Why Is Richard Perle Still Published?
Why Is Richard Perle Still Published?
Proving once again that being demonstrably and disastrously wrong on the most important national security questions of the day is no barrier to influence in American politics — provided, of course, that one is always careful to err on the side of war — the Washington Post gives Richard Perle yet another opportunity to be wrong again, this time on Iran.
Echoing the manner in which he calmly assured us of the threat represented by Saddam Hussein’s non-existent WMDs, Perle asserts that “the Iranians… are relentlessly building a nuclear weapons program.” Perle attacks Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for placing too high a value on “coalition building” in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program:
Coalitions, even successful multilateral ones, are instruments, tools, means to an end. They are important and useful, sometimes essential, but they are not, and must not be seen as, ends in themselves. Confusion on this point can lead to claims of success when failure is staring you in the face.
While the above statement is particularly funny coming from the guy who claimed that “we have already won in Iraq” because “Saddam will not be sharing WMD with anyone,” it’s interesting that Perle’s jeremiad against multilateralism is delivered on the day that President Bush essentially acknowledged he had the wrong approach on North Korea for years. Perle now makes the same argument for Iran that people like John Bolton made for North Korea.
After years of ineffective bluster that only allowed North Korea to develop and test a nuclear weapon, today’s step forward on addressing North Korea’s nuclear program proves that tough diplomacy and engagement with adversaries can make America safer.
And the last five years of the Iraq debacle prove that Richard Perle is to be ignored at all costs.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
5 Responses to “Why Is Richard Perle Still Published?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
In answer to the question posed:
1) Perle is trying to re-establish himself as a person of relevance after a couple of years of well-deserved obscurity
June 27th, 2008 at 12:38 pm2) He needs the money
3) The primary function of The Washington Post Editorial Board is to provide welfare for their like-minded friends to bolster and project their fact-free and dogmatic views for for their private collective advantage—notwithstanding the oftentimes rational, publicly and professionally responsible and emabarrasing work of their own lowly investigative reporters.
4) As the Bush regime winds down and with neo-con views now roundly rejected by the vast public majority, it is incumbent upon the neo-cons to make the most of their privileged postions and make as much noise as possilbe whilst they still can.
Damn liberal media. /snark off
June 27th, 2008 at 2:49 pmPerle is still published because he advances the views of the rightwing, likudnik Israel lobby and their comrades like the publishers of the Washington Post.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:28 pmWhy Is Richard Perle Still Published?
Ah…because he’s so personable and funny? Because he’s one of the great minds of the Western world? Ah, because he shows good taste in his wine selection? Because Jimmy Carter likes him and gets him jobs? So many possible answers.
We know one thing for sure…it’s not because he’s a shameless gasbag for the Zionist Nut-Job Movement.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:07 pmI think you’re being a tad unfair.
Calling Perle ‘the guy who claimed that “we have already won in Iraq” because “Saddam will not be sharing WMD with anyone.” ‘? He’s right.
If the sole criteria for victory was making sure a country could not share WMDs, we did win. And we can win more wars against other countries without WMDs secure in our confidence that we can “win” them too, by putting a line in the sand across which they may not send their non-existent weapons.
I vote that we next attack Zimbabwe. They don’t have any WMDs, and they’re so farcically engaged in elections, they even make the US look bad. (And I think Desmond Tutu could be that war’s Ken Pollack…)
June 30th, 2008 at 11:49 am