One thing one must really give the neocons credit for is a penchant for “truth in advertising.”
Joshua Muravchik suggested recently that the Neocons should admit their errors on the Iraq War and then move expeditiously to bomb Iran and run Joe Lieberman for president in 2008.
And now as the neocons are huddled in duck and cover positions, trying to blame Bush’s “dysfunctional administration” for the failings in Iraq — Richard Perle issues a salvo against Vanity Fair for issuing tidbits of his juicy assault on Bush “before the election.”
Perle writes:
Richard Perle
Vanity Fair has rushed to publish a few sound bites from a lengthy discussion with David Rose. Concerned that anything I might say could be used to influence the public debate on Iraq just prior to Tuesday’s election, I had been promised that my remarks would not be published before the election.
I should have known better than to trust the editors at Vanity Fair who lied to me and to others who spoke with Mr. Rose. Moreover, in condensing and characterizing my views for their own partisan political purposes, they have distorted my opinion about the situation in Iraq and what I believe to be in the best interest of our country.
In other words, Perle is putting his duplicitousness into the public square for all to see.
He has one truth he’s willing to market before the election — and another after.
Ever wonder what Straussianism is? That’s a big part of it.
— Steve Clemons
Ed. Note: Get more at Think Progress‘s take on Perle’s snarlies at Vanity Fair as well as Eliot Cohen’s pointed nudge back at Perle.
26 comments on “Richard Perle Suggests “His Version of the Truth” Differs Before and After an Election”