Is Richard Perle Leading Us Down the Chalabi Trail Yet Again?

The most recent addition to the reasons for war in Iran is a young Iranian,Amir-Abbas Fakhr-Avar who is of questionable background, introduced yet again by Mr. Richard Perle and the infamous thinktank The American Enterprise Institute, also home to another nefarious character of propaganda spin Amir Taheri who is notable for his disappearing article act in Canadian news for the "Jews In Iran to Wear Colored Armbands".
Supposedly this young Iranian has been supplying inside info on the WMD aspirations of the Iranian government.

He also claims that with the help of America and of course a good supply of money and equipment, that the goals of toppling the evil regime of Iran can be accomplished through him, along with his supposed 12,000 troops of students who are dissatisfied with the policies in Iran. This man a self-proclaimed dissident from Iran also claims he was held in an Iranian jail and escaped, fleeing to America. He, along with his cohorts, all believe an attack on Iran is necessary to bring democracy to the people of Iran and its government. Fakr-Avar has even spoken before the Senate.

www.ynetnews.com...

Here are some other related articles
WBTC: Taheri and Fakhravar update Iran lies

Prominent Iranian Dissident and Former Political Prisoner Akbar Ganji on Why He Refused to Meet President Bush and the Dangers of a US Invasion of Iran

SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH

Why Did Bush Blink on Iran? (Ask Condi)By Richard Perle

Richard bloody Perle. You'd never get tired punching that face, would you. I just don't understand what this guy's reputation is based on. His vanishing act when things started to go pear shaped in Iraq was worthy of Siegfried and Roy. Why does he have any influence or credibility left?

Originally posted by Fang
Richard bloody Perle. You'd never get tired punching that face, would you. I just don't understand what this guy's reputation is based on. His vanishing act when things started to go pear shaped in Iraq was worthy of Siegfried and Roy. Why does he have any influence or credibility left?

It really is a scary thing that men like this know people so well. Knowing full well that he was one of the architects behind the push to go to war in Iraq that he could actually count on people actually forgetting that it was him, to now come forward and start the push for a war with Iran based on more of his thoughts. You would think since he pretty much threw the blame on Bush for this "mistake" that Bush would get rid of this guy instead of putting him in charge of the IMF.

Yes,iIt is a mystery how someone with no relevant experience is constantly being called upon to comment to the press, advise government and act as some all knowing Guru. I remember this bloke first broke surface during the Reagan Administration. He was always pontificating on how "The Evil Empire" was a busted flush and should be faced down militarily. He reminded me of Dr Strangelove. This is not an American thing either. Thatcher had a fair collection of fruit bats flapping around her and Blair has a habit of appointing 'Like minded' advisors and representatives, whose sole function and ability is to say things he likes to hear. Does anyone in Washington take Perle seriously?

[edit on 07/21/06 by Fang]

Originally posted by Fang
Does anyone in Washington take Perle seriously?

He is part of the American Enterprise Institute so I would have to say yes that they do take him seriously. As a matter of fact he is also commenting on Bush's behalf, as well as the entire USA even today on the Iranian matter.

President George Bush will order an attack on Iran if it becomes clear to him that Iran is set to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities while he is still in office, Richard Perle told the Herzliya Conference on Sunday. Perle is close to the Bush administration, particularly to Vice President Richard Cheney.

The leading neoconservative and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute addressed the session on Iran's nuclear program. He said that the present policy of attempting to impose sanctions on Iran will not cause it to abandon its nuclear aspirations, and unless stopped the country will become a nuclear power.

A less decisive opinion was expressed by Dr. Robert Einhorn, who until 2001 was senior advisor to the secretary of state on nuclear nonproliferation, chemical, biological and missile delivery systems. Einhorn told the conference that of all available options, including the military one, he preferred continued pressure on Iran that would force its leadership to pay a political, economic or other price and conclude on its own that its nuclear aspirations were harming its interests.


Einhorn emphasized, however, that the military option still exists and can be carried out on short notice. Natanz, the nexus of Iran's uranium enrichment program, would be a major target of such action.

Prominent lobbyist Perle: U.S. will attack Iran if it obtains nukes

Pieman, I may have misread some of the news coverage over here but I got the distinct impression that his criticism of the conduct of the war (and by implication President Bush's competence) bordered on disloyalty, if not down right, back-covering treachery. Have he and The Whitehouse kissed and made up? I'm no fan of Bush but why doesn't he tell this pompous, slime-ball to go play with the traffic?

[edit on 07/21/06 by Fang]

Originally posted by Fang
Pieman, I may have misread some of the news coverage over here but I got the distinct impression that his criticism of the conduct of the war (and by implication President Bush's competence) bordered on disloyalty, if not down right, back-covering treachery. Have he and The Whitehouse kissed and made up? I'm no fan of Bush but why doesn't he tell this pompous, slime-ball to go play with the traffic?

This is why I said this guy is relying on the forgetfullness of the people to actually have the gaul/balls to come out and cheer for a war in Iran after his last little failure with Iraq. Could it be possible that with all the goings on the past few years, with all the scandals, that maybe people did forget that it was He,Wolfowitz and several others who were making he calls to go into Iraq? I can't see it as being otherwise.

You are correct Perle did basically say that Bush fudged up Iraq, and for the life of me the only thing I can figure is that this man has a lot of power and if Bush in any way critisizes or goes against him, that it would possibly hurt him. Thats the only thing I could think of to explain why he would even entertain this guy a second time around.


Pie