Sen. Kit Bond’s letter (6/13), blaming the CIA for faulty prewar intelligence displays either ignorance or an attempt to cover up this administration’s deceptions that put us into this disastrous war when they knew that Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. Saudi Arabians and a few members of al-Qaida, who were not from Iraq, were responsible for the attack.
Knight Ridder, the now-defunct company that owned The Star, published an article reporting that the CIA told Vice President Dick Cheney that the information from Cheney’s buddy Ahmad Chalabi and his exile group about the existence of WMDs in Iraq was unverified and unsubstantiated.
Condoleezza Rice’s deputy, Stephen Hadley, also knew about the CIA report but said nothing. And Cheney chose to ignore it, because he wanted this war and knew that Bush wanted revenge on Saddam Hussein for having threatened his father.
Because of these deceptions, thousands of Iraqis and our troops are dead or wounded physically or mentally when none of this needed to have happened if it had not been for the rush to a pre-emptive war.
Madeleine Matthews
Kansas City
"Bush wanted revenge on Saddam Hussein for having threatened his father."
The sad part of that is that story may have also been "made up". A story cultivated by the Kuwaitis to keep our interest against their nasty neighbor active.
Posted by: whispering_to_kc | June 29, 2008 at 01:49 PM
Hopefully we'll never have to find out. The "formidable" aspect comes from a number of factors. The Iraqi war is one where we had already, during desert storm, cut a swath through the country and since have controlled airspace and a rather large section of land. These things are usually ignored today. Another is that moral wise, the Iraqi military had a borrowed time mentality. We have faced much more resistance from Iraqi freedom fighters (call them what you want) and insurgents from other nations. Attacking Iran, a much larger nation where we have no footing and would be facing, if nothing else, a larger, better equiped (as Iraq had no air Force) and righteous (as they would be on the defense against an aggressor) foe.
Hope we never see this one engineer, it is pointless.
Posted by: solomon | June 28, 2008 at 04:27 PM
solomon
On some points I am more or less in agreement with you. On Iran being a "formidable adversary" so far as organized military operations go, I'm not so sure. I know the "war games" supposedly show this, but then the "war games" also showed that Iraq would present a determined defense. Also there is the fact that the Iraq/Iran war did not yield victory to either side. The aftermath is where the rub lies, IMO.
Posted by: Engineer | June 28, 2008 at 04:17 PM
Good afternoon Engineer,
Once the cat is out of the bag....
I am on record here as being against nuclear weapons by anyone, including us. I know they will never be eliminated, but I fervently feel they should. There is no way short of an agressive war with a formidable adversary that we will stop Iran from developing the bomb if they so choose. Had they stayed our pawn in the region they'd, IMO, have it now.
Do they have a right to the bomb? Sure, just as much as we do. Do I hope they get the bomb? Heck no, but I also wish we'd not hold ours over proples head.
If only our objections to a nuclear power in the region had come up when Israel acquired theirs.
Posted by: solomon | June 28, 2008 at 03:26 PM
The head of the CIA, a Clinton "hold over" told President Bush that the presence of WMDs was a "slam dunk". He says to this day that is what the intelligence current at that time showed. This is another of the "dead horses" The Star keeps giving us to kick around. The subjects we need to concentrate on are "where do we go from here"? Or "can we afford to allow Iran to become a nuclear power"?
Posted by: Engineer | June 28, 2008 at 03:11 PM
What was LBJ's excuse for getting 52,000+ troops killed in 'Nam?
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | June 28, 2008 at 09:27 AM
Thank you for sharing your feelings, Rogue. That was sweet. Now, anybody got anything substantive?
Posted by: Pub 17 | June 28, 2008 at 08:52 AM
The most stupid of the many accusations against the President is that he wanted revenge for the plot to assasinate his Dad. There are plenty of reasons this war began, not many of them rooted in virtue, but the revenge aspect is not one of them.
Posted by: solomon | June 28, 2008 at 08:50 AM
Madeline, you are so sad. I pity folks like you.
Posted by: Rogue | June 28, 2008 at 08:39 AM
Ms. Matthews, yours is certainly a timely letter. Have you got any opinions on the Civil War or WW I?
Posted by: katman | June 28, 2008 at 04:55 AM