Comments on: What Went Wrong in Iraq – The Definitive Account, Part 3

By: InTheMiddle12

InTheMiddle12 — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 23:36:32 +0000

dragonlady: The US, for the first time in its history invaded a soverign nation that did not attack it. This departure from historic, and I might add, conservative, foreign policy was a choice by the Bush administration. Let’s be honest, W used the sanctions and the UN to fulfill a policy that his own Secretary of Treasury reported was the prime foreign policy aim set forth at the first Cabinet meet, January 2001. Please read Secretaray O’Neil’s book. W planned to ‘do Iraq as Rummie and Cheney planned, from the beginning. THe NeoCons had planned, since 1991, this ‘grand realignment’ of the middle east, based on exactly what they did in Iraq. It was a huge power play with the fall of the Soviet Union, believing the US the ultimate world power. A sin, let’s call it pride, that befalls all great nations who become too puffed up by their own egos.

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:49:34 +0000

IntheMiddle12, the WMD intel was not prepacked–the media parsed and deconstructed nuanced statements from declassified intel documents and took them out of context to pursue the “intel was politicized” angle. The Silberman-Robb commission found widespread failures among the intel community on its WMD analysis. Yes, mistakes were made in war planning, but people want to ignore the geopolitical ramifications of a regime who defied dozens of UN sanctions, supported terrorism, and possessed the infrastructure to produce WMD in a region where Islamic terrorism emanates. The sanctions regime was crumbling around Saddam–we could not contain him indefinitely.

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:39:44 +0000

JJ, seeing as how you refuse to read or acknowledge any facts other than what bolsters your own viewpoint, my guess is that you’ll ignore that all the world’s intel agencies to include the UK thought Saddam had WMDs, George Tenet told the Pres “it’s a slam dunk!” IRT the intel, and Congress and Pres Clinton also believed he had WMDs.

By: InTheMiddle12

InTheMiddle12 — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:53:45 +0000

Chekote: President Bush 41 chose, and rightly so, not to go all the way to Baghdad because he and his administration knew that it would be a quagmire and mistake. The intelligence failure is not true. The intelligence was cooked for a policy that had been pre-determined. The British knew it, everyone knew it but closed their eyes to it. The inspectors begged for more time but W wouldn’t allow it.

By: JJWFromME

JJWFromME — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:16:36 +0000

“…But let’s not lose sight of the big mistakes: bad intelligence on the WMDs…” Actually, the intelligence was good. It was just ignored. The truth was not what people in the administration was interested in, and was not pursued: http://policingwingnutwelfare.blogspot.com/2009/01/lots-of-evidence-no-wmd-and.html
And I don’t take “the Left” personally, I just think calling people a name, instead of engaging the merits of their arguments, is usually sloppy thinking.

By: Chekote

Chekote — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:58:02 +0000

InTheMiddle. Saddam had violated the cease fire agreement after the first Iraq War several times and thus there was plenty of legal justification for going in. We should have finished the job when we had Saddam on the run in 1991. Instead we waited 10 + years, during which Iraq’s infrastructure was left to rot as sanctions were enacted. So we can sit here and talk about the post-war mistakes which is useful. But let’s not lose sight of the big mistakes: bad intelligence on the WMDs and failure to finish the job in 1991.

By: Chekote

Chekote — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:52:57 +0000

JJW. Left is just a short hand term. Don’t take it too personally.

By: JJWFromME

JJWFromME — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:56:37 +0000

Saying “the Left” can also be a way of pigeonholing arguments that have obvious merit, without actually taking them on in substance–as Yuval Levin did in the essay I linked to. By the way, the author that Levin criticized in his piece wrote a reply: http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/05/there-is-a-war-on-science/

By: InTheMiddle12

InTheMiddle12 — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:12:50 +0000

Churl: There’s a problem with your argument. To compare the Iraq invasion, an invasion of a soverign nation that had not attacked America, with Nazi Germany, a nation that declared war on the US does not equate. The defeat of the Nazis was met with world support and ultimately world investment in Germany and Japan. The Iraq war had none of that and was a blunder that caused the USA its standing int he world, untold treasure, of human and financial means. Of course I hope everything comes out well but to compare the two is a false comparison.

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:01:33 +0000

JJ, political labels depend on context. There’s a difference between trying to smear someone and accurately stating where their viewpoint comes from on the political spectrum. Because goodness knows the left never labelled elements of the Right by disparaging them as “neocons” or calling certain elements of the former admin “chickenhawks.”