A Knight in Dragonland

Woe is Richard Perle. Now he’s backtracking from the comments quoted in Vanity Fair and reverts to adoring George Bush. From the National Review Online:

I believe the president is now doing what he can to help the Iraqis get to the point where we can honorably leave. We are on the right path.

Others quoted in the piece lament the early publication right before the election (they were told it would run in January), but they pretty much stick by the content of what was said.

Well, honestly … if I had been guaranteed that my comments wouldn’t be used before the election, I’d be pretty hacked off, too. But I do love this bit from Andrew Sullivan in reference to Perle’s National Review Online about-face regarding his Vanity Fair about-face (get’s confusing, doesn’t it?):

He says he now believes that the Great Leader is essential to the next Glorious Five Year Plan for Iraq. He sounds like that dude shot in the face by Cheney, who subsequently apologized for getting in the way. [...]

Perle is supposed to be a thinker, and a patriot. Why on earth would an intellectually honest person not make sure that their real views are aired on a critical matter before an election? Isn’t that the point? They were more disciplined in 2004. Almost all neocons I knew conceded privately that Iraq was FUBAR. But most decided to attack Kerry rather than tell the truth.

An intellectual movement that has become this intellectually dishonest deserves to die.

Intellectual honesty from the “cakewalk” crowd? Not likely.