Iraq and the Gulf of Tonkin

Washington Times ^ | Tuesday, February 10, 2004 | Arnaud de Borchgrave

[JohnHuang2]

The dust is not about to settle over the intelligence failure in Iraq. But it has already blurred our vision about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

There is still time to remind ourselves WMDs were not the principal reason for going to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq; they were the pretext. And that's why irrefutable evidence was not the standard. Axis of evil regime change was the lodestar.

[JohnHuang2]

Tuesday, February 10, 2004

Quote of the Day by Milligan

[driftless]

De Borchgrave thinks he has "proof" that the war was an ill-conceived misadventure just like Kerry and his ilk are now exclaiming. He has no proof that Hussein was about to lose control of Iraq, and even if he died early, control would only be passed to his equally murderous sons. "There were no weapons" supposition is likewise preposterous where even Kay declared that Iraq was more dangerous than previously thought. Kay asserted Hussein was planning on reinstituting his WMD programs. But the biggest howler is the one where De Borchgrave says those dreaded neocons expected the Mideast to turn into one big Israeli democratic lovefest. Where is the proof for that ridiculous statement Arnaud? I've yet to read one quote from anyone connected with the mission who said that anything would be certain. I did read quotes from those people saying that it would be a hard task to accomplish. Apparently De Borchgrave dreamed a lot of these statements up. He risks turning into a crackpot with this screed.

[iopscusa]

What a De Blowhard the writer is....so if he is such a smarty-pants, where are those WND's? That is the question, I have no doubt that these weapons exist & will show up, and these smarmy-pants writers will be singing another tune.

[JCB]

I believe there was an attack at Tonkin - the Maddox has the bullet holes to prove it. The question is whether it was attacked a second time, which it was not.

[Robe]

the Maddox has the bullet holes to prove it

Not only that, in an Hanoi Park ( I think they call it freedom Park ,Peace Park, or the Yankee War Pirate Park , something like that)they have on display one of the PT boats(or part of it)that took part in the attack !!!!

[DoctorMichael]

I have read De Bourchgrave in the past for the knowledgeable insights he provides in his work. Given the length of this man's career, he has cultivated a huge number of contacts across the world both in governmental and in civilian leadership positions in numerous countries. This has lent an invaluable 'man-on-the-street' flavor to his reporting. However, I have seen an anti-Zionist/Buchanonite (?) color bleeding into his reporting over the last couple of years.

[rmccullo]

More on the Tonkin Gulf Incident:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/dd731-k.htm

[OXENinFLA]

Great Link!

[driftless]

I've got nothing against anyone opposing whatever policy decision that any admininistration makes, but it must do so honestly. The people in the Bush admin who engineered the war never said it would be easy. In fact they said the opposite. Why de Borchgrave would lie about that and make up other dishonest statements is beyond me because I have respected much of his past work. Now you can advance an argument that we should have continued the past containment policy towards Hussein. That's not my position (even when I was a Dem twelve years ago after the first gulf war, I knew Hussein would be a menace to us and the Mideast unless he was deposed. Even the Clinton admin figured that one out). But I can respect an honest difference of opinion .

But one should recognize our obvious achievements in Iraq instead of trying to justify one's mostly erroneous past position. I thought Clinton's campaign against Milosovic would fail miserably, but it succeeded. It turned out no one in Yugoslavia was sorry to see him go. I was wrong, and I hope people like de Borchgrave can admit it when they're wrong, but I doubt they or he will. He has too much pride and appears to be too bulllheaded and egotistical.

[churchillbuff]

"So the leitmotif for Operation Iraqi Freedom was not WMDs, but the freedom of Iraq in the larger context of long-range security for Israel. Mr. Bush is right to change the rationale for war to isn't-the-world-a-better-place-without-Saddam? Of course it is. Was Iraq ever a threat to the U.S. homeland? Of course it wasn't. But hasn't the U.S. occupation of Iraq provided a force multiplier for al Qaeda? Of course it has. And the world is not a more peaceful place than it was before the occupation of Iraq. "

[churchillbuff]

"Iraq's nonexistent WMDs were never a threat to anyone. But they have already struck a devastating blow to the credibility of the Bush White House. The Doctrine of pre-emption becomes inoperable without unimpeachable intelligence accepted by all as the coin of the realm. "

[sinkspur]

And the world is not a more peaceful place than it was before the occupation of Iraq. "

deBorgrave is showing signs of senility.

Let's see. Libya folded.

Iran is undergoing inner turmoil.

North Korea is begging for a sit down.

Pakistan is attempting to get its nuclear vagrants under control.

A letter surfaced, just this week, indicating that alQaeda is having difficulty recruiting, and that it is, basically, losing the war on terror.

What is deBorgrave smokin'?

[driftless]

A multiplier force for Al-Qaeda?? Show your evidence for that statement. But your argument is faulty in the regard you have for American security. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that we should not respond to 9/11 because we might create more Al-Qaeda recruits? If Iraq was a threat to us, we have to answer that threat. To say that we cannot or should not respond to a specific danger because more enemies might be created is troubling. That's like if when we responded to Japan's attack in 1941, and Germany had not declared war on us the next day, we should not respond to the attack because Japan's ally Germany might declare war on us. Well Germany did declare war on us without our first attacking Germany. And we licked both of them. If we are attacked, we must respond in force whether we create more terrorists or not. You don't give in to terrorism.