I'm from Delphi, you from Delphi? What exit?

In the below snippet from Vanity Fair's upcoming article on the Neocon desertion of the Bush Administration, Richard Perle says:

"I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No..."

The American system is profoundly broken and staffed by dangerous people. The wise regular readers of this blog can skip the familiar links below; they've already tuned in to Joshua's horn. For those wondering WTF could possibly be more bankrupt than what Perle and Adelman and fellow Neocons are now saying and denying about why our nation is in such trouble, click away...

What is a Neocon exactly?

The Neocon: Why Patriot Batteries make for better Inaugurations

The things we will learn in the next 6-18 months

...and last but not least:

• How many of Bush's notable business and political supporters were "truly and deeply" concerned about his volatile imbalances and decision-making, but were "afraid to say anything."

Take it away, Vanity Fair...

Neo Culpa
vanityfair.com

As Iraq slips further into chaos, the war's neoconservative boosters have turned sharply on the Bush administration, charging that their grand designs have been undermined by White House incompetence. In a series of exclusive interviews, Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, David Frum, and others play the blame game with shocking frankness. Target No. 1: the president himself.

According to Perle, who left the Defense Policy Board in 2004, this unfolding catastrophe has a central cause: devastating dysfunction within the administration of President George W. Bush. Perle says, 'The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly.… At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.… I don't think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty.'

[snip]

Perle goes so far as to say that, if he had his time over, he would not have advocated an invasion of Iraq: 'I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' … I don't say that because I no longer believe that Saddam had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or that he was not in contact with terrorists. I believe those two premises were both correct. Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."

Having spoken with Perle, I wonder: What do the rest of the pro-war neoconservatives think...