Skip to comments.Did One Woman's Obsession Take America to War?
Posted on 07/04/2004 8:23:17 PM PDT by rimtop56
Americans supported the war in Iraq not because Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator - they knew that - but because President Bush made the case that Saddam might hand weapons of mass destruction to his terrorist allies to wreak havoc on the United States. In the absence of any evidence for that theory, it's fair to ask: where did the administration's conviction come from? It was at the American Enterprise Institute - a conservative Washington DC thinktank - that the idea took shape that overthrowing Saddam should be a goal. Among those associated with AEI is Richard Perle, a key architect of the president's get-tough-on-Iraq policy, and Paul Wolfowitz, now the number-two official at the Pentagon. But none of the thinkers at AEI was in any real way an expert on Iraq. For that they relied on someone you probably have never heard of: a woman named Laurie Mylroie.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Guarding the left flank of the Left.
But since you think she is better than all out multi-million dollar three-letter agencies, why don't we let her do all our intell work then? Given her track record, she won't be much better but she will be a lot cheaper.
BTW, the US went to war when we were attacked for the nth time, by Islamofascist terrorist. How dumb can these lefties be?
He repeatedly says she was wrong, but does not give much support for his view. Bergen quotes Richard Clarke, a man with not a lot of credibility. Later in his article, he just says she was wrong, but doesn't give a source.
Time will tell who is right. I haven't bought stock in the outcome, but I've read a lot of her writings and she has a lot more credibility than the likes of Richard Clarke. And, as you imply, our intelligence agencies have not exactly shone lately.
She lassoed W, tied him with a piggin' string, and branded him with her brand? Please...
This would be Dr Mylroie
Putin recently told that Russia warned us of Saddam's plans to strike the U.S. through terrorists, we were at war with Saddam and had a declared U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq.
Saddam had lots of reasons to strike us, and terrorists groups gave him a plausibly deniable way to do it. We had to do something about Iraq instead of allowing the infection to spread, possibly in a deadly vector at the heart of America.
Actually, I support Dr. Mylroie. I posted the article though for those who keep up with her. I admire her greatly.
That's right. The Middle East is like a huge, pus-filled sore. Taking Hussein out was like puncturing it. It's still a mess, but it's a good start.
Have you read any of her books? This rather short article does not at all show us that she is wrong. And what about Peter Bergen's credentials make him credible?
I didn't mean to knock you or the estimable gal in question. My point was, no think tank drives W's decisions. The Lord God does. FReegards
Exactly how is the writer proving her wrong? All I noticed were terms such as "the FBI and CIA found no evidence" -- not surprising in the matter of the '93 WTC bombing, since it was handled exclusively by the FBI as a law-enforcement issue. By the time the CIA knew what their evidence was, i.e., after the trials, the trail was stone cold. Then the author quotes from such paragons of accuracy as Richard Clarke and Vince Cannistraro. The same Vince Cannistraro that works for one of the alphabet channels and who publicly declared support for Sami Al-Arian, before he was (oops!) finally arrested.
Everyone quoted, in fact, has a share in the blame of not stopping the Islamic threat in the '90's -- mainly because they all treated the incidents as isolated events by loose groups of associates who just happened to be Muslims -- so it's not very surprising that they're eager to shoot down Mylroie's theories.
In 1784, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were commissioned by the first Congress to assemble in Paris to see about marketing U.S. products in Europe.
Jefferson quickly surmised that the biggest challenge facing U.S. merchant ships were those referred to euphemistically as "Barbary pirates."
They weren't "pirates" at all, in the traditional sense, Jefferson noticed. They didn't drink and chase women and they really weren't out to strike it rich. Instead, their motivation was strictly religious. They bought and sold slaves, to be sure. They looted ships. But they used their booty to buy guns, ships, cannon and ammunition.
Like those we call "terrorists" today, they saw themselves engaged in jihad and called themselves "mujahiddin."
Well certainly Madeline Albright's obsession with her ethnic heritage and her family's fleeing of persecution in Serbia led her to push for her war (in defiance of the United Nations I might add) against Serbia.
Not ture at all, all he's simply saying is that she's wrong, and throwing in some less-than-credible names to support his position.
"But since you think she is better than all out multi-million dollar three-letter agencies"
Would these be the same agencies in charge of not letting a 9/11 happen?
Because US Code calls for it.
Clinton, the French, the UN, all were convinced that Saddam had WMD.
And now more and more info is coming out about Saddam's ties to terrorism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.