Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Five Years of Occupation -- What a Disaster!

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Five years ago yesterday Bagdad fell. After three weeks of war, the whole of Iraq was finally conquered by America and Britain. That iconic statue of Saddam in the city center was pulled onto the ground.

The Iraqi people, for the most part, celebrated wildly. Their hearts sang with joy. They thought the noble Anglo-Saxon warriors had come to bring them freedom.

Nothing could have been further from the truth.

Liberated from a ghastly dictatorship, the Iraqi people naively and foolishly expected the Americans and British to give them individual liberty. They needed, wanted, and expected a new government and political system based on freedom and individual rights.

But it was never to be.

Instead, the Iraqis got a polity based on political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity, and inclusion. After a while, they also got one with autonomy and self-rule. A little later still, they got democracy.

But freedom was never in the offing. Despite an unprecedented amount of grandiose and ridiculous rhetoric about it, individual liberty was never even a wild dream of the politically ignorant and immoral Americans and British.

The fact is, the Western Alliance -- in all its intellectual vapidity and ethical depravity -- didn't think it had the right (!) to "impose" its Western political system upon them. It didn't think it had the right to take freedom and universal human rights, and "shove it down their throats."

But if the Americans and British weren't so palpably and pitifully philosophically and morally bankrupt, they would have realized it was their absolute social duty and moral obligation to do just that. No matter how "delicate" and "painful" the process of socio-economic change supposedly was to the "sensitivities" and "dignity" of most of the conquered Iraqis, it was the absolute moral obligation of America and its allies to, in effect, force freedom down their throats as brutally and savagely as humanly possible.

Of course, the real imposition, installation, protection, and defense of Iraqi individual rights involves no force whatsoever. It involves no hint of of brutality or savagery.

But virtually no-one in the West knew that. Freedom was a phenomenon basically unknown to the Americans and British. All the more so since they ironically and hilariously thought they knew everything about it.

But this is the era of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao -- and of intellectuals like Marx and Lenin. This is an era where sound, strong, governmental thinkers like Locke, Smith, Jefferson, and Madison are long gone. Pro-freedom political theorists today have little influence.

And so knowing nothing about nothing when it comes to political science and government, the Western Alliance in April of 2003 decided to "respect" the evil, dictatorial tradition and culture of the Iraqis. They determined to allow the creation of a new socialism-based, sharia-based tyranny. They decided to assist the development and establishment of a new and miserable dictatorship which wasn't any better than the truly horrific one it replaced!

And yet this new government was a product of very fine political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity, and inclusion. It did involve copious amounts of autonomy and self-rule. And it had huge elements of democracy.

So here we are! Five years later no actual progress has been made. And unless people in America, Britain, and Iraq radically fix their imbecilic and flagitious political ideals, no real progress ever will be made.

As it stand now, even if the West wins resoundingly in Iraq, it loses. Even if a large number of Iraqis finally determine to completely support their government, they lose. Even if the insurgency -- fueled by nothing but Western moral lowness and political incompetence -- were to be entirely terminated tomorrow, the West and Iraq would still lose. There would still be a nightmare government and society in place.

What an unspeakable waste!

Five years of pure legal debauchery. Five years of an open-ended quagmire. Five years of sheer political fiasco. Above all else, five years of freedom-hating, freedom-destroying democracy.

At some point, in the game of life -- the price of utter political ignorance is high.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Liberated from a ghastly dictatorship, the Iraqi people naively and foolishly expected the Americans and British to give them individual liberty. They needed, wanted, and expected a new government and political system based on freedom and individual rights.

No, I don't think they did. If they wanted freedom and individual rights they wouldn't have voted for sharia-based theocracy. Your commentary is good except for the fact that you make the Iraqis look like an innocent third party, when in fact they were the ones who supported a brutal dictator who threatened the west in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest mistake the West has made both in Afghanistan and Iraq is that we did not, to paraphrase Gen W.T. Sherman commenting on his “Drive to the Sea”, “Make them howl.” We did it to the Germans, we did it to the Japanese, and oh how they “howled”.

