Rumsfeld says he did not 'advocate' invading Iraq (AFP)

[Up2Late]

(Oh brother, talk about "Revisionist History") :eyes:

Rumsfeld says he did not 'advocate' invading Iraq

20/11/2005 16h48

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has asserted that he did not press for the US-led invasion of Iraq, as public disaffection for the US military operation there reaches new highs. "I didn't advocate invasion," Rumsfeld told ABC television Sunday, when asked if he would have advocated an invasion of Iraq if he had known that no weapons of mass destruction would be found there. The US Defense chief added: "I wasn't asked," when asked whether he supported the March 2003 invasion.

Asked on ABC television's "This Week" program if he was trying to distance himself after the fact from the controversial US decision to invade Iraq, Rumsfeld replied: "Of course not. Of course not. I completely agreed with the decision to go to war and said that a hundred times. Don't even suggest that."

But Rumsfeld's insistence that he had not advocated an invasion of Iraq appears to contradict several media reports, and at least one book by a former White House couter-terrorism chief. CBS News has reported, citing notes by Pentagon officials, that Rumsfeld told his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq hours after the September 11, 2001 attacks on Washington and New York. The notes, cited by CBS, quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough to hit S.H. (Saddam Hussein)".

Former White House terrorism czar, Richard Clarke, said in his book "Against all Enemies" that days after the September 11 attacks, Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, despite questions over Iraq's links to Al-Qaeda. Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking. "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke has said in describing White House deliberations after the September 11 attacks.

<http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/051120164153.q83wnoej.html>
(more at link above)

[...of J.Temperance]

1. Rumsfeld better find the nearest river to throw himself in, because...

His pants are on fire BIG TIME.

[Up2Late]

5. ROTFLMAO! Good one!

:spray: :rofl:

[...of J.Temperance]

10. Shucks, thanks :) Ah love the smell of...

Burnt Neo-Con butt in the mornin'

[ashling]

17. Your statement is somewhat irresponsible

the Potomac is already threatened with snakeheads, and the Chesapeake has plenty of problems without another oil slick.

[President Kerry]

40. sometimes you gotta take a hit.. The environmental consuences in this

case are well worth the "sacrifice".

[radwriter0555]

22. Yeah, considering he signed THIS letter ADVOCATING AN INVASION

back in 1998.

"Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy...."

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

HEY DON, got some LONG TERM MEMORY LOSS?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[cliss]

51. There you go. Also, remember Rumsfailed's

listing of the WMD's? "Oh yes, they're around Tikrit, to the north and south. Yes, definitely".

As I've posted before, the S.S. Bush is taking on water. The BIGGEST RAT of them all just surfaced. He's sitting on the railing, looking for a way to save himself.

[Seabiscuit]

74. "Avocate? Addlecake? Abrocate? Advocate? What's the diff?"

Rummy wants us to think he doesn't know what "advocate" means???

[liveoaktx]

29. VIDEO

Rumsfeld on This WEek-compilation with comments

[babylonsister]

2. Bullshit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801072.html

snip//
Some might quibble with Rumsfeld's description of the historical moment.
At the time he wrote the memo, dated October 15, 2002, Congress had recently voted to give President Bush complete authority to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein. A White House spokesman had just confirmed that invasion plans were on Bush's desk -- detailed plans, we now know, which Rumsfeld had been shaping and hammering and editing for much of the previous year.
snip//

[jhain]

6. previous year?

Probably the previous DECADE at least.

PNAC=

Pissant
No
Account
Coward

[aquart]

36. cowards. plural.

[For PaisAn]

3. If his lips are moving...

you know the rest.

[stepnw1f]

4. We Got Them

They are now backing away from Iraq. The fucking cowards are now looking for a way out of this.

[jazzjunkysue]

52. How do the soldiers feel when they hear this? I thought it was the dems

who were demoralizing the troops.

Support the troops, unless your job depends on it.

Any right wingnut who stays with these liars is criminal.

[stepnw1f]

Yup...

They are all full of it. The gig is up!

[Canuckistanian]

56. And he's emboldening the enemy

They'll say, "See, even this infidel lackey didn't want war with us, let us teach them a lesson".

[nolabels]

70. This COWARD is supposed to be the US Secretary of Defense

This is also one of the few supposed Neo-Cons that has served in the military :nopity:

If you do not feel cheated paying taxes that pay for this fools salary then you are probably one of those on the take.

