Conservatives Challenge Iraq Policy

[Beryl Octet]

http://www.forbes.com/business/services/fe.../ap3145350.html

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.

[Wildkow]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Nov 4 2006, 07:54 AM) [snapback]343760[/snapback]</div>

http://www.forbes.com/business/services/fe.../ap3145350.html

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.


[/b]

Once again proof supplied by the LW that Consertatives are independent thinkers. Thank you Beryl

[dragonfly]

Wow, he was one of the original neo-cons, wasn't he?

[Beryl Octet]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 5 2006, 12:52 AM) [snapback]344019[/snapback]</div>

Wow, he was one of the original neo-cons, wasn't he?
[/b]

Yes, one of the PNAC founders.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Nov 5 2006, 12:45 AM) [snapback]344017[/snapback]</div>

Once again proof supplied by the LW that Consertatives are independent thinkers. Thank you Beryl
[/b]

I don't consider myself LW, but glad to be of service.

[daniel]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 4 2006, 09:52 PM) [snapback]344019[/snapback]</div>

Wow, he was one of the original neo-cons, wasn't he?
[/b]

If you are a pacifist you oppose this war because you oppose all wars.

If you are a liberal you oppose this war because it is illegal, it is ineffective, and it is being waged against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

If you are a conservative you oppose this war because it is being waged by morons, and as a conservative, you want to win the war, not lose it, and your chances of winning are pretty slim with a moron at the helm.

So who's for this war? I suppose people who desperately need us to have an "enemy" because for political or emotional reasons they only feel fulfilled when they have something to hate and to fight against. Bush et. al. need us to have an enemy because only then do they have any politcal support. And a segment of the public has some kind of an emotional need to see America as isolated and besieged, perhaps so they can feel that we are different and better than everyone else. Just as some Christian denominations believe that the vast majority of humanity will burn forever in hell, while only a few are saved, some people want to perceive their country as the morally-superior elite in a world of bad guys.

Not all conservatives fall into the above category. Some don't think beyond the fact that we are at war, and they want us to win. And they understand better than most the importance of intelligent leadership in war. So they are sick of being led in war by a moron who is mucking the whole thing up and losing it for us.

[rudiger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Nov 4 2006, 10:54 AM) [snapback]343760[/snapback]</div>

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.
[/b]

Now that the writing's on the wall, Iraq is coming apart at the seams, and it's very likely the Dems will soon be the majority party in the House (and maybe in the Senate), the rats are deserting the ship in droves to save their own skins. All of these PNAC/AEI/neocon, hypocrite, chickenhawks (William Kristol is another) make me want to puke. I wonder when guys like Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz are going to start disavowing the Iraq invasion by saying they thought it was a bad idea, too.

[Beryl Octet]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 5 2006, 10:13 AM) [snapback]344065[/snapback]</div>

So who's for this war? I suppose people who desperately need us to have an "enemy" because for political or emotional reasons they only feel fulfilled when they have something to hate and to fight against. Bush et. al. need us to have an enemy because only then do they have any politcal support. And a segment of the public has some kind of an emotional need to see America as isolated and besieged, perhaps so they can feel that we are different and better than everyone else. Just as some Christian denominations believe that the vast majority of humanity will burn forever in hell, while only a few are saved, some people want to perceive their country as the morally-superior elite in a world of bad guys.
[/b]

Insightful analysis, the only thing I'll add is the PNAC crowd. Their vision of, well, an American Empire, is either a wet-dream or a nightmare, depending on your leanings, but either way, probably worth anyone's time to poke around http://www.newamericancentury.org a bit. The part about the new Pearl Harbor in http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf written in Sept 2000 is interesting, too.