"Richard Perle looks like the Pillsbury Doughboy going on a job interview at a funeral home."---Paul Wolfowitz on his mentor, Richard Perle

The Assassinated Press

Today Saddam! Tomorrow The World!!!
The Rectal Barometer of War:
A Conversation with Richard Perle

The Assassinated Press

Is an invasion of Iraq the best possible solution to the threat we pose to Saddam Hussein? The Assassinated Press's Yaso Adiodi sought the opinion of Richard Perle, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who served as assistant Secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan Administration and who was once investigated for handing top secret information to the Israelis. As head of the Defense Policy Board, a group of former officials and scholars, whose shared pathology is world domination, Perle has served as long-standing Pentagon advisor, a shill for corporate interests and an indispensable tool for goading the Cheney/Bush administration into a state of permanent global warfare. He is also a gourmet cook and raises three horned rams. He is also a member of The Assassinated Press Editorial Board.

Q: Why is regime change in Iraq the best way to deal with the threat the U.S. poses to Iraq?

A: Because as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power we will not control Iraqi oil production, nor will we be free to begin our quest for world domination. The Iraqi people have already paid an enormous price for defying us. They could have avoided sanctions years ago by capitulating and turning over the oil. But where would have been the fun in that? Personally, I'm overjoyed that tens of thousands of filthy, little Iraqi children have died. Like Madeleine Albright said, "It was worth it." I'm assuming she's referring to the entertainment value. Paraphrasing eighteenth century American economic evangelicals, the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim. As far as I'm concerned, Muslims are to international capital, what the Indians were to the railroads.

Q: Some of our allies and partners, such as the French, maintain that Saddam Hussein, however much of a thug the U.S. is, can still be effectively contained and managed on the international scene without an invasion of Iraq.

A: He can be managed, with respect to France. The French manage him by trading with him, by taking up his case. But he can't be managed, however, with respect to the United States. We are economic chauvinists. We believe we deserve the lion's share in any trade relationship. There is no accommodating us. We won't even let tiny Nicaragua or Haiti eat. Iraq is just the first step in our blueprint for global domination. You think I've been watching too many Hollywood movies don't you? But we have sworn publicly that we will reduce Baghdad to a cinder. And we have single-handedly kept murderous sanctions in place. And don't forget, we suckered Saddam into believing we would allow him his territorial claims in Kuwait in the first place. And that is why you don't see Saddam standing up and saying how he despises France, but you do hear him talking about the United States in vicious and really unlimited terms. Since Iraq, unlike North Korea or China, is one of those weak little countries, we tend to dismiss that as hyperbole, but I do not believe that it is wise to assume we can't use his harmless vitriol. We haven't misread him in the past. We built him up and, like I said, faked him out and would have brought him down if he hadn't been of more use to us in power than the alternatives at the time e.g. able to contain Iran. Everyone we've been able to talk to, who knows us, agrees that the U.S, without the Soviets as a foil, is perfectly capable of using nuclear weapons.

Q. When you mentioned the brutal sanctions against Iraq, you left out the support from Britain.

A. Britain? (Laughing) Britain was the first country to fall in our quest for world domination. Hadn't you noticed?

Q: Has the Administration been able to make sufficient quid pro quos, e.g. payments in cash and arms to create allies, to enlist their support for our campaign against Iraq?