[TomInTib]

7. This just shows how ignorant they think we are..

He's the Secretary of DeeFence and expects us to swallow "I wasn't asked"?
The litter box is overflowing.

[barb162]

8. In the Clarke book, right after 9-11 shrub asked Clarke if it was

S. Hussein. Clarke was incredulous.

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. The top counter-terrorism advisor, Clarke,

was briefing the highest government officials, including President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the aftermath of 9/11. "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq....We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with ,'" he tells Stahl.

Nuff said?

[Arkana]

11. Hey Rummy! I call bullshit!

How about that?

[oioioi]

12. Within 6 months they'll be spinning that Clinton decided to invade Iraq.

[Autobot77]

43. They're already doing it....

Theyre bringing out quotes from Clinton and other Dems in 1998-99 saying Iraq was a threat.

" Yeah I know we said Iraq was a threat based on faulty, manipulated intelligence..but,but Clinton said Iraq was a threat also, so there!"

[northzax]

13. he's probably right, actually

I'd be willing to wager that Bush never actually asked him if the US should invade Iraq. Isn't this basically what Powell said? that no one ever actually asked if this should be done, it just was?

[stubtoe]

14. It's amazing how the man can spin bullshit like that with a staight face.

[shance]

25. Its called pathological lying. That is the caliber of insanity and

immorality that we have in our highest levels of office.

Individuals who lie easier than they tell the truth.

[0007]

15. Rumsfelf told the world he knew exactly where the

"Weapons of Mass Destruction" were hidden in Iraq. WMD would be easy to find once we invaded the country.

[alarcojon]

16. I was just wondering why we hadn't heard much from Rummy of late

It must be his terminal case of "lying sack of shit-itis."

[FormerRepublican]

18. Just shows the primary rule regarding the Bush Admin still holds true.

Expect them to lie. Everything they say is a lie. Nothing they say is the truth.

As long as you repeat that over and over again, you'll understand exactly how to interpret their words, and you won't be shocked at all when the truth is revealed.

[tweekinnow]

19. Well Donald 'splain this then.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

They had it planned years ago,what a liar! And with a 10 foot long nose too!

[UpInArms]

20. from your link

excerpt:

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

<snip>

Elliott Abrams    Richard L. Armitage    William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner    John Bolton    Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama    Robert Kagan    Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol    Richard Perle    Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld    William Schneider, Jr.    Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz    R. James Woolsey    Robert B. Zoellick

[LibDemAlways]

49. Thanks for the reminder.

Rummy's filthy, corrupt DNA is all over PNAC. He was itching for an invasion when Clinton was in office. A goddamn liar, and a brazen one - knowing the whore media is not going to call him on the bullshit.

[jazzjunkysue]

53. The most amazing thing is THEY keep this online!

They're not even ashamed of it.

[Solly Mack]

21. The Secretary of Defense wasn't asked? He didn't advocate?

Well, in that case - I'm a virgin.

[Barrett808]

23. Kos: It's sinking! Chief Rat on the SS WHIG strapping on his life vest

Don Rumsfeld has been called many things: Clueless Detached, Arrogant, Evil, Incompetent, a Power Mad Warmonger, even a Kung-fu Master of 1,000 syles But the most consistently applied adjective of all is Survivor.

Whatever his moral flaws as a human being, or indeed a chordate life form, it must be said that he is a bureaucrat par excellence. Dandy Don always keeps his sails trimmed close to the wind and his ass firmly covered in memoranda and directives, all of which clearly show that no matter how much it seemed like he was in charge, whatever went wrong cleary isn't HIS fault.

So, it'll come as no shock to you to find out that In an interview with the WaPo Rumsfeld reveals that he never really thought this whole "Iraq thing" was a great idea to begin with; and he has the memo to prove it:

more at
Rumsfeld Strapping on his life vest (WaPo)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x173958

[Barrett808]

24. But: " I completely agreed with the decision to go to war."

Asked on ABC television's "This Week" program if he was trying to distance himself after the fact from the controversial US decision to invade Iraq, Rumsfeld replied: "Of course not. Of course not. I completely agreed with the decision to go to war and said that a hundred times. Don't even suggest that."

http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/051120164153.q83wnoej.html

[sandrakae]

26. A picture says a thousand words.

[struggle4progress]

27. Rumsfeld steps up Iraq war talk (Guardian 21 Aug 02)

US 'cannot wait for arms proof' like appeasers of Hitler did

Julian Borger in Washington and Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday August 21, 2002
The Guardian

The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said yesterday that the US could not afford to wait for conclusive proof of Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes before it attacked Iraq, and he equated the reluctance of America's allies to get involved with the appeasement of Nazi Germany.

