Heads should roll' over Iraq (says Richard Perle)

Toronto Star ^

[Happy2BMe]

Feb. 18, 2004. 01:00 AM

DANNY JOHNSTON/AP

U.S. President George W. Bush is applauded by the army and National Guard troops during a speech at Fort Polk, La., yesterday in which he defended the U.S. war in Iraq. Fort Polk is home to more than 6,300 troops who are in Iraq.

`Heads should roll' over Iraq
Adviser wants U.S. intelligence chiefs to quit

Cites faulty conclusions on Saddam's weapons

ERIC ROSENBERG
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

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.

"I think, of course, heads should roll," he said. "When you discover that you have an organization that doesn't get it right time after time, you change the organization, including the people.

"I'd start with the head head," Perle said when asked which heads should roll at the CIA. Perle said the DIA " is in at least as bad shape as CIA (and) needs new management."

Navy Vice-Adm. Lowell Jacoby has headed the agency since July, 2002.

U.S. President George W. Bush, Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell have said they relied on intelligence from the CIA and DIA in their assertions that Saddam had stockpiles of mass-casualty weapons. The claim was the main rationale for the U.S-led invasion.

David Kay, former head of the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq, has concluded it was highly unlikely that Saddam possessed stockpiles of such weapons.

"It turns out we were all wrong, probably, in my judgment, and that is most disturbing," Kay said last month.

While Kay dismissed the prospect that stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction would ever be found in Iraq, Perle disputed him on two relatively minor claims: that Iraq wasn't seeking to enrich uranium or develop mobile weapons laboratories to manufacture chemical or biological weapons.

"The jury is still out" on those points, Perle said.

Perle, the former chairman of — and current member of — the Defence Policy Board, a senior level advisory panel to Rumsfeld, was an advocate for overthrowing Saddam, asserting in the months leading up to the war that the Iraqi dictator's weapons stockpiles posed a grave threat to the United States.

In the lead-up to the war, Perle regularly warned about Saddam's reputed arsenal and the danger that would follow if the United Nations failed to get the Iraqi dictator to disarm.

Tenet was first appointed by president Bill Clinton and confirmed by the Senate in 1997 and then moved over to the Bush administration after the 2000 election. His agency has been criticized for the Iraqi weapons episode and for failing to detect the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist strikes.

[Prodigal Son]

So for you, war is not an actual thing. It's more about what you call something?

If we had decided not to retaliate for Pearl Harbor, for example, Pearl Harbor would not have been an act of war?

What is war, in your mind, if not the physical penetration of a nation's sovereign territory by military means? I mean, if you're using your military to attack another country and destroy their stuff, kill their soldiers- why is this is not war in deed?

It seems like to me, if France were to fly warplanes over American soil and blow up American facilities, the American people would view that as an act of war- whether they had the means to respond or not.

What I hear you saying is- war is dependent upon how it is viewed by the warmakers, not the physical act itself. I agree to some extent. The American Congress could declare war on Canada for example, and even though we didn't let fly with the cruise missiles for another two or three weeks, a state of war would exist.

But I don't see how one could say, 'oh, well, we're bombing you and invading your territory, but that's not really war because we say it's not'. Doesn't make any sense to me.

This sort of begs the question then, you say Operation Desert Fox was not a war. And to buttress that statement, you more or less said that if France bombed America in a similar fashion (as we did Iraq in Operation Desert Fox) this would also not be war (which, I guess American attitudes have changed much in the time since I have been away but if you say that's the way Americans think, I'll take your word for it). So, when did the current war begin? At what point? When did it stop being 'forceful diplomacy' and start being war?

[justshutupandtakeit]

That is as big a load of crap as has been posted here in a while. Concerns about Saudi had nothing to do with the reduction of intelligence capability and it did NOT start with Reagan. Your historical knowledge is a bit sketchy to say the least.

[justshutupandtakeit]

And the reason that Saddam would not cooperate with the UN team to demonstrate that he had none of these weapons is?

He would forego 20 billion a yr in oil revenues rather than allow real inspections why?

Saddam pretending to have these weapons makes no sense. Saddam acting like he had everything to hide if he didn't makes no sense.

[A. Pole]

Saddam pretending to have these weapons makes no sense.

Unless he has thought that it would discourage the invasion. North Korea might be bluffing for this reason.

[Prodigal Son]

Aye, bandits have used the ole 'finger in the pocket' routine to rob banks. Sometimes bluffing is a smart move. Sometimes, it's the only prudent move, depending on your situation.

[Mr. Mojo]

The WMDs are not in Iraq, not in Syria, not in Lebanon. They never existed after Saddam's programs were dismantled sometime after Gulf War I.

Seems that you're the delusional one, and short on facts as well. Respond to the question I posed in #23, if you will.

[jeremiah]

The very FIRST thing that should have happened in the wake of 9/11, was the sacking of those in charge of intelligence operations. As soon as the dust and smoke cleared, it became obvious that this could have been prevented, with a little common sense applied to airline security. PC ran amok, and still does.

[MEGoody]

If there were serious errors in U.S. intelligence regarding Iraq, then there are a number of other countries throughout the world with the same problem.

And Saddam endured 12 years of UN sanctions just for 'fun.'