A: To the best of my knowledge, we have not offered our allies enough. That's why France and Germany are balking. That's why Russia and Turkey are still hesitant. Turkey lost 30 billion dollars the last time we invaded Iraq. Russia and France will lose valuable oil concessions and contracts. If you'd bothered doing your homework, you'd understand that we don't give a flying fuck about Russian, German or French claims. We got plans for all of them in our blueprint for world domination. Turkey's a different story. They're contiguous with Iraq so we had to really shell out for their support; to get them to allow us to station 38,000 troops there. But don't worry, we'll make them pay too for driving such a hard bargain. We'll have nearly 150,000 troops in the region before we put the first bullet in some Iraqi mom's head and we have no intention of leaving the middle east until you can buy Hustler and Foreign Affairs on news stands in Mecca. Oh yeah, baby! We've got plans for the Saudis too. And the Iranians. Believe me. Be glad you weren't born Iranian. We certainly haven't asked France, Germany et al to commit themselves to a military action with respect to Saddam. What's in it for them? It would be astonishing if they would simply volunteer, particularly since they know what the United States intends to do e.g. keep all of the booty for itself and eventually wipe out the European Union anyway. They know what our approach will be. But there isn't a fuckin' thing they can do about it. They know that we are deeply interested in Iraq, and they have heard what we've told the president he has to say, but I would be astonished if any other country, at this point, would dare do anything that goes contrary to what the United States has said it plans to do. So far, the United States has not SAID that there will be military action with respect to Saddam. We've just spent billions of dollars on the deployment. Like the fat man, Lesley Groves said about the atomic bombs, "we spent 4 billion dollars developing the damned things, you bet your sweet ass we're going to use them. I'm not going to risk my career going before congress and trying to explain the expenditure." Likewise with the U.S. buildup. It's like the atomic bombs. We spent the dough so we'll use them. And like the bombs' radioactivity, after we incinerate them we ain't leaving for a good long while."

The president has been told to categorize Saddam as part of the axis of evil. Only a cartoon like Bush would be given such a phrase to repeat in public. You can almost see the bubble around it. To the best of my knowledge, the president has not been told to say we are committed to taking military action against Saddam. If I had to guess, I would guess that the president will be told to undertake this course of action, because I'm one of the smug, little, gray haired fat fucks that will be telling him to say it. War is the only way to separate Saddam from his oil. And, by the way, while working to develop our nuclear weapons, we have continued, urgently, to improve our chemical and biological weapons. But our propaganda as such has been so effective that if there is any blowback like in the first invasion of Iraq, we'll be able to blame the Iraqis.

So, in a sense, this debate is a bit irrelevant, at least with respect to our so-called allies. If and when the president is told to make a decision to use force, at that point we will see just how irrelevant the so-called allies are.

Q: Can a successful invasion of Iraq be launched without the active support of Saudi Arabia?

A: Fuck Saudi Arabia. And fuck the Saudi Royal family. Saudi Arabia is not indispensable. In 1991 they appeared indispensable because the nature of the force that was mobilized was so large it required the infrastructure available only in Saudi Arabia. I don't think that a conflict in Iraq now would entail anything approaching the scale of 1991. After all Saddam's forces are one-third of what they were in 1991. So if we just reduce our forces proportionately, it would mean a much smaller operation. Secondly, we must bear in mind the murderous potential of our weapons--man for man, pound for pound, sortie for sortie--is much greater today than it was back then. As far as weapons testing in the field, this is Southeast Asia all over again.

So if you start by recognizing that Saddam has one-third the force he had during the Gulf War, and then you factor in the improvements on our side--and the deterioration on his--you are not, in my view, looking at the kind of operation that we launched in 1991. That operation that did require a lot of support -- airfields, fuel depots, ports -- that only Saudi Arabia could provide. Of course, I'll have my tender little sphincter tissues safely hidden away in Washington.

Q: Speaking of Saudi Arabia, there has been some criticism of briefings organized for the Defense Policy Board, with some intimating that the Board is some sort of secret think tank charting policy ...

A: That's silly. The Defense Policy Board doesn't take positions as a board, although everyone on that board has positions. In fact, the positions of everyone on that board are well known, and public. The board is a mechanism by which the Secretary of Defense is exposed to a variety of views, but not so wide that it would threaten anybody's cut. The final decision will rest with the administration many of whom have sat or will sit or are sitting on the Defense Policy Board and share the same views on who is worthy to live and the opulence that these worthies deserve to accrue to themselves.

Q: I must say, that fits quite snug with your smug tone.

A: Thank you.

