Iraq war question....

[Nlighten1]

I got this email from a friend of mine asking me to provide rebuttle authors AGAINST the war in Iraq. Who should I recommend?

Here is the email:

Question for you - have you read anything on the war/Iraq? I am
finishing up 'Saddam: KIng of
Terror' by Con Couglin. He is the editor of the Sunday Telegraph of
London. I also picked up The
Threatening Storm by Kenneth Pollack yesterday. That book interested me
for a few reasons. Pollack
worked in the National Security Council during the Clinton
administration. He was a low-level CIA
staff analyst in the late 80s/early 90s and apparently was only one of
3 CIA personnel to predict
that Saddam was going to invade Kuwait. In any event, the book was
written in 2002, and he
advocated an American invasion of Iraq. I have only read the preface,
but essentially he says that
sooner or later we will have to deal with Saddam, and it is better to
do it sooner.
Although this fellow worked for a democratic administration, he appears
to be hawkish. What I'm
wondering is, who articulates the opposite view most eloquently? I've
seen the former weapons
inspector Scott Ritter has a book out, but frankly he strikes me as
simply partisan. Noam Chomsky?
There must be someone who presents a case against going to war in a
cogent, even-handed manner?
Are you aware of who the spokesmen for this view might be?
I want to read both sides of the issue."

[paulsbc]

1. dealing later

Dealing with Saddam should have come later, there was no need to invade at this time, no immediate threat from Saddam that required immediate action and certainly greater threats from other areas that we are now minimizing or not dealing with correctly.

Would Saddam, left alone, ended up needing to be confronted by the US later? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it is clear that invading Iraq now did nothing to help us with the clear and present enemy of the US, Al Qaeda...

[Brian Sweat]

2. Since the title of both books are in such stark contrast with reality

I am suspect of the information contained in them. There is little evidence to suggest that Hussein is the "King of Terror" and the idea that we would have to deal with Hussein sooner or latter was simply not grounded in fact.

[sangh0]

3. Some books

William Pitt wrote a book with Scott Ritter, a former weapons inspector for the UN

Noam Chomsky has a book on this, and so does Gore Vidal. I nkow you think these two are partisan, and there is some truth to that, but their partisanship pales in comparison to the partisanship of Pollack and Coughlin.

[Trajan]

4. Coughlin ...

Is associated, .... through his ties to The Telegraph, .. to none other than Richard Perle, one of the primary authors of current US policy and CEO of Hollinger Digital, LTD ... the media universe owned by Richard Black .... I personally refuse to allow the Telegraph the LAST WORD on whether or not an event that has transpired or is about to transpire, or in what way it will transpire ... I prefer other, less tainted sources ....

Regarding Kenneth Pollack: .. he is a credible expert, I believe ... He is not directly associated with the PNAC/AEI axis, and walks his own course in Middle Eaat politics .... but, one might ask: ... IS Pollack considering ONLY the benefit of war against Saddam without considering the ramifications of an administration LYING to US citizens to form a false justification for war ? ....

Removing Saddam may be a 'good thing', .... but it may not be the 'right thing', if he presented no immediate threat to the US or its allies .... and one might also agree that the price of occupation may be too high a price, even if the benefit of overthrow of Saddam was real, which I believe it was .....

Saddam is a BAD fella .... the world will be a better place without him, .. but THAT fact alone doesnt justify invasion of a sovereign nation .....

The world would be a better place with George Bush as leader as well: .. would THAT be justification for invasion ? ...

Hardly ...

[Nlighten1]

5. Any recommendations for books to balance the argument?