Instead as in the Korean, Viet Nam, and First Gulf war; the West allowed itself to be swayed by the socialist/communist/collectivist leanings of its own and the world’s socialist/communist/collectivist media, government, and people. This has led us to the self fulfilling prophecy of “quagmire” which realistically is where we are at today.

We truly put a thumping on our and freedom’s enemies in the Second World War. The Western force’s assaults led our antagonists to face a no win situation, submit or die. Although to be objective we did ally with an openly communist government to win the war, but by VE Day, and the eventual VJ day, we had pummeled our enemies into submission. It was not through negotiation, but through unrestrained brutal use of force this outcome was achieved.

Furthermore after the Second war, we did not give the Germans or the Japanese any real say in how their new governments were going to be formed. Instead the Western powers, with corruption from the Soviets dictated just how their new governments were to be constructed.

I know for a fact that it was MacArthur’s staff that almost single handedly wrote the Japanese Constitution. Despite a lot of political, traditional, and cultural opposition it was actually MacArthur, and his staff that guaranteed the right of suffrage for women in Japan. Unlike the double speak, err… I mean politically correct definition of “nation building” that we in the West are sadly afflicted with today; back then we told our vanquished foes what we expected from them, or else.

If we had done something like this in Iraq and Afghanistan; forced them to modernize despite their traditions and cultures, I contend that things would be much better not only for Western troops “occupying” these countries but for the citizens of these “occupied” lands as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know for a fact that it was MacArthur’s staff that almost single handedly wrote the Japanese Constitution. Despite a lot of political, traditional, and cultural opposition it was actually MacArthur, and his staff that guaranteed the right of suffrage for women in Japan. Unlike the double speak, err… I mean politically correct definition of “nation building” that we in the West are sadly afflicted with today; back then we told our vanquished foes what we expected from them, or else.

If we had done something like this in Iraq and Afghanistan; forced them to modernize despite their traditions and cultures, I contend that things would be much better not only for Western troops “occupying” these countries but for the citizens of these “occupied” lands as well.

Women in Iraq have had the vote since 1948. Or was it some other "forced modernization" you had in mind?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just for my own records, when did this happen?

When did Saddam threaten the West? Well lets see (off the top of my head) he tried to assasinate Bush Sr. shortly after Desert Storm, he shot missles at our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, he fired SCUD missles at Israel in '91, he sent advisors to help Islamic Somolians fight America in '93 although it is unclear if they actually pulled triggers, and he supported the Palestinian terrorists throughout his reign. I think there's more but thats just what comes to mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice essay!

Instead, the Iraqis got a polity based on political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity, and inclusion. After a while, they also got one with autonomy and self-rule. A little later still, they got democracy.
To most modern people, self-rule seems a good idea when they use themselves or the individual as their context. In this context, the concept is somewhat similar to freedom or individual rights.

Then comes the fallacy of composition, where they think it should apply with primacy to geographical areas. We end up with the primacy of democracy and the subsversion of individual rights. Rand chose "The Virtue of Selfishness" as a title that would scare some people, for her anthology on ethics. Analogously, but negatively, a true but scary title for the Capitalism book would have been "The Evil of Democracy". (Not suggesting this ought to have been the title, since it highlights the negative.)

...Despite an unprecedented amount of grandiose and ridiculous rhetoric about it, individual liberty was never even a wild dream of the politically ignorant and immoral Americans and British.
The U.S. has to rediscover the principles behind its founding before it can teach the world. Yes, "ignorance" is the right word.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The most damaging aspect of the war in Iraq is that it has served to discredit the notion of using of military force to deal with our enemies. Of course, that is not the proper conclusion one should draw from what's happened in Iraq -- the proper conclusion would be to see it as a grand-scale demonstration of the consequences of both altruism and pragmatism -- but Bush has permitted the left to depict the Iraq fiasco as the logical, necessary outcome of military action.

