Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
For the last time, I considered Saddam a threat when he invaded Kuwait. His actions afterward further enforced my beliefs. I thought it was a mistake not to remove him from power in 1991. His attempt to start WWIII after his cause was lost and his continued acts of defiance were unacceptable in my opinion. Diplomacy, sanctions and threats had run their course, Saddam was buy ing time and redirecting billions of dollars from the oil for food program (He was not doing it to build palaces). The attacks on 9/11, in my view, created an urgent need to address the Saddam threat, leaving him unchecked under the conditions after 9/11 would have been a mistake in my opinion. I can not separate Saddam of 2003 from the Saddam of 1991. In my opinion he never changed, the threat he posed never changed.
|
ace, Rumsfeld told congress, a month before Iraq was invaded, that it was about saving money:
Quote:
http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroo....cfm?id=262690
On February 6, 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said, "And, worst of all, his connections with terrorists, which go back decades, and which started some 10 years ago with al-Qa'ida, are growing every day."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Despite Obstacles to War, White House Forges Ahead
Administration Unfazed by Iraq's Pledge to Destroy Missiles, Turkish Parliament's Rejection of Use of Bases
By Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 2, 2003; Page A18
.......Even as it sent senior envoys around the world to twist the arms of recalcitrant council members -- particularly the half-dozen undecided governments it refers to as the "U-6" -- the administration in recent days has expanded both its rationale for war and on-the-ground activities indicating the conflict has already begun. ......
..... Wolfowitz also estimated the U.S. cost of Iraqi "containment" during 12 years of U.N. sanctions, weapons inspections and continued U.S. air patrols over the country at "slightly over $30 billion," but he said the price had been "far more than money." Sustained U.S. bombing of Iraq over those years, and the stationing of U.S. forces "in the holy land of Saudi Arabia," were "part of the containment policy that has been Osama bin Laden's principal recruiting device, even more than the other grievances he cites," Wolfowitz said.
Implying that a takeover in Iraq would eliminate the need for U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, and thus reduce the appeal of terrorist groups for new members, Wolfowitz said: "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years to continue helping recruit terrorists."
|
I've posted the quotes (at least 10 times....)from Tenet, Powell, and Rice, from Jan. to July, 2001, all declaring that Iraq was weakened militarily, no threat to it's neighbors, and that the no fly zones and sanctions had worked to contain Saddam's ambitions. They all recommended "closely watching him", not invading Iraq.