Richard Perle

[RationalThought110]

Now that he's no longer working for the government, he states the truth:

"But the greatest intelligence failure of the past two decades was the CIA's failure to understand and sound an alarm at the rise of jihadist fundamentalism. It is Wahhabi extremism and the call to holy war against infidels that gave us the perpetrators of Sept. 11 and much of the terrorism that has followed." 

[RationalThought110]

Richard Perle was wrong about Iraq. Dead wrong. I don't care how much he tries to backtrack now. If he believed this in 2003, he wouldn't have pushed for that invasion.

Why were he and Wolfowitz obsessed with Iraq?  In 1998, they co-authored with some other people, a paper regime change in Iraq.  Did they influence Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq in 1998 or was it the "wagging the dog?"

I suspect the reason Bill told Hillary to vote for the war because if Bill was against it, people would then wonder why he ordered an attack on Iraq in 1998. 

[RationalThought110]

Richard Perle was wrong about Iraq. Dead wrong. I don't care how much he tries to backtrack now. If he believed this in 2003, he wouldn't have pushed for that invasion.

The freepers (Free Republic) have translations of documents of Arabic into English. 
They insist Saddam had ties to terrorism, he still had weapons and that he wanted to restart a nuclear program.  Are they making up lies? 


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=prewardocs

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1825605/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1822592/posts

[MassuhDGoodName]

Re:  "...(Free Republic) have translations of documents of Arabic into English. 
They insist Saddam had ties to terrorism, he still had weapons and that he wanted to restart a nuclear program.  Are they making up lies?..."

It is well known that Saddam had ties to terrorism and maintained some weaponry. 

Let's assume that he also desired a nuclear program.

None of that obfuscates the hard cold fact that it was always IRAN which at that time in question, as well as now in our present time, was a deadly threat to U.S. security.

It is obvious that the Bush Administration chose to "give a free pass" to the world's worst terrorist criminal regimes, while invading Iraq to destroy weapons which did not exist.

Now, at the time of this writing in May 2007, a regime as evil as Saddam's has been installed as a puppet government of the U.S. ... Maliki is a known terrorist "double agent", not to mention a tool of Iran.  One of the first agreements decided upon in the "new Iraqi Constitution" was that citizenship could be claimed by all returning Iraqis except for Jews.

Meanwhile, Condi arms the PLO & Hamas, funds both of them with billions of U.S. dollars, demands Israel cease self-defense & negotiate her own suicide with Nazi Muslims.

Saudi Arabia?....free pass + the U.S. will now triple the size of her high tech weaponry.

Pakistan?...free pass + more money & more U.S. arms...all in spite of the fact that the scientist who developed nuclear bombs for N. Korea, Egypt, Libya, Iran, & others, is unprosecuted and "living the life of Reilly" under government protection.

Documents are worthless unless objectively analyzed so that correct and proper judgements precede one's actions.

[MassuhDGoodName]

Re:  "...Now that he's no longer working for the government, he states the truth:  "

It was only because of his treachery and lies that he was a success as a government careerist.

A liar is a liar.

Regardless of their employer.

[Trumpeldor]

Actually, the neoconservatives were obsessed with Iraq since George H.W. Bush failed to "finish the job" in the Gulf War. They were bitterly disappointed. The key neocons in the State Department and the Pentagon used 9/11 as an excuse to politicize intelligence and carry out their wet dream of regime change in Iraq, which supposedly would trigger democratization all over the Middle East. They told us that Muslims would love Democracy. Then they made up lies about WMD to fear-monger and sell their story.

Saddam was no more of a terrorist dictator than anybody else. Why we invaded and occupied his country instead of bombing Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria to smithereens is beyond me.

[RationalThought110]

Re:  "...(Free Republic) have translations of documents of Arabic into English. 
They insist Saddam had ties to terrorism, he still had weapons and that he wanted to restart a nuclear program.  Are they making up lies?..."

It is well known that Saddam had ties to terrorism and maintained some weaponry. 

Let's assume that he also desired a nuclear program.

None of that obfuscates the hard cold fact that it was always IRAN which at that time in question, as well as now in our present time, was a deadly threat to U.S. security.

It is obvious that the Bush Administration chose to "give a free pass" to the world's worst terrorist criminal regimes, while invading Iraq to destroy weapons which did not exist.

Now, at the time of this writing in May 2007, a regime as evil as Saddam's has been installed as a puppet government of the U.S. ... Maliki is a known terrorist "double agent", not to mention a tool of Iran.  One of the first agreements decided upon in the "new Iraqi Constitution" was that citizenship could be claimed by all returning Iraqis except for Jews.

Meanwhile, Condi arms the PLO & Hamas, funds both of them with billions of U.S. dollars, demands Israel cease self-defense & negotiate her own suicide with Nazi Muslims.

