Posted on 02/18/2004 6:45:27 PM PST by Happy2BMe
Feb. 18, 2004. 01:00 AM | |||||
Adviser wants U.S. intelligence chiefs to quit Cites faulty conclusions on Saddam's weapons ERIC ROSENBERG Perle, a close adviser to U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said top officials made no attempt to skew the intelligence about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Instead, he implied, top policymakers relied in good faith on the conclusions of the intelligence agencies. "George Tenet has been at the CIA long enough to assume responsibility for its performance," Perle told reporters, referring to the director of the agency. "There's a record of failure and it should be addressed in some serious way." "The CIA has an almost perfect record of getting it wrong in relation to the (Persian) Gulf going back to the Shah of Iran," Perle said. He called for "a shakeup" in the U.S. intelligence establishment. "I think, of course, heads should roll," he said. "When you discover that you have an organization that doesn't get it right time after time, you change the organization, including the people. "I'd start with the head head," Perle said when asked which heads should roll at the CIA. Perle said the DIA " is in at least as bad shape as CIA (and) needs new management." Navy Vice-Adm. Lowell Jacoby has headed the agency since July, 2002. U.S. President George W. Bush, Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell have said they relied on intelligence from the CIA and DIA in their assertions that Saddam had stockpiles of mass-casualty weapons. The claim was the main rationale for the U.S-led invasion. David Kay, former head of the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq, has concluded it was highly unlikely that Saddam possessed stockpiles of such weapons. "It turns out we were all wrong, probably, in my judgment, and that is most disturbing," Kay said last month. While Kay dismissed the prospect that stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction would ever be found in Iraq, Perle disputed him on two relatively minor claims: that Iraq wasn't seeking to enrich uranium or develop mobile weapons laboratories to manufacture chemical or biological weapons. "The jury is still out" on those points, Perle said. Perle, the former chairman of and current member of the Defence Policy Board, a senior level advisory panel to Rumsfeld, was an advocate for overthrowing Saddam, asserting in the months leading up to the war that the Iraqi dictator's weapons stockpiles posed a grave threat to the United States. In the lead-up to the war, Perle regularly warned about Saddam's reputed arsenal and the danger that would follow if the United Nations failed to get the Iraqi dictator to disarm. Tenet was first appointed by president Bill Clinton and confirmed by the Senate in 1997 and then moved over to the Bush administration after the 2000 election. His agency has been criticized for the Iraqi weapons episode and for failing to detect the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist strikes. |
Perhaps it is your head that should do the rolling? HMMMMMMMMMM???????
So you actually think that Saddam destroyed his whole stockpile of WMDs? (And incidentally, the existence of these weapons in Iraq prior to '98 is beyond dispute). Assuming you're correct and one of the most brutal dictators in modern history would willingly destroy the most potent weapons in his arsenal, why then didn't he simply allow the weapons' inspectors to confirm it? It would've saved him a lot of trouble -- he might still be enjoying tossing perceived enemies into industrial shredders to this day.
How do you know this is what happened?
Could I ask you a question?
How many Gulf Wars have there been? (re your Gulf War I)
So, you're saying striking 75 targets in Florida wouldn't be an act of war itself- it is merely something that would lead to war?
Interesting.
Let me try it this way: by going to war you want to impose your will on another government... If now a limited military action has mainly the point of adding emphasis to your demands, to demonstrate to your opponent what could be in store for him if he still refuses to comply it's still part of "diplomacy"... not yet war...
Makes senses?
Yeah, I think I understand what you're saying. As long as France doesn't mean to break our will, they could bomb Florida pretty much indiscriminately. As long as there is no political objective they were after, the actual physical act of destruction and killing our citizens wouldn't be war.
Do you think other Americans would agree with you there? It's certainly a new viewpoint for me. I think if the same situation were to happen here- France were to bomb Wales or Scotland- the Brits would view that as war. Maybe it's just a cultural thing.
What about checking the fertile imagination of Mr. Perle?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.