His most outspoken remarks on Iraq to date appeared to be a deliberate move by the Bush administration to ratchet up the anti-Saddam rhetoric in the face of scepticism both at home and abroad ...

Although Mr Rumsfeld did not use the words Iraq or Saddam, Fox News reported that the context of the interview made it clear which country he was referring to. He said the risk of a terrorist attack with a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon was so high, that the US could not wait for more evidence before acting ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,778180,00.html

This is vintage Rumsfeld. The Don's careful, and since the old Rumsfeld-Saddam handshake picture surfaced a few years ago, he's been talking out of both sides of his mouth, trying to avoid being too near the center of attention on this issue.

[Jose Diablo]

28. Oh yeah?

What about this:

"With each passing day, Saddam Hussein advances his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and could pass them along to terrorists. If he is allowed to do so, the result could be the deaths not of 3,000 people, as on September 11th, but of 30,000, or 300,000 or more innocent people."
Source: Donald H. Rumsfeld Delivers Remarks to American Troops, Defense Department (3/20/2003).

And this:

"We have seen . . . intelligence over--over months, over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized . . . ."
Source: Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discusses the war in Iraq, CBS (3/23/2003).

this:

"He claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know that he continues to hide biological or chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighborhoods."
Source: Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers Hold Regular Department of Defense Briefing, Defense Department (3/11/2003).

And on:

"QUESTION: There've been a lot of reports . . . In regard to these . . . very small aircraft, that potentially could deliver biological things. . . SECRETARY RUMSFELD: They come in a variety of sizes and shapes and capabilities. They are perfectly capable of being equipped with spraying and aerosol-type capabilities. Today with global position systems, GPS, and the kinds of maps that one can buy readily, these types of things can be purchased and used and guided and directed with great precision and capable of dispensing those kinds of weapons. They do exist. We know that Iraq has a number of so-called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles, of different types, that they train with them and exercise them."
Source: Donald Rumsfeld Delivers Remarks to the Hoover Institute Meeting, State Dept (2/25/2003).

more:

"QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, today in a broadcast interview Saddam Hussein said: "There is only one truth, Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever." And he went on to say, "I would like to tell you directly we have no relationship with Al Qaida." SECRETARY RUMSFELD: And Abraham Lincoln was short."
Source: Donald Rumsfeld Holds Defense Department Briefing, Defense Department (2/4/2003).


Rumsfield, you lying pusbag, I am not going to quote more, if anyone wants to pull about 55 quotes from the public record,
go here: http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/

[Skittles]

30. ATTN: MS. SCHMIDT - HERE IS YOUR F***ING COWARD

:puke:

[Writer]

31. Okay, that's it. Turn out the lights and break down the set.

I am fucking THROUGH with these people.

Patrick, they are fucking with you, too. Just round them up and compel them to rat the other out.

:eyes:

[libodem]

32. What?

That's just crazy talk! No wonder he believes human beings must be tortured into confessions he is a liar at heart and judges others by how totally deceitful he is. What scum!!!!!

[samsingh]

33. these imbeciles are such wimps they can't take responsibility

for their own actions.

[IndianaGreen]

34. They sound like the Nazi war criminals

all of which claimed ignorance about the Holocaust and blamed Hitler for the war crimes.

[Theduckno2]

65. I'd like to think that Rummy hears the distant drums of a tribunal!

It is a nice thought! :)

Thanks to the posters that reminded us of that PNAC letter.

Hint to Rummy, if you don't want to be held responsible, DON'T sign your name.

[goforit]

35. OMG!!!.......We've heard it all folks!!!......And for how much blood?

Un-f*cking believable!!!

[Earth_First]

37. Time to roll out the Rumsfeld quotes:

[Up2Late]

46. Does touring Europe to drum up support for the war count? Here's one!

Friday, 7 February, 2003, 14:07 GMT

Rumsfeld faces sceptical Europeans

The time to act against Iraq is fast approaching, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has warned, as he visits Europe to try to build support for a possible US-led war. International diplomacy, economic sanctions as well as limited military action have all failed to persuade Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm, he said.

