nimh wrote:Hidden somewhat in
a Washington Post report, this:
Quote:In his testimony, Powell confirmed one claim by Clarke that Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary who strongly supported U.S. military action against Iraq, suggested an attack on the government of Saddam Hussein during a meeting at Camp David just four days after the 2001 attacks.
Just four days after Osama bin Laden attacked the US on 9/11, Wolfowitz wanted to retaliate ... against Saddam Hussein.
According to Powell, Bush said no. Well ... kinda. President Bush "said first things first," Powell said. "He decided on Afghanistan."
Indeed, it is becoming clear that the Bush administrations eagreness for war with Iraq was palpable. In fact, this pugnacious eagreness is evident even without Clarkes comments.
Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and his subordinate, undersecretary Douglas Feith, had been pushing for an invasion of Iraq throughout the 1990's.
Military planners inside the Pentagon were asked to come up with scenarios for an invasion of Iraq on Sept 13th, 2001, a mere two days after the attacks.
There is also the well publicized fact that the Bush administration cut inspections short, depsite Hans Blix's assertion in Febuary 2002 that Husien had apparently decided to co-operate with weapons inspectors.
The Bush administration was already planning for
rebuilding Iraq in Janury 2002 - far before weapons inspectors had a chance to unearth evidence of WMD's, and far before any intelligent estimate of Hussiens alleged terrorism connection had been made.
To be sure, most Americans believed - for unknown reasons - that Hussien was connected to Sept 11th (70% according to one poll.) The fact that these accusations were baseless didn't seem to prevent the Bush administration from exploiting this irrational belief to their own ends.
These are just a few examples.
The overall picture the evidence seems to be drawing is that September 11th merely provided the Bush administration with a way to make an invasion of Iraq plausible and justified in the public eye.
They pushed for war stubbornly; overemphasizing information that buttressed their case, and desregarding contrary information.
Quote:Remember the German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer famously telling Rumsfeld, wait, let me quote:
Quote:
JOSCHKA FISCHER ( Translated ): We owe the Americans our democracy. They are very important for stability and peace especially. We Germans would never have been able to free ourselves from the Nazi regime without America. The Americans allowed us to build up our democracy, but in this democracy my generation has learnt... ( in English ) You have to make the case, and to make the case in a democracy, you have to be convinced yourself, and excuse me, I am not convinced. This is my problem and I cannot go to the public and say, "well, let's go to war because there are reasons and so on," and I don't believe in that.
I don't mean to nit pick, however: didn't the German Federal Intelligence Service itself believe that Hussien had a concealed nuclear program that would be able to produce working nukes withen three years?
Craven De Kere wrote:He's referencing conjecture after the war when WMDs were not found that speculated that Saddam had been tricked into thinking he had WMDs by his subordinates.
There's no evidence to support it and remains in the realm of conjecture.
In other words, lots of people think the idea of Saddam himself being fooled sounds intriguing and despite there not being any evidence to support the conclusion (it was started by a rambling speculation by a columnist that I do not remember) they propagate the story in discussions.
Heh. I see.
