Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

(Feith) says Bush administration overemphasized weapons as reason for war

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Barrett808 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 04:10 PM
Original message
(Feith) says Bush administration overemphasized weapons as reason for war
Pentagon policy chief says Bush administration overemphasized weapons as reason for war
By ROBERT BURNS - AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The top policy adviser to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld says the administration erred by building its public case for war against Saddam Hussein mainly on the claim that he posssessed banned weapons.

The comment by Douglas J. Feith, who is preparing to leave after four years as the undersecretary of defense for policy, is a rare admission of error by a senior administration official, although he stressed that he remains convinced that President George W. Bush was correct in deciding that war against Iraq was necessary.

"I don't think there is any question that we as an administration, instead of giving proper emphasis to all major elements of the rationale for war, overemphasized the WMD aspect," he said, using the acronym for the mass-killing chemical and biological weapons that the administration repeatedly claimed the now-deposed Iraqi president possessed prior to the March 2003 invasion and that it cited as the main reason for attacking.

"It would have been better had we done a better job of communicating in all of its breadth the strategic rationale for the war," Feith said in an hour-long Associated Press interview Tuesday at his home in suburban Washington.

One of the architects of the administration's strategy for the war on terror, Feith strongly defended the decision to invade Iraq.

The mistake, he said, was not adequately explaining to the American public and to the world that the reasons for deposing Saddam by force extended beyond the claim _ now shown to be false _ that Iraq had stockpiles of banned weapons.

(more)

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2005/07/14/national_top/00pentagon.txt


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. he's basically saying "we should've picked a better lie"
fuck him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. that pnac sob is floating in blood and guts up to his eyeballs.
he is one of the architects of this disaster and now he says 'not me'.

fuck him to hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Exactly. My first thought was
you fucking accomplice. Worse: fucking instigator.

And I NEVER cuss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-05 04:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. His desk was Slime Central for this Cabal. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. Got that much faith in the public do ya?
Thought they could handle complex and longwinded rationale did ya?

Blow me Feith
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaver Tail Donating Member (903 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. overemphasized?
Don't you mean LIED YOU FUCKER?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Double T Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. Since when are the words 'overemphasized' and 'lied' synonymous????
Edited on Thu Jul-14-05 04:37 PM by Double T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
7. Is this the same Feith who said "he didn't know if there were too few
Edited on Thu Jul-14-05 04:44 PM by applegrove
troops in the battle plan for Iraq"? Whatever he says after that: :rofl: He is just trying to 'give a little' in the debate over the Iraq war so that the discussion morphs into 'what could have happened' instead of 'what did'. You know - moving the debate along. Anything to keep the focus off how the neocons are ALWAYS WRONG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IbeaBonehead Donating Member (974 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. "It would have been better.."

"It would have been better had we done a better job of communicating in all of its breadth the strategic rationale for the war,"



And exactly what would that rationale be Dougy??

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Martin Eden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I was going to post the same line:
"It would have been better had we done a better job of communicating in all of its breadth the strategic rationale for the war."

Good idea -- the neocons should have been straightforward about their designs for world domination; made PNAC common knowledge among of every voter; and articulated every REAL motivation for invading Iraq -- and there never would have been a war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 10th 2024, 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC