Rethinking the Iraq Critics
In trying to understand news about the conflicts in Iraq, I work to keep in mind the difference between what we know now about decision-making in World War II and what most Americans knew at the time. From the memoirs and documents published after the war, we've learned how leaders made critical judgments. But at the time, even well-informed journalists could only guess at what was going on behind the scenes.
Today we're only beginning to learn about what went on behind the scenes on Iraq. One important new source is the recently published War and Decision by Douglas Feith, the No. 3 civilian at the Pentagon from 2001 to 2005. Feith quotes extensively from unpublished documents and contemporary memorandums, just as in the late 1940s Robert Sherwood did in Roosevelt and Hopkins and Winston Churchill did in his World War II histories. The picture Feith paints is at considerable variance from the narratives with which we've become familiar.
One such narrative is "Bush lied, people died." The claim is that "neocons," including Feith, politicized intelligence to show that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction. Not so, as the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Silberman-Robb Commission have already concluded. Every intelligence agency believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and the post-invasion Duelfer report concluded that he maintained the capability to produce them on short notice. There was abundant evidence of contacts between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Given Saddam's hostility to the United States and his stonewalling of the United Nations, American leaders had every reason to believe he posed a grave threat. Removing him removed that threat.
Unfortunately—and here Feith is critical of his ultimate boss, George W. Bush—the administration allowed its critics to frame the issue around the fact that stockpiles of weapons weren't found. Here we see at work the liberal fallacy, apparent in debates on gun control, that weapons are the problem, rather than the people with the capability and will to use them to kill others. The fact that millions of law-abiding Americans have guns is not a problem; the problem is that criminals can get them and have the will to kill others. Similarly, the fact that France has WMDs is not a problem; the fact that Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce WMDs and the will to use them against us was.
Feith identifies as our central mistake the decision not to create an Iraqi Interim Authority to take over some sovereign functions soon after the overthrow of Saddam. Bush ordered the creation of such an authority on March 10, 2003. But it was resisted by State Department and CIA leaders who argued that Iraqis would not trust "externals"—those in exile—and who were especially determined to keep the Iraqi National Congress's Ahmed Chalabi from power. As head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer took the State-CIA view and, without much supervision from Washington, decided that the U.S. occupation would continue for as long as two years. Only deft negotiation by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld produced a June 30, 2004, deadline for returning authority to Iraqis. The January 2005 elections placed many of the "externals," including Chalabi, in high office.
Feith admits he made mistakes and misjudgments. He criticizes Bush for not defending the main rationale for invasion—protecting Americans from a genuine threat—and instead emphasizing the subsidiary and iffy goal of establishing democracy. He says little about military operations, beyond noting that Bremer and the military leaders had no common approach to combating disorder.
There's still much to be learned about our decisions, good and bad, in Iraq. But Feith's book is a step forward, as were those of Sherwood and Churchill 60 years ago.
Tags: Iraq | Iraq war (2003-)
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (34)
Reader Comments
WMDs, al Qaeda and Saddam
The actual evidence that Saddam's Iraq had WMDs was always weak. It is true that some intelligence groups considered it likely that Saddam had stashed away some WMDs, but this surmise was largely conjectural. When UN inspectors, in early 2003, declared that no substantive evidence for WMDs had been found, they were either ignored or denigrated as incompetent. The evidence for substantive contacts between Saddam and al Qaeda is even weaker; nothing has been produced that demonstrates true operational collaboration. Saddam's secular regime was always suspicious of the Wahhabist bin Laden and the Salafi-dominated al Qaeda movement. The reality is that the Bush administration used WMDs and al Qaeda to fear monger Congress and the American people into their Iraq adventure; this sound very much like "Bush lied, people died." Saddam was not the extensive threat to the U.S. he was portrayed to be, and this fact was realized by many, if not most, in the CIA. Revanchism by cherry-picking historic events does make Feith memoirs relevant.
Saddam and terrosists
Funny thing is Bush says that no one has suggested that there is no connection between Iraq and September 11, 2001. There is evidence of links between Saddam's government and several other terrorist groups including that of Zawahiri's, the guy who was leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, before the invasion.
War and Decision
No one believed that Saddam posed a threat until it was Bush's policy to believe so. Colin Powel, Condoleeza Rice, and Tony Blair all declared that U. N. sanctions were working only months before Bush began to beat the drums for invading Iraq. And former U. S. chief weapons inspector for the U. N. said he knew that Saddam could not have WMD.