Mr Rumsfeld was speaking in Italy - a strong advocate of the US position - before travelling to Germany, which has staunchly opposed the use of force to disarm Iraq. The US is also facing continued resistance to military action from Russia and France - both with a veto on the UN Security Council.

Mr Rumsfeld's trip comes amid growing preparations for war, with a diplomatic solution to the crisis appearing more remote. Speaking to reporters in Rome after talks with Italian leaders, Mr Rumsfeld said momentum is building for action against Iraq. "The patience of the world is nearing its end," he said.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2735273.stm>
(more at link above)

[ninkasi]

38. You know, whenever any of them speak

they act as if their previous words weren't recorded by newspaper articles, or t.v. news. They lie, like Rumsfeld, and claim they never said such and such a thing, or never did such and such a thing, when the evidence clearly proves them wrong.

I guess it's just so much their nature to lie, they automatically expect the America public to go along with whatever their current version of the facts are. Does Rumsfeld not realize that we can produce films, or transcripts, or newspaper accounts of press conferences?

[MsMagnificent]

39. Did the roof then cave in on him?

Didn't he have one infamous press conference when asked why they're going after Iraq was 'because there were no good targets in Afghanistan'? (I think my memory serves me fairly well on that one, but if I'm wrong pls feel free to correct! : )

He's been caught lying MANY times before, one of my most memorable him saying 'he never said there was Imminent Threat'
He was immediately BUSTED and I got a full days worth of chuckles out of that!

WHY do these idiots think they can just proclaim something and that then will wipe all the video, all the news articles, all the transcriptions?
HOW can they be that unbelievably arrogant and stupid that in their latest attempts to rewrite their own history all they have to do is SAY they 'never said that' and it'll be believed, no question?

Do and say those things in front of a psychiatrist, and you're committed -- Immediately!

[President Kerry]

41. Welcome to the Top 10 conservative idiots

yet again Rumsfeld.

[Peace Patriot]

42. I want to know where this scumbag really was on September 11, 2001,

during the hour in which he had time to mount a defense of our nation's capitol, and didn't--and why he drew all NORAD decision-making powers into his own manicured paws three months before.

I call him the Lurker--of both Traitorgate, and 9/11. Lurking in some basement pushing buttons and failing to answer phone calls on 9/11, was he? Commisioning crude Niger forgeries, to entice the CIA into a public position of no nukes in Iraq--in order to discredit the CIA forever when pal Judith "found" the nukes his operatives tried to plant there?

Cheney may be Darth Vader, but Rumsfeld in Dr. Strangelove. Mr. Master Mind. That's my hit on him. He's the "aspen" that is still "connected at the roots," insulated with deniability, and still with full capabilities in place to manufacture incidents with Iran and Syria, and who knows what-all. The most dangerous man on earth. Mr. Cold, Bespectacled, Torture-Lover himself.

[spanone]

44. Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies, did I mention Lies?

or was that mis-speaking? I do get them so confused.

[Polemonium]

45. Even the sheep know this is known, not unknown

It's kind of funny when the wolf in sheeps clothing doesn't know, the sheep know you're a wolf. It's like the wolf knows there are unknowns, that he doesn't know, but he doesn't know that this unkown is actually known.

hey Rummy spin this::rofl: :rofl:

[daleo]

47. He wasn't asked - that's rich

His cheerleading for death was all you heard for the 6 months before and after the invasion.

[Up2Late]

61. But what if THAT Rummy was actually his Evil Twin!?!?

We've all seen lots of movies like that! :think: Or maybe the guys just a psychopath.

[daleo]

63. It's possible he could have been split by the transporter beam malfunction

Look carefully for signs of a goatee.

[daleo]

64. It's possible he could have been split by the transporter beam malfunction

Look carefully for signs of a goatee.

On edit - Yikes! My post was split by an internet beam malfunction. It must be a sign.

[Up2Late]

67. LOL! I forgot about the evil Goatee!

O.K. any Photoshop wizards out there? We need a Rummy with a Goatee picture! :rofl:

[leesa]

48. OMG! Even the minus25 watt bulbs in the Freeper heads must be lighting up

up with this news. Rummy didn't advocate for the invasion of Iraq??? Does he mean BEFORE 1982?

[sofa king]

50. And the record says....

"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore."

