Former Pentagon policy adviser Richard N. Perle says that former CIA Director George Tenet is trying to blame “the nefarious influence of the vice president and a cabal of neoconservative intellectuals” (of which Perle was one) for the decision to remove Saddam Hussein. Perle blames Tenet and the CIA for faulty intelligence that was presented as fact. “But the greatest intelligence failure of the past two decades was the CIA’s failure to understand and sound an alarm at the rise of jihadist fundamentalism,” Perle wrote. “It is Wahhabi extremism and the call to holy war against infidels that gave us the perpetrators of Sept. 11 and much of the terrorism that has followed.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- george on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
25 Comments
Well what do you expect from a Democrat? Perle blaming everything on Tenet and not one word of responsibility for himself! JUST everyone knows it was a extreme Left wing plot to undermine a great President! PERLE IS A DEMOCRAT!!!!!!! Why who knows? maybe it was Richard Perle who so mislead all those conservatives at the PNAC to send a letter to Clinton insisting he do something about Saddam or they would put their support for him! Undoubtedly it was Perle that mislead Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and other into agreeing to sign the “Statement of Principals” of the PNAC. That stated as the last super power the United States should use its military and economic might to force its will across the face of the planet.That advocated the invasion and control of the Middle East starting with Iraq and ending with Saudi-Arabian.
YES it was all Perle that mislead some many good and honest Neo-Cons down the path of destruction!
After all……. HE IS A DEMOCRAT!!!!!!
I for one don’t think that the Iraq War is a complete failure. Many mistakes? Oh Yeah! And a weak Commander in Chief? Yep!
But! If the Generals on the ground are saying we can secure Baghdad, then I’m willing to let them try until they say they cannot do it.
When it comes to war, I listen to the Generals and Soldiers, not Politicians.
Joe,
The only “generals on the ground” that say so are the ones who haven’t quit in disgust.
But! If the Generals on the ground are saying we can secure Baghdad, then I’m willing to let them try until they say they cannot do it.Posted by: Joe Williams | May 12, 2007 at 08:21 AM
What if they say “yes, we can do it but we need to escalate our efforts!” ?
**************************************************THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ: PLEA FOR MORE TROOPS
General says he needs more troops
U.S. commander for northern Iraq cites the growing violence in Diyala province.
By Peter Spiegel, Tina Susman and Garrett Therolf, Times Staff Writers
May 12, 2007
BAGHDAD — The commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq said Friday that he did not have enough troops to deal with the escalating violence in Iraq’s Diyala province, an unusually frank assertion for a top officer and a sign that American military officials might be starting to offer more candid and blunt assessments of the war. [...]
It is rare for an officer of Mixon’s rank to publicly call for more troops. When Donald H. Rumsfeld was secretary of Defense, there was intense pressure on officers to not make such requests, even privately, according to officers who served in Iraq.
Mixon was withering in his criticism of the Iraqi government, saying it was hamstrung by bureaucracy and compromised by corruption and sectarian discord, making it unable to assist U.S. forces in Diyala.
http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-iraq12may12,0,6940484.story?coll=la-home-center**************************************************
As a nation, I believe we’ve been through this before:
**************************************************After several attacks, it was decided that U.S. Air Force bases needed more protection. The South Vietnamese military seemed incapable of providing security. On 8 March 1965, 3,500 United States Marines were dispatched to South Vietnam. This marked the beginning of the American ground war. U.S. public opinion overwhelmingly supported the deployment. Public opinion, however, was based on the premise that Vietnam was part of a global struggle against communism. In a statement similar to that made to the French, almost two decades earlier, Ho Chi Minh warned that if the Americans “want to make war for twenty years then we shall make war for twenty years. If they want to make peace, we shall make peace and invite them to afternoon tea.”[63] As former First Deputy Foreign Minister, Tran Quang Co, noted, the primary goal of the war was to reunify Vietnam and secure its independence. The policy of the DRV was not to topple other non-communist governments in South East Asia.[64]The Marines’ assignment was defensive. The initial deployment of 3,500 in March, increased to nearly 200,000, by December.[65] The U.S. military had long been schooled in offensive warfare. Regardless of political policies, U.S. commanders were institutionally and psychologically unsuited to a defensive mission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war#Escalation_and_Americanization.2C_1964-1968
“But! If the Generals on the ground are saying we can secure Baghdad, then I’m willing to let them try until they say they cannot do it.”
And how many decades do you give them before saying that maybe the ones who have not quit is disgust are wrong?
Richard Pearl and the cabal of neoconservatives/Zionists had planned the attack on Iraq long before 9/11 using the US military to suit their needs.
9/11, which they either caused or fell into their laps, gave them the trigger they needed to set this grandiose conquest in motion.
Their conquest of the Middle East was carefully laid-out well in advance.