[MEGoody]

"If they got into the hands of the Hezbollah or a similar group because we invaded Iraq ineptly"

Ineptly? It may have been 'inept' to wait 6 months while screwing around with the UN before we went in, but I suspect there are few people who would think the diplomatic effort was a bad thing.

Saddam had those 6 months to do 'whatever' with his WMD. If Hezbollah has them, it's because we waited in order to fulfill the expectation of trying to solve the issue through diplomacy.

Perhaps next time we should just forget about the UN, go in and stomp 'em.

[ZULU]

Perle is an idiot.

Gathering intelligence information in a country like Saddamite Iraq is NOT an empirical science. Further, our ability to secure on the ground information on this subject was seriously compromised by liberals in Congress who gutted the ability of the CIA to secure this type of information by nonsensical rules and reductions in funding.

All available information led the Administration and the intelligence services which served it to conclude that Saddam did indeed have WMD and as far as I or any other intelligent observer can conclude, the jury is still out on the issue of whether or not they were spirited away or hidden somewher in Iraq. Nor were they alone in this opinion. It was also held by other western powers, Saddam's neighbors, and people in his administration.

As for blaming the fall of the Shah on the CIA, this guy has acute craniorectumitis. Put the blame where it REALLY belongs - on the imbicile in the White House at the time - Jimmy Carter.

[MEGoody]

"The WMDs are not in Iraq, not in Syria, not in Lebanon. They never existed after Saddam's programs were dismantled sometime after Gulf War I."

I see - so you think Saddam endured 12 years of UN sanctions for 'fun.'

[justshutupandtakeit]

He knew he had bribed the French and Russians into protecting him from any invasion. Prior to 9/11 it worked well for him and certainly wasn't worth 20 billion a year before then.

There was no chance we were going to invade while the Clown was president.

[mercy]

Actually the first politician to get in bed with the Saudis was Franklin Roosevelt. I dare you to read Baer's books. I think you might be disabused of some of your prejudices.

Baer chronicles a long list of Terrorist events going back to the Carter and Reagan Presidencies. None of which ever lead us to increase or improve our intelligence regarding Islamists.

We all asssume that since 9/11 all that has changed. That is a very dangerous assumtion. The same malcontents are still in control of the State Department. Tenent still runs the CIA. George Bush Sr. still takes money from the Carlysle Group which is a Saudi front.

[justshutupandtakeit]

America oil companies were given the concession (thanks to Kim Philby's father) to develop Saudi oil. Until decades later the Kingdom was dirt poor and there were no payoffs involved to any politician. It became an American ally for good reasons and remained such for decades and had nothing to do with terrorist acts during the Carter and Reagan presidencies. So your implication is false.

It is no assumption that things have changed since 9/11. They have changed. Tenent's tenure does not mean they haven't. Now we have massive intelligence gathering on the ground at Terror Central. Thousands of terrorists and there supporters have been arrested and jailed partially due to the efforts of the intelligence agencies. Apparently you have a convenient memory.

I find it amusing to see the same falsehoods spouted by you as by the RATmedia. Although even the RATmedia is not foolish enough to believe George Bush is still president or affects national security policy. Carlyle Group or not.

[Prodigal Son]

That's not necessarily how the citizen of a country sees things.

Which is why I used the France bombing the US scenario. You've already said, Americans wouldn't view that as war- or have I misundertood you? As long as France were being selective about which targets they bombed on American soil, it wouldn't be war. (is what I gather from your comments)

War is not an intellectual exercise. I disagree that it is dependent upon what the media calls it- or the politicians for that matter. The politicians no longer declare war yet we make war all the time.

But getting to Iraq, this isn't some odd intellectual definition. We're talking about our military physically present in another country, destroying what we will, killing when we will. If this is not war, I wouldn't know what was. And it has been that way since 1990.

Particularly if the situation were reversed. If the army, air force and navy of France were operating militarily within the physical integrity of the United States, that would be war.

they would even have called the embargo that cost the lives of 1000s Iraqis an act of war.

And they would be correct. There is another word for this embargo (or 'sanctions' as some called it)- it is called siege and siege is, indeed, a form of warfare.

I can find no objective way to determine from what you're saying when war in Iraq has and has not taken place. From your explanations, there have been sporadic outbursts of war over a long period of time. This seems a form of intellectual gymnastics to me.

It is a much simpler explanation, when you stand back and look at it over a long period of time, to acknowledge that this has been one long war. At times high intensity, at times low intensity. But always war, always there. Just because it was very lopsided does not mean it was not war. I can find no defining point when it was not war. Patrolling the no fly zones is just a pretty way of saying that we were occupying large chunks of Iraq with our military, destroying targets we saw fit at our whim. Sanctions, as a I noted earlier, is just a pretty, publically palatable term for 'siege'- which is warfare. Enforcing UN Resolutions is a nice way of dressing up the act of bombing Iraq when we saw fit (Operation Desert Fox being a prime example). This is war. It was war. It has been war since 1990.

It is the simplest explanation for what has gone on in Iraq over the past decade.

[Mr. Mojo]

lol.....you're losing it, Llort. First you say that Saddam destroyed his whole stockpile of WMD's, and then you go on to say that you don't believe those weapons even existed in the first place. Well, which is it?

Which weapons are you missing?

Here's some homework for you.

[Prodigal Son]

Darn, I stepped out to go to a lecture and missed this person's comments before they got zotted.