[lit-ideas] Re: Hitchens' Hypothetical Iraq War
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:05:26 -0800
Andreas,
I read your article and it presents a slant I never saw before. As you may
recall I read everything I could get my hands on before the war, especially
former CIA Middle-East-region advisor Kenneth Pollack (The Threatening
Storm, The Case for Invading Iraq) and I don't recall the heavy emphasis
upon tubes that the article implies. I recall them, but I didn't recall
they were a show-stopper (or starter). There were many reasons for invading
Iraq. There were also many "experts" fleeing Iraq who reported on Saddam's
ongoing interest in WMDs. For example Khidhir Hamza was a key scientist
working on Saddam's nuclear weapons. He fled partly because he couldn't
meet Saddam's expectations as I recall. Everyone I read or heard from at
the time thought Saddam had WMDs.
I listened to a CIA expert on C-Span a while back and he objected to the
White House not having utter confidence in their reports. No, they hadn't
predicted the fall of the USSR, and no they hadn't predicted 9/11, but that
was no reason for the State Department to bypass the CIA and rely on
information from such places as Britain. He seemed to be whining.
You should start reading about the Iraqi papers being translated. For
example, in the most recent issue of The Weekly Standard is an article by
Stephen Hayes called "Camp Saddam, What we've learned about Iraq's terrorist
training camps." Marines discovered a very well built training facility.
Several thousand "Saddam Fadayeen," were trained there. "Among the documents
released last week was a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a
weave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayaeen. . . the Fedayeen
Saddam was 'to start planning from now on to perform special operations
(assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the
fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the
Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target
guidance.' The execution of the plan would take place in several steps.
After the IIS selected 50 'Fedayeen martyrs,' they were to receive training
at an IIS school. Those who passed the tests would be assigned targets.
'The first ten will work in the European field (London). The second ten
will be working in the Iranian field. The third will be working in the
self-ruled field.'"
The reporters and journalists who are reading this stuff are reading raw
data. They don't know what these Fedayeen Saddam actually did. Hayes
writes, "How many of these attacks were executed, if any? And who, exactly,
were the non-Iraqi Arabs trained in Iraq beginning in 1998? Did some of
them return to Iraq before the war? Are we fighting them still?"
New stuff is coming out every week. All of it disclosing Saddam to be more
of a rat, and far more dangerous than anyone realized. Some of the
translations show him talking about WMDs. There are hints that he was
moving stuff about. But none of this stuff was written so that we could
have all our questions immediately answered.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 10:02 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Hitchens' Hypothetical Iraq War
> It is so much easier to imagine that Bush had better information than
Saddam's generals,
> concealed it, and lied about believing Saddam had WMDs.
Imagine? You and Eric are big on imagination these days. What's the matter
with the facts?
"Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, cautioned other White
House aides in
the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely
damaged if it
was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key
rationale for going to
war had been challenged within the administration. Rove expressed his
concerns shortly after
an informal review of classified government records by then-Deputy National
Security Adviser
Stephen J. Hadley determined that Bush had been specifically advised that
claims he later
made in his 2003 State of the Union address -- that Iraq was procuring
high-strength
aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon -- might not be true, according to
government
records and interviews."
Bush knew. Bush lied.
See http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm
> After we took out Saddam the Saudis were much more cooperative with us...
The Saudis have 25% of the world's oil reserves. We need them. They don't
need us.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