Read about it…make-up your own minds rather than being led by the dictates of their propaganda.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Saddam had an army strong enough to defeat Iran, which it did. Israeli/Zionists wanted that army destroyed, as it blocked their planned expansion. Richard Pearle and his neocon cabal obliged them.
George W. Bush and his neocons are willing to sell-out American interests and blood to pave the way for Israel to rule the Middle East.
Point: When Israel invaded Lebanon, Bush stood by, not raising a finger to stop the slaughter. Rumsfeld even rush-shipped over 4 million cluster bombs to try to help the Israelis. It took Hezbollah to run the Israelis back home.
Had it not been for Hezbollah, Israel would now be occupying Lebanon.
“Had it not been for Hezbollah, Israel would now be occupying Lebanon“.
But Ed, if it had not been for Hezbollah, Israel would not have had an excuse to occupy Lebanon. The Lebanonese were on the road to self governing, were not show open hostility towards the Israelis, Lebanon was on a good path to rebuild their war torn country. Yes Israel is facing losing some of their lands to Palestine, because of world pressures. So it may have occurred to them to move in that direction. But until Hezbollah, they had no justification.
As far as some of the actions of Israel. You and I have some agreement. But Hezbollah has no right to be painted with such a posstive color.
WD, If you accept Israel labeling Hezbollah as a “terrorist” organisation you might change your mind when viewing their daily routine.
They care for the sick, injured, old, children, and preform humanitarian deeds day in and day out. The People love them.
They also protect the people with their exceptional fighting skills and their lives if necessary.
Israel has targeted them with intense propaganda to discredit the things which they actually do.
WD, read what the people have to say about them. You’ll be amazed.
WD, Hezbollah held several elected seats in the Lebanese Parliament to protect the interests of those Lebanese living in southern Lebanon. The legitimizing of Hezbollah by being elected infuriated the Israelis.
It was the Lebanese people who put Hezbollah in office.
The war in Iraq is both democrats and republicans fault. The democrats are trying to stop this ridiculous slaughter, and many of the republicans are starting to see the light and want it over as well.
It’s the lock-step 28% that can’t don’t or wont see that this whole war has nothing to do with terrorism in this country, or any other country. But it is this war that has spawned a whole new generation of fanatics who want nothing more than to see this country destroyed, and If this war is not stopped, we will be fighting on our doorsteps. And all because the 28% refuse to see it happening.
JM,
I think the fraction is far less than 28%. It’s more like .0000006% – that being two of 300 million Americans: Bush and Cheney. They have the power to stop this war. The other 28% are just the cheerleaders.
Tom, In this world of propaganda in which we now live, that 28% may “imaginary friends.”
Israel is at the root of many of the problems in the Middle East but yet Bush stands firm in support of them each time.
When the president of the US continues to back Israel, without question and without an objective view, can you even wonder why the rest of the Middle East as turned their hate towards the US?
For there to be peace in the Middle East, Israel will have to do some compromising, as well as the rest of the Middle East countries. But don’t hold your breath on that one.
Why should Israel compromise anymore? They are about to get compromised out of existence. The Arabs don’t want peace with Israel. They want Israel gone.
“If the Generals on the ground are saying we can secure Baghdad, then I’m willing to let them try until they say they cannot do it.”
-Joe Williams
How nice of you Joe! So you are ‘willing to let THEM try it’.
Why don’t you and your family move to Iraq so you can be a part of the solution? Why is it that you claim to support the war but you are totally unwilling to put your life on the line for what you believe? Of course Bush and his family won’t either. They are glad to send other people’s children over to fight their dirty little war. The word HYPOCRITE applies to those who say they support the Iraq war but are unwilling to fight it themselves.
“The Arabs don’t want peace with Israel. They want Israel gone.”
Any thinking person would have to agree with this statement. One reason why our support of Israel is important.
I disagree with the Bush II administration’s “hands off policy” with many actors in the middle east.
The chickens came home to roost on this policy error on 9/11.
Israel is surviving quite nicely as they are now. But what I want to know is when Israel sends is soldiers and tanks and kills civilian Palestinians, no one from America denounces that act. But when Palestinians retaliate, then all hell breaks loose.
The US is viewed as supporter of Israel, no matter what Israel does to anyone else. How can there be peace until Israel is willing to stop their killing too?
The Excuse that “Arabs don’t want peace” is used as justification for Israel’s continual violation of international law.
The truth is that the Arab League has agreed to a peace plan which assures Israel’s existence and security. Israel is the one who wants a free hand to continue land-grabs and not be held accountable by any treaties.
The invasion of Lebanon was totally unjustified, as capture Israeli soldiers have been traded for jailed Palestinians time and time again. Even Ariel Sharon has traded jailed Palestinians for Israeli captured soldiers many many times.
