Skip to comments.Bush Officials OK with Guy Who Sold U.S. on WMDs as Iraq’s Next PM
Posted on 07/08/2014 8:45:19 AM PDT by PoloSec
Save for the omnipresent Dick Cheney, the gaggle of Bush administration officials who emerged two weeks ago to lament the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq have largely disappeared from the public debate.
But that doesnt mean theyre gone. Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Bush advisor Richard Perle both expressed openness in the past days to Ahmad Chalabi as a replacement for embattled Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Chalabi is a notorious figure from the early days of the Iraq War, as he supplied the United States with a great deal of falsified intelligence upon which the Bush administration made the argument that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Chalabi was later revealed to have been spying on the U.S. for the Iranians.
Water under the bombed-out bridge, thinks Perle. Chalabi is far and away the most competent and the most capable of salvaging this situation, said Perle, who has been a Chalabi booster since the 90s. I think hes got the best chance. It would be foolish if we expressed a preference for somebody less competent, which weve done before.
Perle went on to argue that Chalabi was an Iraqi nationalist, which made him a more attractive governor than al-Maliki, who by all accounts has led a sectarian administration.
Its time for a little humility from U.S. officials, Perle said. We should not be picking Iraqi officials for the Iraqi people. Its time to let them do that themselves.
Non-architect of the Iraq War Wolfowitz was more restrained. Chalabi is not an angel; no one in that system is an angel, he said. You have to be careful who you work with, but I think you need to try to work with everybody.
Wolfowitz cautioned that he hadnt supported Chalabi for PM the first time around, and in fact thought the U.S. should not have had a role in choosing Iraqs leadership. But he added that the country was in desperate need of a unifying force, and if Chalabi could supply that, then he should be given a shot.
For the record, Chalabi is close enough to Perle and Wolfowitz that both appear above the fold on his Wikipedia page.
They lamented the early withdrawal of US troop from Iraq. Obama virtually just walked away from Iraq and then to top it off help train and arm some of the Syrian rebels. We are now seeing the fruits of his supidity.
That’s because Saddam HAD weapons-of-mass-destruction, you snarky twit!
Evan should stick to writing bs about how great the Gay life is and how wonderful Obozo Care is.
Sorry pacifists and isolationists, the issue of Iraqi WMD’s is not yet closed. Saddam used poison gas twice before he was deposed — first against the Iranians, and then against the Kurds — so there was reason to believe that he still had it while we were deciding whether to depose him once and for all. And there were statements from former regime officials that, immediately before the second Gulf war, Saddam moved the evidence to Syria. And photos of convoys. Which would explain where the current Syrian government got its poison gas.
Typical that crooks like Wolfowitz and Perle should be sticking with a con man like Chalabi.
If we destroyed thousands of lives, blew a trillion dollars, and jihadized the entire ME just because Saddam had some aging sarin artillery shells, we are far too stupid to be doing politics with the big boys.
Only a liberal ass hat believes Iraq did not have and was not pursuing WMDs in 2003. And someone inform this fool that Bush invaded primarily because of Iraq's continued violation of UN sanctions, security resolutions and inspection requirements. The WMDs were a supporting element of this.
I remember the videos of the caravans of weapons on trailers going into Syria just before the March 2003 bombings.
“If we destroyed thousands of lives....
What of the 10s-of-thousands of lives of Marsh Arabs destroyed by Saddam?
Do they do not register any consideration by your MSM-sourced morals?
I trust you’re happy with the results of removing Saddam and transforming Iraq into an American suburb.
I trust youre happy with the results of removing Saddam and transforming Iraq into an American suburb.
Saddam in effect removed himself by starting the first Gulf war and trying to re-establish his power after Bush Sr. stupidly refused to finish the job by deposing him. Saddam though that Bush’s weakness was a gift from Allah. The weapons issue was only a part of the reasons for his eventually removal.
>> I trust youre happy with the results of removing Saddam
I suppose you’re happy with the Obama Admin’s policies that affected those results? Of course not.
The American Left squandered the sacrifices and investments made in Iraq — a failure that must not give to the notion that removal of Saddam was wrong.
You know what? I know we all despise Obama, but it isn’t always about Obama. Iraq was never gonna be a good outcome.
Can anyone know what?
My opinion of the Iraq action hasn’t changed since it began — every pronouncement about Iraq was secondary to the primary action of consequence.
>> it isnt always about Obama
That point of view implies disapproval of Obama is of greater importance to the sacrifices made by the Troops and the funding provided by the taxpayers. Well, the concern isn’t strictly about Obama, and it’s certainly not to the exclusion of reckless Leftism.
Anyone that expected a stable, self-sustaining Iraq within a handful of years engaged in delusion. Iraq was prematurely cut-off from a unique opportunity, and arguably cut-off with malicious intent.
...because he USED chemical weapons against the Iranian army and agains Kurdish civilians.
But Bushies are OK with the guy who sold us on the idea that the (mythological) Iraqi National Congress would step right in and fill the power vacuum created by toppling Saddam Hussein?!? Gads, they are naive!