Quote:
Originally Posted by ptownrob
,,,,,,
Finally, Steve, I have no disagreement with you whatsoever about the aftermath of 9/11. I do disagree with the outright falsehoods that you state, whicih completely change the sense of your statement concerning Iraq:
Enter Iraq - known as a regional military bully, a human rights cesspool led by a butcher (and equally bad progeny) publicly and 1.)notoriously supporting all anti-Western causes with money and military support, and 2.)believed by every intelligence source due to the caliber of Iraq's scientific base and international acquisition of the requisite materials to be going nuclear. Iraq 3.)already had a stockpile of chemical weapons - also a United Nations no-no - and the recorded proof of no compunction to deploy them, having gassed Iranians and Kurds with devastating results. 4.)Iraq's public position was very pro-terrorist (especially Al Qa'ida) and its private position was one of chief logistician.
I do not, for a minute, deny that Saadam was a brutal, inhuman dictator- along with dozens of other national tyrants, with whom we seemed quite content to countenance. But that was not the justification for the war.
1.) Iraq was a major trading partner with a number of Western nations. In fact, for years, we supported Saadam in his war against Iran.
2. & 3.)The NIE for the U.S. were very ambivalent about Saadam's capabilities, the British were even more wary, and U.N. Weapons inspectors testified that Saadam had destroyed or lost virtually all capabilities since the 1991 war. It was George W. Bush who DELIBERATELY mislead the world concerning Iraq's attempt to get "yellowcake" for nuclear programs.
4.) Saadam was violently oppposed to Al Queda, and the Bush (Cheney-Rumsfeld) smokescreen connecting him with 9/11 was repeatedly shown to be a total fabrication. Saadam feared radical Islam for the same reasons we do- He ran a secular (Muslim) state. He did not want radical Islamists anywhere near Iraq, and was willing to go to war to prevent it.
Your argument about Saadam being allied with Al Queda has been debunked as false propaganda as thoroughly as that of the moon being made of Swiss cheese- not that I have anything against Swiss cheese.
|
I don't know who the "debunkers" are whom you believe. Methinks they have an agenda, and it is usually the same - America is the villain no matter what happens.
Saadam's regime was playing all sides. Iraqi support to Al Qa'ida was logical under the circumstances - if Al-Qa-ida targeted everyone else (being non-MidEast nations), then Iraq (and others - an an example, the financial book is not closed on Saudi involvement) would be the A-Q quartermaster. The quid pro quo was A-Q not interfering with Saadam's stranglehold. The "war makes strange bedfellows" is true. Stalin-Churchill-Roosevelt epitomized that. The Iran-Iraq feud has been going on for many a century, and was and still is Sunni v. Shia, and has nothing to do with fundamentalism.
And if the Bush administration AND Congress jointly made decisions based on intelligence information not as accurate as desired, blame the Clinton administration. It was Pres. Clinton that gutted the intelligence community budget, closing out collection and monitoring programs that took many years to develop and which kept the evil-doers in check offshore. The more incomplete the intelligence information, the greater the decision risk.
You can choose to disbelieve , but it was what it was,,,
Pres. Obama will be in a better position regarding decisions concerning homeland security, as he is inheriting an intelligence collection and analysis capacity in much better operational shape than his predecessor. It's still not as good as it was prior to 1992, but should continue to improve unless the new administration wants to work in the blind a la the previous Democratic administration. It is what it is....