Perle Harbors Delusions

From Dana Milbank at The Washington Post:

Prince of Darkness Denies Own Existence

Listening to neoconservative mastermind Richard Perle at the Nixon Center yesterday, there was a sense of falling down the rabbit hole.

In real life, Perle was the ideological architect of the Iraq war and of the Bush doctrine of preemptive attack. But at yesterday’s forum of foreign policy intellectuals, he created a fantastic world in which:

1. Perle is not a neoconservative.

2. Neoconservatives do not exist.

3. Even if neoconservatives did exist, they certainly couldn’t be blamed for the disasters of the past eight years.

Original DVD cover.

“There is no such thing as a neoconservative foreign policy,” Perle informed the gathering, hosted by National Interest magazine. “It is a left critique of what is believed by the commentator to be a right-wing policy.”

So what about the 1996 report he co-authored that is widely seen as the cornerstone of neoconservative foreign policy? “My name was on it because I signed up for the study group,” Perle explained. “I didn’t approve it. I didn’t read it.”

Mm-hmm. And the two letters to the president, signed by Perle, giving a “moral” basis to Middle East policy and demanding military means to remove Saddam Hussein? “I don’t have the letters in front of me,” Perle replied.

Right. And the Bush administration National Security Strategy, enshrining the neoconservative themes of preemptive war and using American power to spread freedom? “I don’t know whether President Bush ever read any of those statements,” Perle maintained. “My guess is he didn’t.”

The Prince of Darkness — so dubbed during his days opposing arms control in the Reagan Pentagon — was not about to let details get in the way of his argument that “50 million conspiracy theorists have it wrong,” as the subtitle of his article for National Interest put it. “I see a number of people here who believe and have expressed themselves abundantly that there is a neoconservative foreign policy and it was the policy that dominated the Bush administration, and they ascribe to it responsibility for the deplorable state of the world,” Perle told the foreign policy luminaries at yesterday’s lunch. “None of that is true, of course.”


He had been a leading cheerleader for the Iraq war, predicting that the effort would take few troops and last only a few days, and that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.


Yesterday, however, Perle said Bush’s foreign policy had “no philosophical underpinnings and certainly nothing like the demonic influence of neoconservatives that is alleged.”


Those in the room were skeptical of Perle’s efforts to recast himself as a pragmatist.

Richard Burt, who clashed with Perle in the Reagan administration, took issue with “this argument that neoconservatism maybe actually doesn’t exist.” He reminded Perle of the longtime rift between foreign policy realists and neoconservative interventionists.


[Jacob Heilbrunn of National Interest asked] how could so many people — including lapsed neoconservative Francis Fukuyama — all be so wrong about what neoconservatives represent?

“It’s not surprising that a lot of people get something wrong,” Perle reasoned.


Fielding a question from the Financial Times, he said that the newspaper “propagated this myth of neoconservative influence.”


But documents did not deter denials. “I’ve never advocated attacking Iran,” he said, to a few chuckles. “Regime change does not imply military force, at least not when I use the term,” he said, to raised eyebrows. Accusations that neoconservatives manipulated intelligence on Iraq? “There’s no truth to it.” At one point, he argued that the word “neoconservative” has been used as an anti-Semitic slur, just moments after complaining that prominent figures such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld — Christians both — had been grouped in with the neoconservatives.

“I don’t know that I persuaded anyone,” Perle speculated when the session ended.

No worries, said the moderator. “You certainly kept us all entertained.”

(video at link above)


Filed under Chimpy, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, humor, Iraq War, movies, parody, Pentagon, politics, Republicans, Ronald Reagan, snark, Wordpress Political Blogs

21 responses to “Perle Harbors Delusions

  1. I see poor Richard has a black eye; I think he gave it to himself when he caught a glimpse of the reality he helped forge in the alternate universe he’s fleeing from today. Better watch out. Karma’s a bitch, dude.

  2. jeb

    Watch all of rats scurry for cover. This is just the beginning. In five years you won’t be able to find anyone who supported the idiotic policies of the last eight years. That in spite of the fact that just a few short years ago, these people were crowing about how any disagreement with King George and his dictates was treason. Perle is especially slimy.

    • perle’s responses are yet another version of gonzo’s i don’t remembers. when they have no defense other than not recalling or not existing in the first place, you know that they have done the indefensible.

  3. I give out an award called “Cleopatra” for queens of denial. I think Perle is in the running.

  4. nightowl724

    I hereby grant to nonnie9999 the official title of Blog Title Master. Congratulations!

    • thank’s nightowl. i was struggling with the title and was going to use ‘wisdom of perle are no pearls of wisdom’ when the present title occurred to me. i was rather proud of it! šŸ˜‰

  5. jlms qkw/Jenn

    nonnie, you rock, in so many ways!

  6. Perle is distancing himself from the neo-con tag much like Proctor and Gamble ditched Rely Tampons after the toxic shock syndrome crisis.
    Same basic deal–toxicity.

    • karen,
      he’s reminding me of the lifetime movies in which the husband tried to convince the wife that all she remembers never happened. of course, it always with the help of the wife’s best friend, who is having an affair with the husband. in the end, the best friend usually dies (either the husband turns on her when she has an attack of conscience or the wife kills her in self-defense after figuring out the scheme), and the husband goes to jail after the detective who fell in love with the wife (or, in other cases, the female detective who everyone misunderestimates) solves the case and saves her in the nick of time (or just happens to be there right after the wife kills the husband, if it’s one of those female-empowerment movies).