Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They had a lot of intell that nixed the idea of WMDs, they just chose to ignore it.
And they had a lot of intel that backed the idea of WMDs, and had they decided there were no WMDs then they would have been ignoring THAT data.
ANYONE with ANY knowledge of history knows that intel is RARELY clear-cut. That's why they have the term "fog of war". That's why we were caught flat-footed at Pearl Harbor & why BOTH BUSH AND CLINTON thought Saddam had WMDs.
Again I'm STILL waiting for someone currrently claiming that Bush KNEW there were no WMDs to explain WHY Clinton thought there were if it was so obvious there were NONE. ANY criticism of Bush for thinking there were WMDs is equally valid to for criticising Clinton, Gore etc for thinking the very same thing.
And they had a lot of intel that backed the idea of WMDs, and had they decided there were no WMDs then they would have been ignoring THAT data.
ANYONE with ANY knowledge of history knows that intel is RARELY clear-cut. That's why they have the term "fog of war". That's why we were caught flat-footed at Pearl Harbor & why BOTH BUSH AND CLINTON thought Saddam had WMDs.
Again I'm STILL waiting for someone currrently claiming that Bush KNEW there were no WMDs to explain WHY Clinton thought there were if it was so obvious there were NONE. ANY criticism of Bush for thinking there were WMDs is equally valid to for criticising Clinton, Gore etc for thinking the very same thing.
Ken
Absolutely fair and correct. The people in the Pentagon and around various think tanks and policy groups out stay mere Presidents and those ideologically driven to get the United States into the Middle East in the biggest way possible were forming as far back as Reagan's last term.
People like Richard Perle and Wolfowitz who came up through the ranks from a variety of policy centers like the AEI and PNAC, etc... along with Max Boot, and others began to really push this notion of American hegemony since the day the former Soviet Union collapsed.
The PNAC for instance had a paper written that was widely cited among hawkish Neoconservative types as far back as 1999 (I believe its original draft was 98) That all that was needed was a Pearl Harbor type scenario to occur and it would open up the opportunity to progress American dominance throughout the Middle East.
Now despite the fall of the Soviet Union, the Neoconservatives and pro-interventionist/pro-war hawks weren't talking about the "Peace Dividend" that Ronald Reagan spoke of, since we would no longer be required to spend massive amounts on defense spending (offense spending) These people were advocating a total rebuilding of our defense (OFFENSE) and increasing offense spending because their goals were to use the military to dominate areas of the globe that no longer had a Soviet presence.
They did not hide this fact, and were rather proud of it, many still are. Notice from that link that during the Clinton administration, they were extremely busy pushing the same ideas that they eventually pushed on G.W. Bush and to some extent, Clinton did use a Tomahawk here and another there, and everyone said it was a ploy to distract the public from his personal problems. Truth is, it wasn't, even if it had that effect, because it was the beginning of the era of massive US intervention into the Middle East and a massive effort of nation building.
So was Bush wrong, damn right, and was Clinton wrong, damn right. Why, because they relied on a group of ideological mad men bent on global domination. Yes, that is right... GLOBAL domination and here it is in their very own words, not mine, theirs.
The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength
Look who signed on with this group of "think tank drunks". All the usual suspects, Cheney, Wolfowtiz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Kristol, Jeb Bush, etc.... etc...
The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War -Wiki
What is worse, might I add, is that this ideological mindset of crazy mad men still exists and thrives to this very day among those in the Obama administration. The next President will likely face the same type of people pulling at their coat tails saying... we must go here and we must intervene there and bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.
"Onward Christian soldiers making off to WAR". The NAC is nothing more than a Crusade for profit.
By combineing oil with ideology they created the Hell we are still paying for.
Thanks, TnHT
You know Greg, I have spent countless hours reading the material from these folks and to be honest, not all of them were in it for cash and prizes. Some are truly ideologues that believe in US total hegemony if for no other reason than to say, we are of a superior society, of superior people and we are exceptional like no others before us. They point to our current world status as evidence of this and in some rather odd ways, they are right. Where they are wrong in my opinion is that they view exceptionalism as a right, in that we have the right to do unto others, that which they do not have the right to do unto us. Their view of exceptionalism is supremacist and this type of self view has led to the downfall of every single empire before us and will likely be the cause of ours.
Gotta love that the "Similar Threads" lists threads like "WMDs found in Iraq". I guess that the posters in that thread have pressing business elsewhere.
Those guys from the Bush regime need to be held accountable for these never ending phony wars and the completely unnecessary loss of human life. This is another warning sign that the collapse and fall of the United States is under way.
Interesting comments by Robert Gates. do you think he was referring to Rumsfeld?
"The strategic rationale for swift-moving expeditionary forces, be they Army or Marines, airborne infantry or special operations, is self-evident given the likelihood of counterterrorism, rapid reaction, disaster response, or stability or security force assistance missions. But in my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should “have his head examined,” as General MacArthur so delicately put it."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Robert Gates at West Point