Saudi Arabia?....free pass + the U.S. will now triple the size of her high tech weaponry.

Pakistan?...free pass + more money & more U.S. arms...all in spite of the fact that the scientist who developed nuclear bombs for N. Korea, Egypt, Libya, Iran, & others, is unprosecuted and "living the life of Reilly" under government protection.

Documents are worthless unless objectively analyzed so that correct and proper judgements precede one's actions.

I'm very impressed with your analysis. 

[RationalThought110]

Actually, the neoconservatives were obsessed with Iraq since George H.W. Bush failed to "finish the job" in the Gulf War. They were bitterly disappointed. The key neocons in the State Department and the Pentagon used 9/11 as an excuse to politicize intelligence and carry out their wet dream of regime change in Iraq, which supposedly would trigger democratization all over the Middle East. They told us that Muslims would love Democracy. Then they made up lies about WMD to fear-monger and sell their story.

Saddam was no more of a terrorist dictator than anybody else. Why we invaded and occupied his country instead of bombing Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria to smithereens is beyond me.

Should Saddam have been overthrown during the Gulf War?

The Iraq War wasn't mandated by CFR? 


Saddam was a terrorist dictator inside his country--going after those who he perceived might try to overthrow him. 


When the Gulf War started, it was the US' fault that he sent missiles to Israel.  How bad was the attack against Israel? 

Did he do any other terrorism outside of Iraq? 

[RationalThought110]

[quote author=Trumpeldor

How was it US' fault? Israel didn't respond because it would have fractured the US coalition that made the war possible. Israelis were scared, but Saddam at least did not use chemical weapons.

He sponsored suicide bombers in Israel. Not sure about other terrorism.
[/quote]


I know that Congress authorized the war.  However, doesn't CFR control most of the politicians? 

I said it was the US' fault because wasn't it not until after the coalition interfered in his potential war with Saudia Arabia, that he had missiles sent to Israel? 

Did he sponsor the suicide bombers before and/or after the Gulf War? 

[RationalThought110]

[quote author=Trumpeldor link

How was it US' fault? Israel didn't respond because it would have fractured the US coalition that made the war possible. Israelis were scared, but Saddam at least did not use chemical weapons.

He sponsored suicide bombers in Israel. Not sure about other terrorism.
[/quote]

It's acceptable for Saddam's regime to have sponsored suicide bombers but not acceptable for Iran to do so?  I say they're both unacceptable.  So you say Iran was and is a threat but Iraq wasn't.  Why don't you consider both to have been threats?

[RationalThought110]

It's acceptable for Saddam's regime to have sponsored suicide bombers but not acceptable for Iran to do so?  I say they're both unacceptable.  So you say Iran was and is a threat but Iraq wasn't.  Why don't you consider both to have been threats?

Iran is a constant threat to the region and the US. Iraq could hardly be considered a threat to anyone including Israel and we were lead to war under false pretenses.

When Iraq has a nuclear program before the Gulf War, what do you think it would have done with it? 

If Saddam funded suicide bombers inside Israel, then why don't you think he would have attacked Israel? 


If he meant no harm outside Iraq, then why did he fund suicide bombers?

[RationalThought110]

The nuclear program was destroyed during the Gulf War and the UN sanctions prevented it from being reassembled. I never said he meant no harm outside Iraq, but that's not to say he posed an 'imminent threat' to Israel- let alone America.

I agree with you.

But was the Gulf War worth it?  I think the result of it was that it took the focus off of Iran and directed it to Iraq. 

Wasn't it a myth that Saddam's regime was murdering people in Kuwait?  I think Bush Sr. and James Baker decided that they didn't want Saddam to get access to any of Kuwait's or Saudia Arabia's oil. 

How far advanced was Saddam's nuclear program before the Gulf War began?  Could the sites have just been hit with air strikes?  When Israel hit a reactor years before the Gulf War, did they re-start their nuclear program or was the air strike not effective in minimizing it? 



What should Israel have done to counter Saddam's payment of suicide bombers? 

[RationalThought110]

What should Israel have done to counter Saddam's payment of suicide bombers? 

Done what the late, great Rabbi Meir Kahane, Z''l, HY'D, suggested: THROW THEM OUT!

You didn't answer about the Gulf War.

[RationalThought110]

I don't know. Perhaps Iraq should have been partitioned then.

I meant, do you think it was worth it for the US to enter a conflict between Saudia Arabia and Iraq?

Exiles from Kuwait formed a propaganda campaign that the Iraq military was murdering babies in Kuwait.  This proved to be false.  The Senate only approved of that war by a vote of 52-47.  If it weren't for those false allegations, I doubt they would have voted for that war.

They also didn't want Iraq to dominate a large proportion of the oil supplies.  But Saudia Arabia was no better than Iraq.