in the run-up to the war in iraq nobody was a bigger hawk than richard perle, a real intellectual, aember of the pentagon's defense policy board. he repeatedly asserted that saddam hussein had ties to osama bin laden and was feverishly working to acquire a nuclear bomb and he promised, richard perle did, that the war would be over in a matter of months. this week he was asked a very important question. i think it's a good question. his nonanswer is informative. let's listen. >> ten years later, nearly 5,000 american troops dead, thousands more with wounds, hundreds of thousands of iraqis dead or wounded, when you think about this, was it worth it? >> i've got to say i think that is not a reasonable question. what we did at the time was done in the belief that it was necessary to protect this nation. you can't, a decade later go back and say we shouldn't have done that. >> so don't ask whether he should have gone in or not. another unrepentant war hawk. he was deputy secretary of the defense at the time of the invasion and here's what he wrote on fox news' website this week. as a stri

what richard perle says, don't ask why. they don't want to be challenged with the killer question. did those young people die in vain. and that's the question that crushes them. and that's why they are running right now as best they can. >> i wish in a way it would crush them. i don't see that crushing. i was driving in the car two days ago with my 13-year-old daughter when we heard that interview with richard perle. she looked at me when he said that's not a reasonable question and said, who is this man? she, without my saying anything -- >> and what did you say? >> he's one of the people who gave us this war. i mean, to say that it's not a reasonable question to look at the cost of your action afterwards, to see if it justifies it, and when paul wolfowitz says the only problem is the war went on after we reached baghdad, otherwise it had been great up to them, is almost like saying if we had an army of a million giant flying robots, things would have worked out better. it's denying reality. to ron's point, you asked him how could they think this way? they're not concerned with th

they've got to scrape down and they don't want to be challenged what richard perle says don't ask whyose young people die in vain, and that's the question that crushes them and that's why they're running right now as best they can. >> i wish in a way it would crush them because i don't see that crushing. i was driving in the car two days ago with my 13-year-old daughter when i heard that interview with richard perle. she looked at me when she said that's not a reasonable question and says who is this man? >> and what did you say? >> he's one of the people who gave us this war. >> i mean, to say that it's not a reasonable question to look at the cost of your action afterward to see if it justifies it and when paul wolfowitz says the only problem is that, you know, the war went on after we reached baghdad otherwise it had been great up until then is almost like saying if we had an arm of a million giant flying robots things would have turned out better. it's denying reality and to ron's point, you ask them how can they think this way, they're not concerned with the real world, with expe

but like on the whole i've already mentioned those who are officially in charge of the war richard perle colin powell donald rumsfeld on top of all of them dick cheney and president bush but the policy advisers i'm referring to were a group within the defense department effectively assumed the role of intelligence national security community the state department and so on during the period in question strategic decision were made exclusively by a single institution the department of defense the department of state of jet did to their war plan and so did the cia the cia told the pentagon toppling the iraqi regime is the easy part but what's your scenarios for iraq once you remove saddam hussein the d.o.t. replied just lead to save or throw him and then everything will stabilize but that's the kind of mind frame that dominated the american war effort there was no sustainable long term strategy and that's why it all ended in chaos now look what happened to iraq after two thousand and three with war in the americans that if the regime would fall iraq would devolve into a jihadist stronghold

you had people like richard perle who are still active today who are interested in shaking up the dynamicetween the united states and the soviet union and travel -- and challenging some of the traditional paradigms'. reagan was essentially challenging that treaty, basically saying to the soviets that i am not going to play by the oval rules because you seem to be abusing these rules. we think you are cheating of some arms control commitments. you're building up every --sible selling rican ceiling where you can. maybe we can change the dynamics here. hoped connection protect the country from any kind of nuclear attack. most military and arms control strategists thought was feasible. even reagan officials simply wanted to change the dynamic with the soviets. put a little fear in them that somehow the united states can play to its psychological strengths and tweak the nuclear balance more in our favor but begin defense and to the question as well. you can make an argument that in the and there was some validity to that claim. the cold war did and a half decade later and the soviets had a sen