I bet Woolsey and the PNAC would just love to invade Iran. He really wanted the US to invade Iraq. And he was way wrong about Iraq.
DLC | Blueprint Magazine | May 21, 2002
America's New War: Should Iraq be Next?
By R. James Woolsey
snip
For his part, Saddam only needs time to add nuclear and longer-range missile capabilities to his current arsenal of chemical and bacteriological weapons, and short-range missiles. He will then be able to deter coalitions from forming against him, to dominate his corner of the world, and to make it far less likely that we will be able to interrupt his rule and his dynasty. Terrorist attacks on us serve these ends if they help keep us away from him.
snip
The case for removing Saddam only becomes stronger with the passage of time.
First, there is no reasonable debate about the proposition that he has chemical and bacteriological weapons and short-range ballistic missiles. In the May issue of Vanity Fair, for example, writer David Rose debriefs an Iraqi defector who chronicles the locations of their production in Iraq -- including the use of mobile laboratories for making bacteriological agents. Rose also revealed Iraqi work on ballistic missiles of increasingly longer range that will soon be capable of reaching Europe. The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a nonprofit organization, has published details about the four tons of VX nerve gas and the several hundred tons of other chemical agents Iraq possesses. In addition to hiding many tons of growth media for biological agents and pursuing its work on smallpox and anthrax, Iraq is the only nation in the world to have weaponized aflatoxin, whose primary purpose is to cause liver cancer in children.
snip
For democracies, war is ordinarily their last choice. It is dictatorships that start wars, often because their rulers need enemies to stay in power. Many would say of the Arabs that it is foolhardy to try to bring democracy to their corner of the world, and indeed there are some cultural barriers (not least of which are the views of the Wahhabis and those Muslims who see the world through similar eyes). But the substantial majority of the people of the Middle East are not any less suited to democracy than it was once thought the Germans and Japanese would be, and they cannot be that different in their ability to govern themselves decently than their co-religionists in, say, Mali and Bangladesh. We need to remember what Wilson and FDR taught us. In the long run, for all of us, peace and political freedom are inseparable.
snip
But Iraq is just the next battle in a war that will take a number of years, quite possibly decades. Given the three major movements in the Middle East which are, in essence, at war with us, we will not have peace until we defeat them and win this fourth world war. To win it, we must decide that we are fighting it in no small part to bring freedom and democracy to those whom we want to have as friends and allies: the people of the Arab and Muslim worlds
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=1&kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=250507"For democracies, war is ordinarily their last choice. It is dictatorships that start wars, often because their rulers need enemies to stay in power"
Yeah, I guess the above quote perfectly outlines one reason Bu$h invaded Iraq.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