Smell the coffee.
‘War on Terror’
As an American I am constantly inundated with the threat of a terrorist attack by some crazed Arabs; therefore I’m correct in questioning if “terrorism” per se is real. The 9/11 Commission, having investigated the attack of 9/11, says that it is not. It concludes that the 9/11 attack was in retaliation for years of financing Zionists in slaughtering Palestinian Arabs, while stealing their land, farms, homes and bulldozing their villages. Therefore, “terrorism” is just another myth being oversold to a public weary of being lied to. It’s being sold by people who told other lies to justify attacking Iraq, and murdering, at the last count, 665,000 Iraqi men women and children.
If the so-called “war on Terror” was for real, there would have been multiple attacks on unprotected American soil, yet none has taken place. Thousands of shopping malls would have made easy targets over the past five years. The Homeland Security probably would have been more successful in selling the “bogeyman” than the elusive nonexistent “terrorism.” The “war on terror” would serve better as the title to a second-rate “B” movie.
Editorial: East Jerusalem14 May 2007WITH plans under way to build three new Jewish sites in East Jerusalem, Israel has once again chosen settlements instead of peace. What is intended by the building of 20,000 homes is to create a contiguous Jewish residential area linking East Jerusalem with major West Bank settlement blocs. The result is another loss of a swathe of Palestinian land and, of course, Palestinian sovereignty over that land.
Even though Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since 1967 — it annexed the area in 1981 — it is not Israel’s exclusive domain. . Israel has possessed and exercised administrative control over East Jerusalem for four decades; yet to this day, the world community has not recognized its claim to sovereignty. Israel ’s purported annexation of East Jerusalem has been declared null and void and Jerusalem has been explicitly included among the occupied territories in a long series of unanimous or near-unanimous UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.
The universal refusal to recognize even West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the presence of embassies to Israel in Tel Aviv is striking evidence of the refusal of the international community to concede that any part of the city is Israel’s sovereign territory. Israel could retain administrative control over East Jerusalem indefinitely. That is a question of military strength and political will. However, it will never acquire sovereignty over East Jerusalem, for that is a question of law. And so far the law is squarely against Israel. No Israeli government has ever accepted a redivision of Jerusalem — just as no Palestinian leadership can ever accept a permanent-status solution which gives a Palestinian state no sovereign rights in Jerusalem. The stalemate is one of the major reasons that peace has been so difficult to achieve. There will never be a durable peace in the Middle East without a settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That is a fact. There will also never be a lasting settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without a solution to the status of Jerusalem acceptable to both Israelis and Palestinians. That is also a fact.
Israel must also abandon its two-faced policy. At the very time it seeks to link East Jerusalem with its West Bank settlements, its foreign minister pledges further withdrawals from the West Bank to facilitate the creation of a Palestinian state. The building of more settlements in one occupied area while abandoning some settlements in another is no more than a policy of entrenching and withdrawing which can only be called duplicity.
It is odd that details of the extent or timing of another round of West Bank pullbacks have not been forthcoming. If there is truly such a major departure in the works, that the announcement indicates so little could mean this future withdrawal is more fiction than fact. And even if Israel does withdraw from additional West Bank settlements, there is no guarantee its forces will not return, with devastating consequences, as happened with the siege of Gaza in the summer of last year.—–
It would be nice if people posted links instead of stealing copyrighted work. It fills up the blog, it’s disrespectful to the original authors, and it’s not legal.
The content is your real concern { forgot the link }.http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=96152&d=14&m=5&y=2007
Friedemann,
Not just the content, but the *source* of the content. Everyone has an agenda, no matter who they are. If you’re posting Arab nationalist propaganda, I appreciate knowing that’s what it is.
Thanks.
‘War on Terror’
As an American I am constantly inundated with the threat of a terrorist attack by some crazed Arabs; therefore I’m correct in questioning if “terrorism” per se is real. The 9/11 Commission, having investigated the attack of 9/11, says that it is not. It concludes that the 9/11 attack was in retaliation for years of financing Zionists in slaughtering Palestinian Arabs, while stealing their land, farms, homes and bulldozing their villages. Therefore, “terrorism” is just another myth being oversold to a public weary of being lied to. It’s being sold by people who told other lies to justify attacking Iraq, and murdering, at the last count, 665,000 Iraqi men women and children.
If the so-called “war on Terror” was for real, there would have been multiple attacks on unprotected American soil, yet none has taken place. Thousands of shopping malls would have made easy targets over the past five years. The Homeland Security probably would have been more successful in selling the “bogeyman” than the elusive nonexistent “terrorism.” The “war on terror” would serve better as the title to a second-rate “B” movie.
Ed Friedemann, United States published 13 May 2007{ my writing }