Didn't Wolfowitz say that WMDs were just a bureaucratic reason and not really the reason or even a major part of the reason for the Iraq invasion?
Wolfowitz is one of the original people in the first Bush administration who was shocked and horrified when we failed to support the uprising against Saddam.
Me, too, although I wasn't in the administration, just a lowly voter. I totally lost all respect for Bush pere then.
I caught a bit of a speech by Wolfowitz on C-Span within the last day or so, where he discussed how he believes that the reluctance of the Iraqis to cooperate with us largely stems from the fact that we screwed/shafted them then.
Wolfowitz has wanted to liberate the Iraqi people for over ten years.
He thinks, and I agree, that if only we'd finished the job we started, the world would be a better place.
But, the generals we have, by and large, were scarred by VietNam, and are terrified of the use of force unless it is overwhelming and there is a clear exit strategy. In other words, they aren't all that great shakes from a military point of view. Generals who are terrified of a war that ended three decades ago aren't worth much. Wesley Clark, that choice and succulent tidbit of a man, of course, was one.
They have devoted a lifetime to not finishing what they started.
I do find it risible that they want to blame Vietnam on Johnson and Nixon. Soldiers who lie shouldn't have balls big enough to blame politicians for their own lies. |
