‘Perle Turns on Bush in Harsh Terms’

Nicholas Wapshott’s ac count of remarks I made at Hudson Institute lunch captured some points, but missed others. I made it clear that I admire greatly the President’s policies: on terrorism; on the encouragement, by peaceful means, of democracy; on his response to 9/11; on his bold policy to hold states harboring terrorists accountable; and on his decision to remove Saddam Hussein, who posed a threat to the United States that we were justified in pre-empting.

That is why I am saddened by his apparent inability to operate the machinery of government is support of his policies, values, and vision. said that I have never seen an administration in which the gap between the President’ views and instincts, and the implementing policies of the government, is so vast. The President says one thing and the bureaucracy does another, often the opposite. I conceded that I am at a loss to understand how this has come to pass.

On Iraq, I said that the political reality is the new strategy — which I believe is a great improvement on the incoherence that preceded it — must show progress within nine months, not, as I was paraphrased as having said, that it “will have achieved success by then or it will have to be abandoned.” The American people will support a strategy if it is tending toward success, if the direction seems right.

I lamented the slowness of the Army to move beyond its orientation toward the contingencies of the Cold War, saying it is ill-equipped to deal with insurgencies — but is learning from experience and improving in this regard. I did not say that it is “still planning an army to fight a Russian advance in Central Europe,” as I was paraphrased as saying. I said that we should have turned Iraq over to the Iraqis the day Baghdad fell, not when the insurgency began several months later. A foolish occupation in the intervening months is the genesis of much of the current difficulty.

I did say that elements of the insurgency have retreated to Iran, biding their time. But I pointed out that their absence gives the government a chance to establish itself, so the insurgent response to the current strategy carries considerable risks for the insurgents.

Richard Perle
Washington, D.C.

‘I Didn’t Have an Answer’

In his lengthy response to the Sun’s May 11 editorial, “I Didn’t Have an Answer,” Mario Cuomo writes that in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq “President Bush sold a bill of goods about weapons of mass destruction …to Congress,” with most members having now concluded that they were “bamboozled” into supporting the war.

By whom was President Clinton “bamboozled” when he spoke, on February 17, 1998, of the possible necessity of using force “to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program”? When Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle and John Kerry, wrote to President Clinton on October 9, 1998, urging action “to respond … to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs,” were they likewise “bamboozled” by George W. Bush? How about Nancy Pelosi when she asserted, two months later, that “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region”?

Both dissent and honestly reconsidering one’s position on a public issue — even one as grave as war or peace — can be completely honorable. Dishonestly recasting history to serve one’s own partisan ends is something else.

Howard F. Jaeckel
New York, N.Y.

---

Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, by facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.