condoleeza on iraq

This topic has 5 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by zn.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

Author

Posts
May 12, 2017 at 9:20 am #68684

wv
Participant

==============

link: http://theduran.com/former-top-bush-official-admits-war-iraq-nothing-democracy/

The Duran — GEORGE Bush’s National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice was speaking at the neo-con Brookings Institution when she said the following,

“We didn’t go to Iraq to bring democracy to Iraq we went to Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein… It was a security problem”.

She also stated,

“I would never have said to President Bush (to) use military force to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan”.
===============

May 12, 2017 at 9:49 am #68685

nittany ram
Moderator

It wasn’t a security problem either. How was Iraq a security risk to the US? There were no WMDs there. The inspectors and intelligence services told them that before the invasion.

It’s nice to hear her admit it wasn’t about democracy or nation building (albeit 1.5 decades after the fact) but she’s still not coming clean.

May 12, 2017 at 10:10 am #68686

Billy_T
Participant

nittany ram wrote:

It wasn’t a security problem either. How was Iraq a security risk to the US? There were no WMDs there. The inspectors and intelligence services told them that before the invasion.

It’s nice to hear her admit it wasn’t about democracy or nation building (albeit 1.5 decades after the fact) but she’s still not coming clean.

True. I think all of us here said that Iraq was no threat at the time. And I don’t think I was at all alone in pointing out, even if Hussein had WMD, it wouldn’t have mattered. He was completely isolated. He had no air force, no friends in the region. We controlled his skies, and we had inspectors on the ground. He wasn’t going to use them. Beyond that, he was a shadow of a shadow of his former self, and even at the height of his power, in 1990, he never tried to attack us, and America defeated him in a matter of weeks. He knew it would be national suicide to use them on anyone. Hell, Clinton bombed him if he sneezed the wrong way.

If we could push a button and get rid of brutal dictators, without harming any innocents? He’d be on the list. But any invasion was destined to unleash holy hell on civilian populations. His own Pentagon told Bush thousands of them would be killed just in the first hours of “shock and awe.”

It was a monstrous and entirely indefensible decision, every which way.

May 12, 2017 at 10:32 am #68688

nittany ram
Moderator

Billy_T wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

It wasn’t a security problem either. How was Iraq a security risk to the US? There were no WMDs there. The inspectors and intelligence services told them that before the invasion.

It’s nice to hear her admit it wasn’t about democracy or nation building (albeit 1.5 decades after the fact) but she’s still not coming clean.

True. I think all of us here said that Iraq was no threat at the time. And I don’t think I was at all alone in pointing out, even if Hussein had WMD, it wouldn’t have mattered. He was completely isolated. He had no air force, no friends in the region. We controlled his skies, and we had inspectors on the ground. He wasn’t going to use them. Beyond that, he was a shadow of a shadow of his former self, and even at the height of his power, in 1990, he never tried to attack us, and America defeated him in a matter of weeks. He knew it would be national suicide to use them on anyone. Hell, Clinton bombed him if he sneezed the wrong way.

If we could push a button and get rid of brutal dictators, without harming any innocents? He’d be on the list. But any invasion was destined to unleash holy hell on civilian populations. His own Pentagon told Bush thousands of them would be killed just in the first hours of “shock and awe.”

It was a monstrous and entirely indefensible decision, every which way.

You’re right. Saddam wouldn’t have been a threat even if he had WMDs. All we accomplished with that invasion was to kill a bunch of innocent people, destabilize the region and create terrorists.

May 12, 2017 at 3:14 pm #68691

waterfield
Participant

Well I didn’t hear the interview but I would be interested in whether a follow up was what did she mean by “security”. That could be helpful since her definition might not simply mean harm brought to U.S. soil.

May 12, 2017 at 5:04 pm #68694

zn
Moderator

waterfield wrote:

Well I didn’t hear the interview but I would be interested in whether a follow up was what did she mean by “security”. That could be helpful since her definition might not simply mean harm brought to U.S. soil.

Well harm to the USA would have been a lie.

Anything else, they did not say at the time, and would have been irrelevant in terms of going to war and mounting an actual invasion.

Either way it was completely spurious and many of us here were saying that at the time.

.
Author

Posts