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 ...
that would be #39 -- sorry, fast fingers.
Misunderstood? How about confused, misinformed and deceived? See my answer in #39. Perhaps you should read the whole article.
Have you read the whole article?
Her being wrong diverted the war from chasing Bin Laden to chasing resurgents in Fallujah. Because of her mistaken expertise, more than 800 brave men and women are on her mistaken conscience. All she can say, after all that she missed, is that Saddam is gone. So are hudreds of American lives -- those who were alive last year and those who will forever bear scars and live like invalids. She, on the other hand, will enjoy her royalties and a comfortable retirement.
I trust that you are right. Many of us are praying for him.
Great article on how the founding fathers handled militant Islam. The founding fathers were so smart; and probably half of their brilliance was due to not being hindered by PC thinking.
Sorry, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. You can describe it another way, but the result is the same. At least that is what I have concluded from reading extensively about how they (FBI, CIA, etc.) operate from many authors, people who have dealt with them in many venues.
I suppose that recent experiences of my own on the job colored my description. It's just reality.
But why isn't Afghanistan mentioned because that's were we went first to get the cockroaches. And why is there zero mention of the 23 gazillion UN resolutions that Saddam was in violation of - which is why we really went to war, if anyone would bother to remember that tiny point.
Then we have Iraq firing SAMs at our planes on a daily basis for TEN YEARS - in violation of the Gulf War 'cease fire' (there never was a treaty IIRC), which legally gave us cause to respond with force anytime since 1991!
So yeah Guardian, don't mention any FACTS, why not save some ink and just say, 'the joooos did it'!
Whining from a metrosexual male about a woman who's right on the money time after time with her research. She's been warning the country for years, and finally the Bush administration paid attention, thank God. One other small point, anthrax was found in the US, and so far we haven't caught the killer. But two people died, and the country's mail service was enormously disrupted. That anthrax attack cost plenty.
It seems they were looking desperately for a new neocon.
What no one wants to admit on the left is the following - everyone thought Saddam had WMD. It was just a question of how to deal with it. Now, were we going to let a cheap dictator get away with endless bluster, or were our fine words about putting him in his place going to mean something? A salutory lesson has been learned as a result - dictators cannot go on endlessly defying the civilised world.
Yes, the Howard Deans will now proceed to jump up and down and ask where the WMD's are. The jury is still out on that - but finding WMD's was only part of the question. The practical aspect was to suck the life out of terrorism by killing one of its sponsors, and to make it clear that the West means what it says.
Didn't say I didn't agree with decisions, just the notion that 'the Lord drives the decisions.' If that's true, Jesus blew it big time on the steel tariffs, though.
I do get tired of this arguement. Bush had (has) a number of dominoes to knock over. Bin Laddin was bogged down in the mountains, his position unknown and most of Afghanistan under control. How could Iraq be a diversion, it was one of the countries who came next. Bush made a choice here, to let Iran and Syria for example wait their turn. But he did not "divert" us in our efforts, that is just BS.
Furthermore, your appeal to the lives lost is hypoctical. Lives will be lost in the battle where ever the battle is taken. It is not known yet whether Bush's approach was a life saver or a life loser. Given the other options that could be followed: Do nothing, go into Iran, go into Syria, go into Iraq, go into Saudi Arabia, ... I submit that doing nothing would not be the life saver that the peace movement believes, so that leaves one to ask which of the countries could we have gone into and lost fewer lives? You get to this arguement after you accept that there is a rising radical element in Islam which must be met by force. If you don't believe this, you are the one mistaken.
And I repeat myself:
"President Bush makes the right decisions. Just because you don't agree with them .. doesn't mean they aren't the right decisions."
Jesus never "blew it" .. and your statement is rude and disrespectful. If you don't believe in GOD .. fine with me .. but being flippant with the name of Jesus will not make points with me.
Jesus willingly gave up his life and experienced a horrible death .. just to save YOU from eternal damnation. YOU don't want that gift .. fine! But don't ever tell me "Jesus blew it".
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.