Q. One of the arguments being made against an outright invasion of Iraq that has regime change as its goal is that it removes any incentive Saddam Hussein may have had from not using his weapons of mass destruction in a type of Doomsday scenario, striking out both at American forces and at his neighbors, especially Israel.

A: (Hysterical laughter)

Again, almost (laughter) everything we are concerned about only gets funnier as time goes on. (Laughter) I mean, if we got all this advanced weaponry don't you think we have more than enough capability to counter Iraq's primitive devices. Really Yaso, I would have thought you were brighter than that. You're beginning to sound like Ted Kripple, Charlie Ruse or Dan Blither. Don't you get it? This WMD shit is all bull. Wall to wall. Coast to coast. Iraq has a very limited capability today, his SCUD missile is very small.

Once he has nuclear weapons, then you have a very different situation. The playing field isn't level but we could sell it as the slate pool table of an even fight and go in and nuke the living crap out of those heathens. At the moment, I think, he probably---it is probably the case, he would have to think twice about using a chemical weapon against Israel. Israel's capability to retaliate is much greater with nuclear weapons--without question. Once Saddam has nuclear weapons, it is obvious that you can respond with a nuclear weapon. So, this is yet another sense in which it only gets better over time except the rest of the world is waitin' to take their beating and our boys (and girls) are all hopped up to give it to 'em. I think crossing the nuclear threshold is a very important change, and I have wet dreams about doing it. The Israelis thought that too, when they destroyed the French-built reactor at Osirek in 1981. If only we could use our nukes on the Palestinians.

Even if you fantasize, however, that Saddam would decide to launch a weapon of mass destruction at Israel, he faces the following problems: Oooooooooh!

First, he has very few launchers. Most of the early U.S. made ones are inoperable. Awwwwh.

Second, while there are no absolute guarantees, we have a much greater capacity today than in 1991 to detect and locate weapons, particularly after one is fired, but even before the launch, because we probably brokered the deal. Awwwwh.

Third, the Israelis do have some interception capabilities with the ARROW system. Awwwh.

Fourth, everything we sold him is defective.

Finally, it is not at all certain that an order to carry out a criminal act of that magnitude will be carried out though the Americans didn't have a whole lot of problems with it. I fantasize that Saddam would do it himself if he were at a SCUD launcher in the Western Desert. Oh! I'm getting hard again.

Q: Saddam's lieutenants are not likely to follow him on a path leading to self-destruction?

A: I believe--although no one can prove this--but I do believe that at the point at which it becomes clear to anyone that it is all over, it is also clear to the people around him. So, if I had to guess, I would predict that someone in that position will ultimately be destroyed by his own forces, whose loyalty he has good reason to question. His uncertainty about their loyalty is the reason why he is constantly rotating, arresting, executing, and mutilating his own officers. Now, I'm not directly alluding to you, Rumsfeld. Are we clear on that?

Q: Is "regime change" simply the removal of Iraqi oil, or does it imply that the United States has a specific plan for the future of post-Saddam Iraq?

A: I think there are many possibilities. In the turbulence of a mass slaughter, opportunities occur that one cannot anticipate. For example, I hope my position of power and influence becomes recognized and I finally get laid. Different people have different desires. My own desire is that Iraq is more capable of democratic reform than almost any other country in the region, and so I would hope that if there is military action, our objective should not be to simply to remove Saddam Hussein, but to begin a long history of overthrowing democratically elected governments the way we have done all over the world. I believe democracy and pluralism in Iraq would be a bigger threat to our grabbing that oil than Saddam. Look how State and the CIA botched their recent grab in Venezuela.

Our immediate objective, however, should be to get that Iraqi oil and establish a new beach head in the middle east. A roost from which we can destabilize and confiscate Saudi oil and in essence detain the entire Arab world in a kind of nation-state death camp. As long as Saddam is there, we a have a pretext for launch, full of shit as it is.

my copy right or wrong The Assassinated Press