SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Murrey Walker who wrote (138235)6/28/2004 10:24:57 PM
From: Sun Tzu  Read Replies (6) | Respond to of 281500
 
The presumption in your argument is that (a) the United States had the right to push for removal of Saddam and that (b) We effectively used alternative solutions to invasion of Iraq. Furthermore you are implying Iraq had been incompliant with various UN resolutions.

As someone who has fallowed the Iraq situation very closely for years, I tend to disagree with above presumptions.

Firstly, the invasion of Iraq was unjustified because Iraq had not taken part in attacks upon US, nor was it in a position to deliver a threat to our vital interests. This is not just something that I say; This is what the national security advisor Ms. Rice said before 9/11. And it is also what the 9/11 comission said in its report.

Secondly we did not persue all the alternatives to Saddam, primarily because it was usefull to have a mean nasty boogy man in the Persian Gulf so that every so often we could remind the rest of the Gulf countries what would happen if they stopped being our friends. This is also known as maintaining the regional balance of power. There are ample examples of how US sold out people who had a chance to topple Saddam ranging from allowing him to gun down the Shia rebellion in the south to discrediting Saddam's opposition to lack of funding for anti-Saddam groups.

Finally, in the months and years immediately after the first Gulf war, Iraq was fairly compliant. Yes they were grudgingly compliant and were trying to sneak little things here and there, but it was nothing major. However it became clear that no level of compliance would have lifted the sanctions within any reasonable time frame. Worse, while the UN inspectors were still there, Clinton ordered missile fire on what CIA thought was Saddam's car. Not surprisingly Saddam ordred the removal of CIA inspectors...ehm sorry I meant UN inspectors from Iraq.

Now don't get me wrong. I have no love for Saddam and think of him as close to a monster as a person can get. I am not shedding any tears for him, nor would I have really objected to the war had I believed it to be in the best interest of the American people (not to be confused with Haliburton and Exxon). But anyway I look at it, it was just bad bad bad all around. But I can't allow people who did not send their own kids to the war and got to stuff their pockets with the people's money claim the moral high ground on this and convince the people like yourself that somehow this invasion was the honorable thing to do.

all the best,
ST



To: Murrey Walker who wrote (138235)6/28/2004 11:06:47 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
Columnist Joe Klein may be right on target with the title of his new column in Time magazine -- ("Plenty More to Swear About: Bush's security team faces a barrage of criticism as the facts about Iraq come to light"). As Klein writes, last week's "assorted temper tantrums appeared to be a leading indicator of a gathering summer storm confronting this presidency."

________________

Plenty More to Swear About

Bush's security team faces a barrage of criticism as the facts about Iraq come to light.

By JOE KLEIN
Time Magazine
Saturday, Jun. 26, 2004

The Vulcans—a campaign 2000 nickname for George W. Bush's hawkish national security team—went Krakatoa last week. Dick Cheney erupted on the Senate floor, deploying the F word against Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, who had been belaboring the Vice President over the no-bid deals that Cheney's old company, Halliburton, had scored in Iraq. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz suffered a meltdown in a House Armed Services Committee hearing, blasting the press for "sitting in Baghdad" and "printing rumors." (He later apologized.) And the White House was forced to acknowledge that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had approved, at least for a while, the use of dogs, nudity, stress positions—that is, torture—against enemy combatants. Indeed, Rumsfeld, who works at a stand-up desk, indicated a desire for at least one more strenuous stress position: "I stand 8-10 hours a day," he scrawled on a memo. "Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

Presumably the Secretary of Defense doesn't do his standing naked, continuously, in the middle of the night, surrounded by hostile guards and attack dogs. But then, Rumsfeld's blustery testosteronics are at the heart of what has gone wrong with the Bush foreign policy—and last week the assorted temper tantrums appeared to be a leading indicator of a gathering summer storm confronting this presidency.

The torture investigation is one of four major defensive battles the Administration is facing. In the weeks to come, the White House will also have to deal with the 9/11 commission's final report, the congressional investigations into the CIA's bungled assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and a special prosecutor's hunt for the White House leakers who blew the cover of CIA secret operative Valerie Plame. Not only is the Administration defending itself against the Democrats, the investigators and the media. Two other serious, surreptitious—and quite possibly unprecedented—battles are going on: the intelligence community is at war with the White House, and the uniformed military is at war with the civilian leadership of the Pentagon. The first conflict went public last week with news of the impending publication of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terrorism, a book by an anonymous author who is known to be a senior CIA official and former chief of the agency's Osama bin Laden station. The invasion of Iraq was "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat," the author writes. "There is nothing that bin Laden could have hoped for more than the American invasion and occupation of Iraq."

Michael Moore couldn't have said it any better—and this book was vetted by CIA censors. In fact, the views of Anonymous are an accurate reflection of the opinions I've heard from multiple intelligence sources. The spooks seem to believe that outgoing CIA Director George Tenet was strong-armed by Cheney and Rumsfeld into overassessing Iraq's WMD capacity. This may or may not be true, but it is the conventional wisdom in the intelligence community. Furthermore, there is intense anger over the White House's revealing the identity of Plame, who may have been active in a sting operation involving the trafficking of WMD components. Plame was outed in a White House attempt to discredit the finding of her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, that there was no evidence that Iraq tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. "Only a very high-ranking official could have had access to the knowledge that Plame was on the payroll" of the CIA, an intelligence source told me.

The military has made no secret of its fury with Rumsfeld and his coterie of neoconservatives at the Pentagon. Rumsfeld has been faulted for committing too few troops and too little planning to postwar Iraq. Returning National Guard leaders have been telling their congressional representatives about chaos in the field. There is also some rustling among the brass about General Tommy Franks' memoir, to be published in August. Bob Woodward reported that Franks once called Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, who was charged with postwar planning, "the [Cheney expletive] stupidest guy on the face of the earth," and some defense experts are wondering if Franks, who has a reputation for candor, will elaborate on that.

One hopes the news from Iraq will change for the better. There are plausible explanations for some of the Administration's actions (for example, the government should at least consider some extreme methods of eliciting information from terrorists intent on mass murder). But George W. Bush is facing a long, hot summer of investigations and exposes that will last deep into the campaign season, and last week, for the first time, a Gallup-CNN poll indicated that a majority of Americans think that the war in Iraq was a mistake. This is a difficult trajectory to turn around, and the erupting Vulcans aren't making the President's task any easier.

Copyright © 2004 Time Inc. All rights reserved.

time.com