Embittered Insiders Turn Against Bush

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 19, 2006; A01

The weekend after the statue of Saddam Hussein fell, Kenneth Adelman and
a couple of other promoters of the Iraq war gathered at Vice President
Cheney's residence to celebrate. The invasion had been the "cakewalk"
Adelman predicted. Cheney and his guests raised their glasses, toasting
President Bush and victory. "It was a euphoric moment," Adelman recalled.

Forty-three months later, the cakewalk looks more like a death march,
and Adelman has broken with the Bush team. He had an angry falling-out
with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this fall. He and Cheney are
no longer on speaking terms. And he believes that "the president is
ultimately responsible" for what Adelman now calls "the debacle that was
Iraq."

Adelman, a former Reagan administration official and onetime member of
the Iraq war brain trust, is only the latest voice from inside the Bush
circle to speak out against the president or his policies. Heading into
the final chapter of his presidency, fresh from the sting of a midterm
election defeat, Bush finds himself with fewer and fewer friends. Some
of the strongest supporters of the war have grown disenchanted, former
insiders are registering public dissent and Republicans on Capitol Hill
blame him for losing Congress.

A certain weary crankiness sets in with any administration after six
years. By this point in Bill Clinton's tenure, bitter Democrats were
competing to denounce his behavior with an intern even as they were
trying to fight off his impeachment. Ronald Reagan was deep in the
throes of the Iran-contra scandal. But Bush's strained relations with
erstwhile friends and allies take on an extra edge of bitterness amid
the dashed hopes of the Iraq venture.

"There are a lot of lives that are lost," Adelman said in an interview
last week. "A country's at stake. A region's at stake. This is a
gigantic situation. . . . This didn't have to be managed this bad. It's
just awful."

The sense of Bush abandonment accelerated during the final weeks of the
campaign with the publication of a former aide's book accusing the White
House of moral hypocrisy and with Vanity Fair quoting Adelman, Richard
N. Perle and other neoconservatives assailing White House leadership of
the war.

Since the Nov. 7 elections, Republicans have pinned their woes on the
president.

"People expect a level of performance they are not getting," former
House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said in a speech. Many were livid
that Bush waited until after the elections to oust Rumsfeld.

"If Rumsfeld had been out, you bet it would have made a difference,"
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said on television. "I'd still be chairman of
the Judiciary Committee."

And so, in what some saw as a rebuke, Senate Republicans restored Trent
Lott (Miss.) to their leadership four years after the White House helped
orchestrate his ouster, with some saying they could no longer place
their faith entirely in Bush.

Some insiders said the White House invited the backlash. "Anytime anyone
holds themselves up as holy, they're judged by a different standard,"
said David Kuo, a former deputy director of the Bush White House's
faith-based initiatives who wrote "Tempting Faith," a book that accused
the White House of pandering to Christian conservatives. "And at the end
of the day, this was a White House that held itself up as holy."

Richard N. Haass, a former top Bush State Department official and now
president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said a radically
different approach to world affairs naturally generates criticism. "The
emphasis on promotion of democracy, the emphasis on regime change, the
war of choice in Iraq -- all of these are departures from the
traditional approach," he said, "so it's not surprising to me that it
generates more reaction."

The willingness to break with Bush also underscores the fact that the
president spent little time courting many natural allies in Washington,
according to some Republicans. GOP leaders in Congress often bristled at
what they perceived to be a do-what-we-say approach by the White House.
Some of those who did have more personal relationships with Bush, Cheney
or Rumsfeld came to feel the sense of disappointment more acutely
because they believed so strongly in the goals the president laid out
for his administration.

The arc of Bush's second term has shown that the most powerful criticism
originates from the inside. The pragmatist crowd around Colin L. Powell
began speaking out nearly two years ago after he was eased out as
secretary of state. Powell lieutenants such as Haass, Richard L.
Armitage, Carl W. Ford Jr. and Lawrence B. Wilkerson took public the
policy debates they lost on the inside. Many who worked in Iraq returned
deeply upset and wrote books such as "Squandered Victory" (Larry
Diamond) and "Losing Iraq" (David L. Phillips). Military and CIA
officials unloaded after leaving government, culminating in the
"generals' revolt" last spring when retired flag officers called for
Rumsfeld's dismissal.