And so now we are in for a period of intense pacifism, probably initiated and led by an Obama administration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
When did Saddam threaten the West? Well lets see (off the top of my head) he tried to assasinate Bush Sr. shortly after Desert Storm,

A dubious claim. See Michael Isikoff's recent story in Newsweek

he shot missles at our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, he fired SCUD missles at Israel in '91, he sent advisors to help Islamic Somolians fight America in '93 although it is unclear if they actually pulled triggers, and he supported the Palestinian terrorists throughout his reign. I think there's more but thats just what comes to mind.

I don't see how military actions in Iraq, Israel and Somalia are synonymous with "threats" to "the west." In 1982 Argentine military forces occupied the Falkland Islands, claimed by Britain. In 1991 Slovenia conducted a guerilla war against Yugoslavia. Currently secessionist Kurds in Turkey and northeastern Iraq are engaged in a guerilla war with the government of Turkey. Are any of these "threats" to "the West”? Perhaps what we need is a clear definition of the West and an objective criterion of what constitutes a threat to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The most damaging aspect of the war in Iraq is that it has served to discredit the notion of using of military force to deal with our enemies. Of course, that is not the proper conclusion one should draw from what's happened in Iraq -- the proper conclusion would be to see it as a grand-scale demonstration of the consequences of both altruism and pragmatism -- but Bush has permitted the left to depict the Iraq fiasco as the logical, necessary outcome of military action.

And so now we are in for a period of intense pacifism, probably initiated and led by an Obama administration.

Does lying their asses off fit in there somewhere?

Link to post
Share on other sites
A dubious claim. See Michael Isikoff's recent story in Newsweek

I don't see how military actions in Iraq, Israel and Somalia are synonymous with "threats" to "the west." In 1982 Argentine military forces occupied the Falkland Islands, claimed by Britain. In 1991 Slovenia conducted a guerilla war against Yugoslavia. Currently secessionist Kurds in Turkey and northeastern Iraq are engaged in a guerilla war with the government of Turkey. Are any of these "threats" to "the West”? Perhaps what we need is a clear definition of the West and an objective criterion of what constitutes a threat to it.

So I walked over to your house and shot you, would that constitute a threat? I fail to see how this action differs from sending advisors to fight US Army Rangers and other UN Forces in Somalia, or from firing missles as US Planes patrollng the no-fly zone. Also, if you don't think Israel constitutes the West you need to learn who your friends are. As for the assasination plot, I hadn't seen that article before, but as it points out the evidence might very well have been wiped from Iraqi records due to the embarrasment. You'll have to clarify how the Falkland Islands, etc, relate to the issue at hand if you want me to comment.

In a fundamental sense all dictatorships are a threat to us. Weak dictatorships find ways to suck off our production in order to feed their starving populace, and knaw away at us through terrorism and subversion. Strong dictatorships declare outright war on us in order to gain resources and enslave more of the earth. Also, keep in mind that since a dictatorship is an inversion of the proper purpose of government (to protect individual rights) no justification is needed for a free country to invade a dictatorship if they see it as in their best interests.

Now, clearly Iran was more of a threat to America than Iraq in 2003. Iran's acts of war towards us could go on for pages. The mistake was not that we invaded Iraq, but that we invaded Iraq before Iran. Business before pleasure.

Edited by SkyTrooper
Link to post
Share on other sites
A dubious claim. See Michael Isikoff's recent story in Newsweek

I don't see how military actions in Iraq, Israel and Somalia are synonymous with "threats" to "the west." In 1982 Argentine military forces occupied the Falkland Islands, claimed by Britain. In 1991 Slovenia conducted a guerilla war against Yugoslavia. Currently secessionist Kurds in Turkey and northeastern Iraq are engaged in a guerilla war with the government of Turkey. Are any of these "threats" to "the West”? Perhaps what we need is a clear definition of the West and an objective criterion of what constitutes a threat to it.

• The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia." At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there.

• Saddam's intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.

• Beginning in 1999, Iraq's intelligence service began providing "financial and moral support" for a small radical Islamist Kurdish sect the report does not name. A Kurdish Islamist group called Ansar al Islam in 2002 would try to assassinate the regional prime minister in the eastern Kurdish region, Barham Salih.

