In a discussion regarding the potential ramifications of a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, the November 22 edition of Fox News Live featured a panel that consisted only of the following guests: former assistant secretary of defense Richard Perle, former CIA director James Woolsey, and Time correspondent Brian Bennett, who joined the others in saying he opposed U.S. troops “leav[ing] too soon.” All three guests added that withdrawing too early would strengthen terrorist networks in Iraq. Perle predicted “a catastrophe; Woolsey said, ”[I]t would be one of the greatest disasters in modern history"; and Bennett asserted that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would “strengthen his network and churn out more trained jihadis. And this is a problem.”

Fox News failed to note that Perle and Woolsey are not merely experts on intelligence and national security issues. As members of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee (DPBAC) in 2001 and 2002, both Perle and Woolsey took part in the Bush administration's efforts to build the case for the United States to invade Iraq.

DPBAC advises Pentagon officials on major matters of defense policy and is made up of 30 national security experts appointed by the defense secretary. One week after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the group met with Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-deputy secretary of defense Paul D. Wolfowitz over the course of two days. At the meetings, then-DPBAC chairman Perle introduced then-Iraqi exile and current Iraqi deputy prime minister Ahmed Chalabi, who informed the senior officials that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and represented a breeding ground for terrorists, according to a May 2004 Vanity Fair article. Chalabi and the since-discredited Iraqi National Congress would later provide the Bush administration with faulty intelligence regarding the Iraqi threat.

Beyond attending the September meeting, Woolsey traveled to London in late 2001 -- at Wolfowitz's request -- to investigate the possibility that there was a connection between Iraq and the World Trade Center attacks. The "main piece of evidence" that Woolsey uncovered was a reported meeting in Prague in April 2001 between lead September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official. In presenting the case for war, Vice President Dick Cheney would repeatedly reference this alleged meeting, despite the fact that numerous intelligence agencies had quickly debunked the claim.

Further, Fox News failed to note that Woolsey was a founding member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq in 2002. This organization was reportedly set up at the White House's request to “help build public backing for war in Iraq.”

Fox need not have staffed its panel exclusively with opponents advocating that the United States withdraw its troops from Iraq. They could have called any number of a growing pool of commentators, national security experts, and former government officials who in the past year have called for full withdrawal from Iraq. (See here, here, here, here, and here.)

Moreover, Bennett, the only journalist on the panel, articulated a personal opinion in which he essentially agreed with Perle's and Woolsey's assessments that the United States should not withdraw from Iraq.

From the November 22 edition of Fox News' Fox News Live:

GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): The military situation on the ground in Iraq and the state of Iraqi troop training: two major components in Pentagon plans for the eventual redeployment of U.S. troops. Talking with us again -- former CIA director James Woolsey, former assistant secretary of defense Richard Perle, and a Washington correspondent for Time magazine, Brian Bennett. Good to see you all again. Two things that come to mind as I'm looking at this issue. If I'm just a regular American sitting at home on my couch, I'm wondering, “You know, if the U.S. troops withdraw, what happens to the stability of Iraq with regard to Syria and Iran?” And I want the three of you to answer that. And secondly, what happens with regard to the threat of terrorist attacks here at home, which is something that maybe we haven't examined thus far? James, if we can start with you.

WOOLSEY: It depends on whether they withdraw based on success by Iraqi forces being trained and taking over responsibilities, as Brian and Richard have described, or whether they withdraw according to a fixed deadline. If they withdraw according to a fixed deadline, that will embolden Zarqawi and the Baathist insurgents and it will be a disaster -- not only in Iraq but in Europe and the rest of the Middle East and here. There is nothing that we could do that would more embolden the terrorists and the Baathists than set a fixed deadline -- whether it's immediate or six months or whatever it is -- and withdraw regardless of what takes place in Iraq. It would be one of the greatest disasters in modern history.

CARLSON: Richard, your thoughts on the threats of Syria, Iran without U.S. troops in Iraq, and then what it means for the home front.

PERLE: Well, Syria and Iran are already doing what they can in the hope that we will fail because the emergence of a successful democracy in Iraq poses real challenges in both dictatorships. The people of Iran, the people of Syria, are going to say, “If they can govern themselves, if they can have a decent future, why can't we?” But a precipitous withdrawal or even the setting of a date for withdrawal now, as James Woolsey says, would be a catastrophe. The recruiting lines for Al Qaeda would be around the block, because the terrorists would believe they are winning. They would believe that they had expelled us, in effect, from our mission in Iraq and we would see a surge in worldwide terrorism that would make 9-11 look like the preliminary round. It would be a disaster.

CARLSON: OK. And Brian, you write for the typical American viewer and reader of your magazine. What do you think that their feelings are with regard to the troop withdrawal and whether or not it would be more safe or less safe for them here at home?

BENNETT: Well, I certainly -- I think when the Iraqi leaders are discussing the issue -- that I've spoken with -- they want the Americans to do their best to finish the job and then leave. And if the Americans leave too soon, as we've seen in towns like Fallujah and Talafar, they become training areas for Zarqawi and make it possible for him to strengthen his network and churn out more trained jihadis. And this is a problem. What needs to happen is the exploitation of the split that Jim pointed out inside the insurgency between the Zarqawi and the Baathists; and as the political process moves forward, try to bring the people fighting that consider themselves Iraqi nationalists into the political process --

CARLSON: All right --

BENNETT: -- and take control of the security for their own country.

WOOLSEY: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Well, the three gentlemen -- We very much appreciate your time today and thank you for your insights.