Source: Donald Rumsfeld Addresses the Conference of Army Reserve Operators, Defense Department (1/20/2003).

"Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other."

Source: Donald Rumsfeld Addresses the Conference of Army Reserve Operators, Defense Department (1/20/2003).

"Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years, or a week, or a month, and if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and transfer them, either use himself, or transfer them to the Al-Qaeda, and somehow the Al-Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United States, or an attack on U.S. forces overseas, with a weapon of mass destruction you're not talking about 300, or 3,000 people potentially being killed, but 30,000, or 100,000 . . . human beings."

Source: Secretary Rumsfeld Live Interview with Infinity CBS Radio, Infinity-CBS Radio (11/14/2002).

"o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq."

Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

"QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, today in a broadcast interview Saddam Hussein said: "There is only one truth, Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever." And he went on to say, "I would like to tell you directly we have no relationship with Al Qaida." SECRETARY RUMSFELD: And Abraham Lincoln was short."

Source: Donald Rumsfeld Holds Defense Department Briefing, Defense Department (2/4/2003).

"Second, they question . . . what is the proof that Iraq has nuclear weapons? Where's the smoking gun? . . . But if you think about it, the last thing we should want is a smoking gun. A gun doesn't smoke until it has been fired and the goal has to be to stop such an attack before it starts. As the President told the United Nations, 'The first time we may be completely certain that a terrorist has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid,' he said, 'they use one.'"

Source: Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, Defense Department (9/27/2002).

"Iraq is part of the global war on terror. Stopping terrorist regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction is a key objective of that war, and we can fight the various elements of the global war on terror simultaneously, as General Myers will indicate in his remarks. A principle goal in the war on terror is to prevent another September 11th or a weapons of mass destruction attack that could make September 11th seem modest by comparison, and to do it before it happens."

Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

"The problem with that is the way one gains absolutely certainty as to whether a dicatator like Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons is if he uses it, and that's a little late."

Source: Secretary Rumsfeld's Interview on Face the Nation, CBS (9/8/2002).

The above is collected from Iraq on the Record, by Rep. Henry Waxman. This is a page worth bookmarking:

http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/index.asp

[Eugene]

60. Thank you, sofa king.

This is how I remember it. The BushCo line was "You'll have to
trust us on this." Rumsfeld was one of the louder voices
making this case.

[jazzjunkysue]

54. And B** didn't even want to be president.

:argh:

[fishnfla]

55. Another Neocon against the war after he was for it!

backtracking all they want

[lenegal]

57. The man is on crack

What a fucking liar.

What a god damed idiot.

He has got to be on some heavy drugs.

[rodeodance]

59. I listened to his entire interview --Rummy was hot under the collor today.

[MarsThe Cat]

58. he didn't advocate it-

he just assumed it was a given.

[VegasWolf]

62. Depends on what the meaning 'advocate' is! nt

[Up2Late]

71. Exactly, maybe he doesn't define touring all of "Old" and "New" Europe...

...trying to build a coalition of governments to send troops for the invasion as "advocating?"

Here's a BBC website that was one of my favorites, it has almost all of his strangest sound bites in clickable form.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/bh/rumsfeld.shtml>

[Miss Chybil]

66. This letter, signed by Rumsfeld says something a little different...

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Edit to add link: http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[JABBS]

68. Another thread on Rumsfeld's Iraq Talking points today

Something else he said didn't make much sense.

[MilesColtrane]

69. We're seeing the beginning of his defense in the Hague.

Nein! I vahss only followink orderz!

[AZBlue]

72. No! No, tell me this is a joke!

Um, Rummy, there's this thing called the internet where you can look up anything you've ever said. Then there's this thing called video, which can come in VHS or DVD or beta or DAT formats and it records anything you've ever said. Then there's this thing called memory, which allows us to remember anything you've ever said. So, you can say what you want, you can tell us the sky is green and the ocean is made out of blueberry koo-aid. Go ahead. We won't believe you anyway. We not only know what you said, we have proof. Nice try though. You loser.

:rofl::rofl:


:popcorn:

[Realityhack]

73. So um... heres my question for the freepers.

Is Rumsfeld:
a) So completely senial and or stupid that he does not remember doing this?
b) So completely ignorant or retarded that he does not know the meaning of the word 'advocate'
or
c) Were we right all along that he is a lying sack of shit.

Unfortunately I do not think the above is a false dichotomy (trychotomy? Is that even a word??).