• In 2001, Saddam's intelligence service drafted a manual titled "Lessons in Secret Organization and Jihad Work—How to Organize and Overthrow the Saudi Royal Family." In the same year, his intelligence service submitted names of 10 volunteer "martyrs" for operations inside the Kingdom.

• In 2000, Iraq sent a suicide bomber through Northern Iraq who intended to travel to London to assassinate Ahmad Chalabi, at the time an Iraqi opposition leader who would later go on to be an Iraqi deputy prime minister. The mission was aborted after the bomber could not obtain a visa to enter the United Kingdom.

Source: The New York Sun

Link to post
Share on other sites
• The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia." At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there.

• Saddam's intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.

• Beginning in 1999, Iraq's intelligence service began providing "financial and moral support" for a small radical Islamist Kurdish sect the report does not name. A Kurdish Islamist group called Ansar al Islam in 2002 would try to assassinate the regional prime minister in the eastern Kurdish region, Barham Salih.

• In 2001, Saddam's intelligence service drafted a manual titled "Lessons in Secret Organization and Jihad Work—How to Organize and Overthrow the Saudi Royal Family." In the same year, his intelligence service submitted names of 10 volunteer "martyrs" for operations inside the Kingdom.

• In 2000, Iraq sent a suicide bomber through Northern Iraq who intended to travel to London to assassinate Ahmad Chalabi, at the time an Iraqi opposition leader who would later go on to be an Iraqi deputy prime minister. The mission was aborted after the bomber could not obtain a visa to enter the United Kingdom.

Source: The New York Sun

These activities all sound like typical "intelligence service ramps" committed as much by MI6 and the CIA as by Pakistan or Iraq. They are hardly threats to the States of the USA or the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He funded all sorts of Terrorist activities, al-QuaedTerrorists known to be affiliated with al-Qaeda. He targeted American civilians and attempted to assassinate political opponents to keep his regime of torture and genocide in power.

I think we SHOULD have attacked Iran first, but I do not fall anywhere near the thought that Iraq was an innocent, terror-free nation. I would support a much more offensive war than the " Defensive ", suicidal war the Bush administration has been involved in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So I walked over to your house and shot you, would that constitute a threat? I fail to see how this action differs from sending advisors to fight US Army Rangers and other UN Forces in Somalia, or from firing missles as US Planes patrollng the no-fly zone. Also, if you don't think Israel constitutes the West you need to learn who your friends are.

Again, I ask for a definition of “the West.” For once we have that definition, we can better determine whether conflict in one part of it “threatens” every or any other part of it. I’d like to see some evidence that the residents of Vancouver or Santo Domingo are less secure because of increased gunfire in Mogadishu.

As for the assasination plot, I hadn't seen that article before, but as it points out the evidence might very well have been wiped from Iraqi records due to the embarrasment.

On the basis of what records (that have not been wiped clean) do we know that the threat was actual?

You'll have to clarify how the Falkland Islands, etc, relate to the issue at hand if you want me to comment.

1) What exactly is the West? 2) What is the criterion for assessing a threat to it?

In a fundamental sense all dictatorships are a threat to us. Weak dictatorships find ways to suck off our production in order to feed their starving populace, and knaw away at us through terrorism and subversion. Strong dictatorships declare outright war on us in order to gain resources and enslave more of the earth. Also, keep in mind that since a dictatorship is an inversion of the proper purpose of government (to protect individual rights) no justification is needed for a free country to invade a dictatorship if they see it as in their best interests.

Tell me how your life has been made poorer or less secure by Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell me how your life has been made poorer or less secure by Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea.

I accept your challenge. http://www.usaid.gov/press/factsheets/2003..._eq_guinea.html

A dictatorship across the world is like a serial killer living down the street. Just because the serial killer hasn't killed you yet doesn't mean he won't get around to it eventually. Just because he hasn't tried yet doesn't mean he's not a threat to your life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And your point is what exactly? That because Equatorial Guinea is a dictatorship U.S. tax money went there? That a government installed by free elections wouldn't be a U.S. foreign aid recipient?

