Architect of War agrees it was illegal?

The U.S. war against iraq just gets stranger every day. One of the key people behind the war told a London audience that week that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone," explaining that "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." Perle is one of the key players behind the scenes at the Pentagon. Although he's recently resigned from an important advisory, group, he was one of a handful of military analysists who spent the Clinton Administration arguing for a second war in iraq. So what's up? Perle isn't an official White House spokesperson and doesn't represent official Bush Administration policy. Is he just talking on his own behalf, perhaps to get headlines? Or does he represent a position well represented inside the White House, that the President of the United States should intervene when international law is inefficient? This follows a New York Times report that the military doesn't _really_ think there are many "outside institgators in iraq":http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/19/international/middleeast/19iraq.html and that the bombings really are homegrown resistance to the U.S. invasion. Check out "Daily Kos's":http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/11/20/65113/597 post on all this, with it's extensive reader commentary. "Thoughts on the eve of the Apocalypse":http://b-c.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_b-c_archive.html#106937251455211736 blog also gives some good context.