The NRO-Politburo attempt to get various comrades back on message, despite some neocons blurting out the truth of what they actually believe, makes for fascinating reading. Some - Eliot Cohen - come off fine. Frum is just beyond incoherent. But Perle is making an argument that does indeed get to the heart of what neoconservatism has become. Here's Perle:

Vanity Fair has rushed to publish a few sound bites from a lengthy discussion with David Rose. Concerned that anything I might say could be used to influence the public debate on Iraq just prior to Tuesday's election, I had been promised that my remarks would not be published before the election.

I should have known better than to trust the editors at Vanity Fair who lied to me and to others who spoke with Mr. Rose. Moreover, in condensing and characterizing my views for their own partisan political purposes, they have distorted my opinion about the situation in Iraq and what I believe to be in the best interest of our country.

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.

There's one thing to say here. Perle says he is

concerned that anything I might say could be used to influence the public debate on Iraq just prior to Tuesday's election.

Say what again? 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 the 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.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.