A dictatorship across the world is like a serial killer living down the street. Just because the serial killer hasn't killed you yet doesn't mean he won't get around to it eventually. Just because he hasn't tried yet doesn't mean he's not a threat to your life.

I'm trying to figure out why I need to get particularly worked up about the ruler of Equatorial Guinea as a threat -- in relation to other possible threats. Consider that when I was growing up there were two older boys I knew who were drafted (kidnapped) and sent overseas to die in Vietnam. Why should I spend time worrying about Teodoro Obiang Nguema when the same institution (with free elections, by golly!) responsible for the deaths of people I knew is still ruling over me -- and last year stole 18% of my income?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm trying to figure out why I need to get particularly worked up about the ruler of Equatorial Guinea as a threat -- in relation to other possible threats.

I think your reductio ad absurdum has spiraled out of control. I don't advocate invading Equatorial Guinea. Of course, if there was some sort of pro-individual rights insurgency occuring there and it didn't cost me anything I would certainly support it. Now, in relation to other possible threats Guinea is not worth anyone's time. Just like, as long as Iran is around it was a mistake to invade Iraq.

Returning to my serial killer analogy, Equatorial Guinea is like a retarded paraplegic serial killer living down the street while Iran is like Charlie Manson.

Edited by SkyTrooper
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you're reductio ad absurdum has spiraled out of control. I don't advocate invading Equatorial Guinea. Of course, if there was some sort of pro-individual rights insurgency occuring there and it didn't cost me anything I would certainly support it. Now, in relation to other possible threats Guinea is not worth anyone's time. Just like, as long as Iran is around it was a mistake to invade Iraq.

Returning to my serial killer analogy, Equatorial Guinea is like a retarded paraplegic serial killer living down the street while Iran is like Charlie Manson.

I still don't have an answer to my question of when the West was threatened by Saddam -- unless we suppose the West is anything within 360 degrees of the Prime Meridian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary, you wrote:

Why should I spend time worrying about Teodoro Obiang Nguema when the same institution (with free elections, by golly!) responsible for the deaths of people I knew is still ruling over me -- and last year stole 18% of my income?

And:

I still don't have an answer to my question of when the West was threatened by Saddam -- unless we suppose the West is anything within 360 degrees of the Prime Meridian.

So which argument are you making? That Saddam was never a threat to the United States -- or that he is less of a threat to you, personally, than our statist government?

I think Saddam proved with his 1991 invasion of Kuwait that he was a threat to our economic interests, at a minimum. If we hadn't ejected him from Kuwait, he could have easily rolled over Saudi Arabia and found himself in control of a significant portion of the world's oil supplies. That would have put him in a position to do significant economic damage to the world’s economy – of which we, of course, are a part.

Now, one can argue that after we defeated him in Kuwait, the resulting embargo of Iraq’s oil exports deprived Saddam of enough revenue to ever become a threat again. However, we know now that he was cheating the embargo and planned to resume his WMD development. That was one of the conclusions of the Duelfer Report after the war.

Would he have been successful at developing WMD and if so, would he have had any means of deploying a WMD against us? I don't know, and neither did Bush when the decision was made to take Saddam out. Bush didn't claim that Saddam was an imminent threat, but rather a "gathering", threat, i.e. a possible future threat.

The problem is that the appropriate reaction to such a threat is regime destruction, not regime change. But crippled by his allegiance to pragmatism and altruism, Bush launched a partial, limited, JAG-policed, civilian-friendly war that has left our military functioning as a domestic police force in Iraq and saddled the American people with what is essentially another gigantic government welfare project.

As Harry Binswanger commented on his list, consider how much better off we’d be today if, after catching Hussein, we’d simply shot him on the spot – then told the entire world that this is what we do to people we consider threatening to us or our interests – and then come home.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary, you wrote:

And:

So which argument are you making? That Saddam was never a threat to the United States -- or that he is less of a threat to you, personally, than our statist government?

You mean I’m not allowed to make both arguments?

