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 ...
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".
Well, either Jesus blew it or Bush doesn't get his decisions from God. Which is it?
Bergen didn't bring up gender issues. Why did you?
You're too ignorant to discuss this .. obviously you cannot read! Our conversation is over.
Because I believe they play into why the FBI, CIA and others reject her arguments.
I don't concede anything but the possibility of her being wrong, which is much lower than the possibility that Bergen is wrong. If this is all he's got, he doesn't have much.
Well put, and nice tagline.
"Her being wrong diverted the war from chasing Bin Laden to chasing resurgents in Fallujah."
I am also tired of this bs,as someone has already said.
I'll go a bit further,though.There has been so much of this type of comment,rationalization,preaching,begging,pi$$ing,moaning--all essentially in support of Saddam Hussein and the Bathist former government of Iraq.
We may have to wait for the writers of history many years from now to uncover the reason for Saddam's widespread support in the world.Perhaps we should begin with the utter lack of money going to Palestinian terrorist murderers since Iraq was defeatd?
read later bump
If Jesus died to save me from eternal damnation, why was God lacking the foresight to know that he'd have to create a mortal incarnation of his being because humans were so "wicked."
Point of fact, many of us are, in fact, good people. And few of us advocated wholesale extermination or the collective punishment of the Old Testament. THus, we are better people than the God of the Old Testament.
Unless, of course, you appeal to power and say "God is God, He can do what He wants."
Well .. since you know more than GOD .. why don't you take it up with HIM.
I don't know more than God or anyone else. But even according to believers own definitions of "good" and "all-knowing" it appears that the God they praise does not meet their standards. OR that the standards continually shift to meet that believer or group of believers' needs.
Well you know what a wimp George is?
You make a good part about plausible deniability.
Do you remember, sometime the 80s, an Iraqui stinger missile struck one of our warships (can't recall her name).
At that time, Saddam said it was a mistake. As I recall everyone said, "Whew. That's a relief. After all, Saddam is our friend."
Maybe that episode was the Islamofascists' testing of Saddam.
If so, he passed the test.
Yes, Hillary did order Bill to attack Serbia.
My alternative action, if I was in charge is to kiss, and make up with Saddam! Provide him with arms, and money to take on Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Hence we don't get our hands dirty messing with Islam in this worthless area, and let him do it for us. It would have been even more effective if we even recruited for him Mubarak of Egypt, King Abdullah of Jordan, Qaddafi of Libya, and Algeria; all would have provided a semi-secular front against the fanatical Islamic front.
The USS Stark and it was an exocet French built anti-ship missle. Saddam said it was a mistake but I have my doubts
USS STARK (FFG-31)
Did I miss the part about Halliburton? :-)
Amazingly enough, you are absolutely right; just listen to some of the Buchananistas on this forum...
LOI (laugh on the inside!) Thanks and FReegards
What about Hillary Clinton's order to Madeleine Albright to bomb Kosovo? Were the Orthodox there threatening U.S. security?
Iraq is a good beachhead for the WOT and Americans would rather it be fought there than in North America. There were hundreds of reasons for taking out Saddam and many were espoused by previous administrations of both parties.
PS - True Orthodoxy values love over obedience and as your tag line offends unnecessarily, it is difficult to believe that you are anything other than a belligerent.
Ultimately, your last statement is true: God is God and can do what He wants. But, with all due respect, your conclusion that God is not good or that He lacked foresight show a lack of insight on your part.
Do you know how something can appear totally slam dunk in a certain way until you hear the other side of the story? I can think of several possible reasons that God had the Israelites kill whole towns, including men, women, children, and even the animals. Just one is that there may have been an AIDS-like or Black Plague-like infestation that would ultimately doom even the Israelites. Whatever the reason, we can trust that God made the right decision.
Regarding Jesus, God knew that we were going to sin and need a savior. He planned from before the beginning of the world how to save it. That shows how much he loves us. Why does He love us? I don't know; but I'm sure glad that He does.
The Bible says that none of us are good, no not one. If you search your heart, you will realize it. Even the nicest person in the world is sometimes petty and mean. But, the good news is that Jesus' shed blood washes away the sins of anyone who turn to Him as their Savior and Lord.
Weapons of mass destruction have been found. The press just isn't interested.
Isn't that the truth! I've read at least a dozen articles about (some) WMDs being found in Iraq from odd and end news sources (Polish military, etc.), but the information doesn't fit the MSM's agenda, so . . . no coverage. And then the MSM wrings its hands that readership is down. They have destroyed themselves by destroying their own credibility.
Then the author quotes from such paragons of accuracy as Richard Clarke and Vince Cannistraro. The
Anyone that is paying attention can point to (In addition to Perle and Wolfowitz, who have access to far greater degrees of information) Jim Fox, who was the lead FBI investigator in the 93 WTC bombing, and Jim Woolsey who actually Led the CIA during the X42 administration, as supporting her claims.
Bergen and the NAF are little more than Leftist trash, whose idea of a 'Liberal Think Tank' is less thinking and more deconstructing. (I.E. Don't make claims that something is incorrect, do the f*ng research, and give us a correct answer, obviously they can't...)