On the domestic side, Bush allies in Congress, interest groups and the
conservative media broke their solidarity with the White House out of
irritation over a number of issues, including federal spending, illegal
immigration, the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, the response
to Hurricane Katrina and the Dubai Ports World deal.

Most striking lately, though, has been the criticism from
neoconservatives who provided the intellectual framework for Bush's
presidency. Perle, Adelman and others advocated a robust use of U.S.
power to advance the ideals of democracy and freedom, targeting
Hussein's Iraq as a threat that could be turned into an opportunity.

In an interview last week, Perle said the administration's big mistake
was occupying the country rather than creating an interim Iraqi
government led by a coalition of exile groups to take over after Hussein
was toppled. "If I had known that the U.S. was going to essentially
establish an occupation, then I'd say, 'Let's not do it,' " and instead
find another way to target Hussein, Perle said. "It was a foolish thing
to do."

Perle, head of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board at the time of the
2003 invasion, said he still believes the invasion was justified. But he
resents being called "the architect of the Iraq war," because "my view
was different from the administration's view from the very beginning"
about how to conduct it. "I am not critical now of anything about which
I was not critical before," he said. "I've said it more publicly."

White House officials tend to brush off each criticism by claiming it
was over-interpreted or misguided. "I just fundamentally disagree,"
Cheney said of the comments by Perle, Adelman and other neoconservatives
before the midterm elections. Others close to the White House said the
neoconservatives are dealing with their own sense of guilt over how
events have turned out and are eager to blame Bush to avoid their own
culpability.

Joshua Muravchik, a neoconservative at the American Enterprise
Institute, said he is distressed "to see neocons turning on Bush" but
said he believes they should admit mistakes and openly discuss what went
wrong. "All of us who supported the war have to share some of the blame
for that," he said. "There's a question to be sorted out: whether the
war was a sound idea but very badly executed. And if that's the case, it
appears to me the person most responsible for the bad execution was
Rumsfeld, and it means neocons should not get too angry at Bush about that."

It may also be, he said, that the mistake was the idea itself -- that
Iraq could serve as a democratic beacon for the Middle East. "That part
of our plan is down the drain," Muravchik said, "and we have to think
about what we can do about keeping alive the idea of democracy."

Few of the original promoters of the war have grown as disenchanted as
Adelman. The chief of Reagan's arms control agency, Adelman has been
close to Cheney and Rumsfeld for decades and even worked for Rumsfeld at
one point. As a member of the Defense Policy Board, he wrote in The
Washington Post before the Iraq war that it would be "a cakewalk."

But in interviews with Vanity Fair, the New Yorker and The Post, Adelman
said he became unhappy about the conduct of the war soon after his
ebullient night at Cheney's residence in 2003. The failure to find
weapons of mass destruction disturbed him. He said he was disgusted by
the failure to stop the looting that followed Hussein's fall and by
Rumsfeld's casual dismissal of it with the phrase "stuff happens." The
breaking point, he said, was Bush's decision to award Medals of Freedom
to occupation chief L. Paul Bremer, Gen. Tommy R. Franks and then-CIA
Director George J. Tenet.

"The three individuals who got the highest civilian medals the president
can give were responsible for a lot of the debacle that was Iraq,"
Adelman said. All told, he said, the Bush national security team has
proved to be "the most incompetent" of the past half-century. But, he
added, "Obviously, the president is ultimately responsible."

Adelman said he remained silent for so long out of loyalty. "I didn't
want to bad-mouth the administration," he said. In private, though, he
spoke out, resulting in a furious confrontation with Rumsfeld, who
summoned him to the Pentagon in September and demanded his resignation
from the defense board.

"It seemed like nobody was getting it," Adelman said. "It seemed like
everything was locked in. It seemed like everything was stuck." He
agrees he bears blame as well. "I think that's fair. When you advocate a
policy that turns bad, you do have some responsibility."

Most troubling, he said, are his shattered ideals: "The whole philosophy
of using American strength for good in the world, for a foreign policy
that is really value-based instead of balanced-power-based, I don't
think is disproven by Iraq. But it's certainly discredited."