I think Saddam proved with his 1991 invasion of Kuwait that he was a threat to our economic interests, at a minimum. If we hadn't ejected him from Kuwait, he could have easily rolled over Saudi Arabia and found himself in control of a significant portion of the world's oil supplies. That would have put him in a position to do significant economic damage to the world’s economy – of which we, of course, are a part.

I’ve seen no evidence that Saddam was interested in stopping the sale of Middle Eastern oil on the world market – which is just what he would have had to do in order to cause any decline in the amount of oil available to U.S. buyers.

Now, one can argue that after we defeated him in Kuwait, the resulting embargo of Iraq’s oil exports deprived Saddam of enough revenue to ever become a threat again. However, we know now that he was cheating the embargo and planned to resume his WMD development. That was one of the conclusions of the Duelfer Report after the war.

Would he have been successful at developing WMD and if so, would he have had any means of deploying a WMD against us? I don't know, and neither did Bush when the decision was made to take Saddam out. Bush didn't claim that Saddam was an imminent threat, but rather a "gathering", threat, i.e. a possible future threat.

Not true.

"We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5, 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

"We know where [iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

The problem is that the appropriate reaction to such a threat is regime destruction, not regime change.

What does that mean? Allow no government at all to take seat in Baghdad?

But crippled by his allegiance to pragmatism and altruism, Bush launched a partial, limited, JAG-policed, civilian-friendly war that has left our military functioning as a domestic police force in Iraq and saddled the American people with what is essentially another gigantic government welfare project.

So if the U.S. had been less “civilian-friendly” it could have destroyed more of the non-existent weapons?

As Harry Binswanger commented on his list, consider how much better off we’d be today if, after catching Hussein, we’d simply shot him on the spot – then told the entire world that this is what we do to people we consider threatening to us or our interests – and then come home.

We didn’t shoot him on the spot. We had the Iraqis put on a trial and then execute him. Does that mean the U.S. can’t come home now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I still don't have an answer to my question of when the West was threatened by Saddam -- unless we suppose the West is anything within 360 degrees of the Prime Meridian.

Actually yes, you have had that question answered. To refresh your memory Saddam shot missles at our planes patroling his shitty country, tried to kill Bush, supported terroism, sent advisors to kill Army Rangers in Somolia, shot SCUDs at Israel, etc, etc. Why is this a sticking point for you by the way? I feel like I'm talking to the Fedayeen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I ask for proof of the Bush assassination claim. As for U.S. planes and rangers, perhaps they would not have been in harm’s way had they been patrolling actual U.S. territory. How vital is Somalia to you or me personally? And doesn’t Israel have its own excellent military to fight back when it’s attacked?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Clinton administration launched a missile attack against Iraq because it was convinced of the validity of the assassination claim.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl...line/062793.htm

Apparently there was valid evidence that the Iraqis were involved with the plot.

Representatives of the DOJ, FBI, and CIA told us that in view of this evidence of Iraqi involvement, the Administration had significant information indicating Iraqi involvement aside from identification of the explosive material. Neil Gallagher stated that the identification of the explosive material in the Bush device was not a critical issue because the FBI could not say that the explosive material was identical to that in other Iraqi devices. According to Gallagher, similarities in the wiring, fuzing system, and circuit boards were deemed more significant than whether the explosive was identical to what had been contained in known Iraqi devices. Likewise, other highly placed representatives in the FBI Intelligence Division told us that the FBI established responsibility for the assassination attempt based on interviews of the suspects and examinations of the circuitry and wiring that showed signature characteristics.

Similarly, representatives of the DOJ Terrorism and Violent Crime Section stated that the various intelligence information, similarities in wiring and circuitry, and the confessions of the suspects were more important than the composition of the main charge. Representatives of the CIA Counter Terrorism Center also told us that analyses of the electrical components constituted more compelling evidence of Iraqi involvement, and that they were confident that Iraq was responsible based on the firing device, statements by the suspects, and Iraqi methods of operation. Even Ambassador Albright in her remarks to the United Nations focused almost exclusively on similarities in wiring and circuitry of the various devices, statements by the suspects, and information from the intelligence community.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbilab1/05bush2.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...