[lit-ideas] Re: '08 Democrats

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:08:38 -0800

I'm not quite saying that.  But if we hadn't eviscerated our CIA we might
not have listed WMDs as one of our chief reasons for invading Iraq.  Iraq
under Saddam was with or without WMDs the most disruptive militant force in
the region.  Since he was in violation of the UN resolutions, something
needed to be done about him sooner or later.  He was regularly shooting at
our planes that were over-flying Iraq to keep him from slaughtering the
Kurds.  Huge numbers of children were apparently being starved because the
oil for food money was being diverted to Saddam's personal use.  We knew
that and thought the money was going into his weapons programs, but it may
have been going into his palaces.  We know that Saudi Arabia was more afraid
of Saddam than they were of us and we at the time were panicked over the
possibility that Al Quaeda might be acquiring suitcase nukes.  We needed the
Saudi cooperation and weren't getting it because they were afraid of
offending Saddam.  This bit about the suitcase nukes is per George Friedman,
America's Secret War.  There were several reasons being offered for invading
Iraq, not just WMDs.  Whether the other reasons would have been enough to
cause the Bush administration to want to invade Iraq that time, I don't
know, but I wouldn't completely rule it out.  I think they were going to
take out one part of the axis of evil.  Maybe they should have chosen Iran.




-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Judith Evans
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:59 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: '08 Democrats


I think Lawrence means that if the CIA hadn't been cut the War on

Iraq wouldn't have taken place.


Judy Evans, Cardiff


Other related posts: