said he has signed more than 900 condolence letters to kin of fallen soldiers, pronounced himself "incensed" with Perle. "It is just amazing to me how we as a Congress were told we had to remove this man..... but the reason we were given was not accurate," Jones told Perle at a House Armed Services Committee hearing.
Jones said the administration should "apologize for the misinformation that was given. To me there should be somebody who is large enough to say 'We've made a mistake.' I've not heard that yet."
As chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, Perle had gone before the same committee in 2002 and smugly portrayed retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who urged caution in Iraq, as "hopelessly confused" and spouting "fuzzy stuff" and "dumb cliches."
Thirty months and one war later, Perle and Clark returned to the committee yesterday. But this time lawmakers on both sides hectored Perle, while Clark didn't bother to suppress an "I told you so."
Perle wasn't about to provide the apology Jones sought. He disavowed any responsibility for his confident prewar assertions about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, heaping the blame instead an "appalling incompetence" at the CIA.....
Jones, nearly in tears as he held up Perle's testimony, glared at the witness. "I went to a Marine's funeral who left a wife and three children, twins he never saw, and I'll tell you, I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but I am just incensed with this statement."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Richard N. Perle did not offer any apologies. (File Photo)
I didn't even have to look at the byline to know that this was a Dana Milbank hit piece.
The WMDs were there. That's an indisputable fact (except to raving moon-bats). The problem is finding which sand hole in Syria they were stashed.
I don't think a lot of Perle either..however- I detest Gen. Clark:)
Ahmed Chalabi is Perle's protege----an individual who proved to be detrimental to President Bush.
Mr Bush let Chalabi hang, and there was a very good reason for it. As an authentic conservative, President Bush values loyalty above all else----as do all real conservatives.
"Uriah Heep" Chalabi was running the classic "Intelligence For Sale" scam. Every con artist and their cousin came crawling out of the woodwork to cash in. Chalabi was extorting $340,000 per month (that's per month) from US taxpayers.
Let's not ever forget the reasons why President Bush let Chalabi hang.
Charles Dickens' Uriah Heep character was notorious for wielding undue influence, a bounder who was always planning and plotting, ingratiating himself into the confidence of others. Uriah Heep was obsequious, manipulative, and wormed his way into positions of influence. Uriah was a consummate con man, and not to be trusted. Translated into the language of the popular culture, the Uriah Heeps would position themselves as amenable to conservatives but are insincere in these feelings, using conservatives only to advance their own agendas and ambitions.)
Chalabi, a long-time Iraqi exile, initially based himself in London, was mentored by Richard Perle, a neo-conservative embedded in the US government. The US paid Chalabi and his Iraq National Congress (INC) some $92 million dollars (plus all they could stash offshore).
Chalabi's INC facilitated the effort to feed bogus intelligence to the Pentagon and the CIA, aided and abetted by neocons in the US government. After the US invaded Iraq, our military could not even find the alleged agent network Chalabi said he ran. Chalabi's explanation? "They are in hiding".........What a crock.
Chalabi is part and parcel of the Mideast cesspool's ruling class---Socialistic Darwinists---survival of the fittest with the strong devouring the weak----Chalabi is a master at it. Moreover, Chalabi is a master swindler. He was convicted in absentia of incredibly vile criminal charges that were formally filed by Jordan.
Let those who value loyalty to GWB---who are authentic conservatives (not conservatives of convenience with agendas) stand with President Bush.
The WMDs were there. That's an indisputable fact (except to raving moon-bats). The problem is finding which sand hole in Syria they were stashed.
It is hard to believe, in the light of events, that this debate still rages. It is stupid for this Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr.--a conservative Republican from North Carolina to be balancing the brave sacrifices of our armed forces against a failure to find WMDs. It's the War on Terror, man, get it through your thick skull. Certainly everyone believed the supposed WMDs made Saddam extra-dangerous, and everyone thought he had them. That there was terrible intelligence is true, and we don't really know what WMDs there were and what happend to them.
Saddam's regime and the whole region was dangerous. It was absolutely worth the United States' while to use military force to act decisively against the long-term threat from the Middle East and Islamic extremists. Part of strategy is to put the brakes on the unchecked oppressive regimes.
There is a long way to go, but these aggressive actions are reducing the threat. What is so hard to understand about that?
"Mr Bush let Chalabi hang, and there was a very good reason for it. As an authentic conservative, President Bush values loyalty above all else----as do all real conservatives. "
It used to be that "authentic conservatives" valued truth above all else.
For the life of me, I don't understand why Perle even bothers showing his face in public anymore. I recognized this flaming @sshole as a fraud before the war in Iraq even began, so I feel just a bit more vindication every time he opens his mouth in public.
I have very little patience with the kind of grandstanding this congressman did. It is irresponsible passing the buck, imho. Better an honest man like Dick Gephart describing his conversation with George Tenet.
The Senate's investigation found that the CIA in particular was portraying its conclusions as rock-solid when they were, in fact, paper-thin (couldn't work scissors in).
The recently completed report by the Presidential Commision found the same thing. There were (quite reasonable) assumptions made about Saddam. These were then elevated to the stature of proven facts.
Administration officials rely on the products of the intelligence community. These products were wrong, and more importantly, lacked the appropriate caveats. Perle was as much a victim of faulty intelligence as the Congressman. Why should he apologize?
Saddam was pointing a gun at us. Only he and a couple of key advisors knew it wasn't loaded. In fact, he went out of his way to convince the world it was loaded. Saddam and his loyalists are responsible for the deaths of our servicemen & women.
We must never forget that little Billy --- echoing John Kerry--- called for ousting Sec Rumsfeld. That says a lot about Billy's (gag) "conservatism."
It did not escape conservatives' notice that Kristol's gleeful public attack on Sec Rumsfield was a carefully constructed attack on Mr Bush, and on conservative thought. Billy's backstabbing Mr Bush and his administration was unconscionable.
Such undermining of a sitting president did not exist even in the flawed Clinton administration and certainly not to the degree approaching that visited on the current administration by Kristol, and the group that purports to be in its corner-----neocon types.
It's always difficult to determine what motivation drives neocons' elliptical, convoluted thinking. Although Mummy and Daddy might have threatened to take away the magazine if Billy didn't Hurry Up and Do Something.
We can only ponder the plurality 2004 Candidate GWB would have had, if voters had not been turned off by this craven, secular bunch.
I respect your intelligence----I really do----but the answer to this is so elemental, I won't even post it....out of my deep respect for a fellow FReeper's opinion.
Milbank is about as honest a journalist as Hussein was a good ruler. Not quite as evil, but extremely dishonest nevertheless. Milbank wouldn't recognize the truth if it came up and bit him in his lying mug.
We needn't fear any idea, given it is subject to reason...Thomas Jefferson.
What is the deal with Jones?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.