Did One Woman's Obsession Take America to War?

Guardian (UK) ^ | July 5, 2004 | Peter Bergen

[rimtop56]

Americans supported the war in Iraq not because Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator - they knew that - but because President Bush made the case that Saddam might hand weapons of mass destruction to his terrorist allies to wreak havoc on the United States. In the absence of any evidence for that theory, it's fair to ask: where did the administration's conviction come from? It was at the American Enterprise Institute - a conservative Washington DC thinktank - that the idea took shape that overthrowing Saddam should be a goal. Among those associated with AEI is Richard Perle, a key architect of the president's get-tough-on-Iraq policy, and Paul Wolfowitz, now the number-two official at the Pentagon. But none of the thinkers at AEI was in any real way an expert on Iraq. For that they relied on someone you probably have never heard of: a woman named Laurie Mylroie.

[gcruse]

Well, either Jesus blew it or Bush doesn't get his decisions from God. Which is it?

[leadpenny]

Bergen didn't bring up gender issues. Why did you?

[CyberAnt]

You're too ignorant to discuss this .. obviously you cannot read! Our conversation is over.

[gcruse]

Oh, dear.

[rimtop56]

Because I believe they play into why the FBI, CIA and others reject her arguments.

[Dolphy]

Her being wrong diverted the war from chasing Bin Laden to chasing resurgents in Fallujah.

I don't concede anything but the possibility of her being wrong, which is much lower than the possibility that Bergen is wrong. If this is all he's got, he doesn't have much.

[AlbionGirl]

Well put, and nice tagline.

[John W]

"Her being wrong diverted the war from chasing Bin Laden to chasing resurgents in Fallujah."

I am also tired of this bs,as someone has already said.

I'll go a bit further,though.There has been so much of this type of comment,rationalization,preaching,begging,pi$$ing,moaning--all essentially in support of Saddam Hussein and the Bathist former government of Iraq.
We may have to wait for the writers of history many years from now to uncover the reason for Saddam's widespread support in the world.Perhaps we should begin with the utter lack of money going to Palestinian terrorist murderers since Iraq was defeatd?

[nutmeg]

read later bump

[Skywalk]

If Jesus died to save me from eternal damnation, why was God lacking the foresight to know that he'd have to create a mortal incarnation of his being because humans were so "wicked."

Point of fact, many of us are, in fact, good people. And few of us advocated wholesale extermination or the collective punishment of the Old Testament. THus, we are better people than the God of the Old Testament.

Unless, of course, you appeal to power and say "God is God, He can do what He wants."

[CyberAnt]

Well .. since you know more than GOD .. why don't you take it up with HIM.

[Skywalk]

I don't know more than God or anyone else. But even according to believers own definitions of "good" and "all-knowing" it appears that the God they praise does not meet their standards. OR that the standards continually shift to meet that believer or group of believers' needs.

[Valin]

Well you know what a wimp George is?
/worldclass sarcasm

[HIDEK6]

Saddam had lots of reasons to strike us, and terrorists groups gave him a plausibly deniable way to do it. We had to do something about Iraq instead of allowing the infection to spread, possibly in a deadly vector at the heart of America.

You make a good part about plausible deniability.

Do you remember, sometime the 80s, an Iraqui stinger missile struck one of our warships (can't recall her name).

At that time, Saddam said it was a mistake. As I recall everyone said, "Whew. That's a relief. After all, Saddam is our friend."

Maybe that episode was the Islamofascists' testing of Saddam.

If so, he passed the test.

[bmwcyle]

Yes, Hillary did order Bill to attack Serbia.

[philosofy123]

It is obvious that the US hated Saddam, and he hated us. There should never be doubt on this given statement. The following statement; that Saddam may have WMDs - that is another fact that most people around the world do not dispute. Then, it was apparent he had the means, and the motive!!! Conclusion: let us not wait until the SOB hands some bad stuff to the fanatic Islamists. That is the essence of the story. Yes we did not find WMDs, yes Iraq is worst off today than under Saddam, yes we lost 200 billion dollars and 800 brave soldiers, yes we are in quagmire in a hell hole infested with fanatic Islamists,...BUT, at least we eliminate the worry that he may have handed the nutcases some bad stuff that could have caused us more trouble.

My alternative action, if I was in charge is to kiss, and make up with Saddam! Provide him with arms, and money to take on Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Hence we don't get our hands dirty messing with Islam in this worthless area, and let him do it for us. It would have been even more effective if we even recruited for him Mubarak of Egypt, King Abdullah of Jordan, Qaddafi of Libya, and Algeria; all would have provided a semi-secular front against the fanatical Islamic front.

[Valin]

The USS Stark and it was an exocet French built anti-ship missle. Saddam said it was a mistake but I have my doubts

FYI
USS STARK (FFG-31)
http://www.geocities.com/usshipstark/index_all.htm

[Valin]

Did I miss the part about Halliburton? :-)

[Poohbah]

Anyone who thinks Saddam was not an important target in the WOT, also thinks it was a mistake for the US to declare war on Nazi Germany.

Amazingly enough, you are absolutely right; just listen to some of the Buchananistas on this forum...

[185JHP]

LOI (laugh on the inside!) Thanks and FReegards