|Richard Perle Resigns||Jon Billheimer|
Mar 28, 2003 8:31 AM
|Have you heard the latest? Perle has resigned from the defence dept., no public reason given. Does this signify some division within Bush's inner circle regarding their expansionist, unilateral foreign policy?
BTW, Perle was one of the authors of a letter to Bush prior to 9/11 in which it was stated that perhaps America needed a Pearl Harbour-type of incident to mobilize the American public.
|Supposedly an ethics flap||OldEdScott|
Mar 28, 2003 8:43 AM
But there's always more to the Neo-Con world than meets the eye. And I doubt there's any real division in the Inner Circle, at this point.
|I thought it was known, why he resigned...||Dwayne Barry|
Mar 28, 2003 8:45 AM
|ostensibly it's because while on that Defense department advisory board he reportedly helped a private company (Global Crossing) he also worked for get permission from a reluctant pentagon to sell the company to Asian investors with strong ties to China. I gather Global Crossings had fiber optic technology that the pentagon (and you would think a guy like Perle) wouldn't want China to have.
De facto his resignation may be because he was one of the main proponents of the idea that if we invaded Iraq it would be easy because of mass uprisings. Obviously there haven't been mass uprisings and it ain't going to be as easy as first thought.
BTW, he just stepped down as head of the board, I think he's still on it.
|Re; Lack of mass unrisings||OldEdScott|
Mar 28, 2003 9:05 AM
|I doubt that devalued any of Perle's stock in the administration, or the Neo-Con world generally. It just goes to prove that these Arabs are wild, unpredictable and uncontrollable, and reinforces the clear necessity of a permanent U.S. force of occupation to keep this critical region under control and behaving acceptably.|
|Yeah but Bush isn't a...||Dwayne Barry|
Mar 28, 2003 9:17 AM
|Neo-Con, he's a politician who needs to get re-elected. It would be foolhardy to believe that part of the equation when deciding whether to invade Iraq or not wasn't the effect it would have on the next election.
I think it's fair to say that if 1000s of US soilders die instead of 10s or 100s, and a year from now there are suicide bombings, sniper attacks, guerilla warfare, etc. that makes it appear that the Iraqi people weren't quite so willing to be liberated Bush won't get re-elected. If you were an advisor who told him that the above scenario was extremely unlikely, you might lose your job. I'm not saying that stuff will necessarily happen but it certainly appears as more of a possibility today than it did 10 days ago, and we've yet to see what's going to happen in Baghdad.
|Sure, but politically (a) You wouldn't sack someone||OldEdScott|
Mar 28, 2003 9:38 AM
|for bad advice UNTIL the thousands had died, and you were prepared to admit the strategy was flawed, and (b) If you're doing this for political reasons, you make it CLEAR that's why you're doing it, so you get the intended benefit.
I think it's entirely possible Bush may have to clean house before the next election, but that housecleaning wouldn't start one week into the war. The situation would have to turn into an admitted disaster first.
|Good points (nm)||Dwayne Barry|
Mar 28, 2003 9:40 AM
Mar 28, 2003 10:28 AM
|He resigned the chairmanship, but remains on the advisory board.
Someone this important to the administration's ideology won't lose his place at the table, and despite the announced resignation from the account lobbying for Chinese investors, his cash value to clients won't decline too much.
|Making the world safe for Capitalism...er...Democracy||Me Dot Org|
Mar 28, 2003 2:22 PM
|bailing before he eventually gets the heave-ho.||rufus|
Mar 31, 2003 6:56 PM
|once bush starts calling for the heads of those advisors who sucked him into this silly neo-con plan for iraq.|| |