Nadine, who is this "we" who is paying for anything. How specifically are we acting against our own interests
"We" is the US. We have been paying for the military containment of Iraq since the Gulf war, both in money and in the bad relations with the Arab world. We have actually imo got the worst of both worlds; we have been hated as an aggressor while being despised as a weak and timid power who doesn't dare act against open enemies. Thus the heart of the rationale remains geopolitical; we must act against the radical Arab regimes who have declared a covert war on us (very overt in rhetoric, and rhetoric and propaganda matter a great deal in the Arab world), especially before they get nukes and can deter us. Saddam is not top of the list as a terror sponsor, though he definitely is one, but he has been trying hard to break out of his box and we have unfinished business with him.
As for the skepticism of some "intelligence experts" inside the US government, let me make you a little virtual bet: This is the Karine A all over again. There too, if you'll remember, "experts" in State and the CIA doubted and poo-pooed the information, which turned out to be 100% solid. The trouble with the information, of course, was that it came from the Israelis, making it bitter and doubtful in certain quarters. As debka reported a couple of days back, the close links between Iraqi intelligence and Arafat were documented and reported to Washington by the Shin Bet (the Israeli intelligence services). |