If one is looking for insights, Fiasco, by Thomas Ricks, End Game, by Scott Ritter, Future:Tense, by Gwynne Dyer, and Defeat, by Jonathan Steele are good choices. Feith's book is for those looking for inexactitudes and excuses.
Giacomo and Richard, it goes to show that you guys have a profound deepness of ignorance on this subject. No, it isn't Michael Barone who needs to expand his library, because I'm pretty sure he has read many liberal accounts of how the Iraq War was posited (and many of these accounts are from second hand sources, many of whom may have had an axe to grind against the administration). Everyone knows that the CPA was an abject failure, and it seems the author suggests that Bush wanted to turn control back over to the Iraqis sooner rather than later. If this is the case, it seems that Colin Powell was more wrong on this issue than Bush was, even though he became critical of his own venture after he left office.
And Richard, I'm glad you always knew that the intelligence was weak. Maybe you should go into public service.
Behind the scenes?
I suspect when we find out everything that went on behind the scenes, the story will get even worse.
The latest revelation: "Message Force Multipliers." Just in case Americans weren't swallowing the administration's propaganda, the Bushies recruited retired military officers, fed them adminstration talking points and made sure they were hooked up with defense contractors that dangled lucrative consulting gigs. The message was simple: deliver the party line and cash in.
The more we find out about this cynical, politically driven war, the worse it gets.
check this out
colectionarul.com/becali.html
Saddam and hot air
saddam HAD TO successfully bluff about WMD or he couldnt survive the neigborhood.
If you know the Iran-Iraq conflict of the 80s it was only the gas weapons that saved iraq from iran. But W is gunna go in and kill RReagan's best boy? what an idiot.
With the 60th birthday of Israel on 5/15/08 I invite you to read about the brits pulling out in 1948. We too have now bit off more than we can chew, again.
WMDs, etc.
Funny how immediately after "reading" it, Giacomo and Richard make assertions that have been shown to be either fallacious, irrelevant, or simply untrue in the very post on which they are commenting.
1. Everyone knew Saddam didnt have WMD's - false, as proven by numerous commissions, committees, and reports:"as the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Silberman-Robb Commission have already concluded. Every intelligence agency believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and the post-invasion Duelfer report..."
2. Iraq posed no threat to U.S. - the threat existed b/c of his capability to produce and willingness to use the weapons..."Here we see at work the liberal fallacy, apparent in debates on gun control, that weapons are the problem, rather than the people with the capability and will to use them to kill others"
3. No evidence of "operational collaboration" b/t terrorists and Saddam's regime - we have abundant evidence of contacts b/t the two groups. It doesnt take much of an imagination to see sinister motives in their contact.
Iraq Invasion: Sham and Shame
There is simply no justification for this tragedy to have happened. After working for several years in Saudi and Egypt I had some insight into the Muslim culture. I am a registered Republican and basically conservative in most things. However I was the one "shocked and awed" by the irresponsible military attack on a sovereign country that had not attacked us and was clearly posing no threat to us or any of our so-called allies in the Middle East. There is no way that I can condone the killing and destruction of innocent Iraqi civilians and property in the manner that we did.
Even though extremely anti -war I did go into Iraq as a contractor to USAID starting in July 03 through July 06 with a personal goal of trying to right some of this horror.
I saw first hand the carnage of our bombs before the insurgents started their own own rule or ruin reaction to the invasion. I met and employed very fine Iraqis whose bravery and character under these conditions was exemplerary. This is difficult to get across to American readers who by now have a very distorted view of these these fine people. They were loyal and protected me to a fault. I went out with them into Iraq going low profile as a local which may have been safer than with the high profile security teams. I was able to visit them at their homes and dine with the3ir families. That was true in 03 and the first part of 04 particularly. I was able to perform my duties more cost effectively and efficiently. The most striking detail was in conversations with my Iraqi staff who basically were pro-American or at least wished for the best out of this horrific situation. On more than one occassion in relaxed and casual conversation when I tried to justify American actions to the group, the shiest ladies would say, but "Mr. Jim why did America attack us? I would sheepishly repeat the party line. Hussiens WMD- "Oh no Mr. Jim we got rid of that because of all the UN activity" or your Al-Qaida connections- "Oh no, Mr. Jim we hate Al-Qaida here, we do not want Wahhabis here , the women are free, educated, not in Purdah, not under any religious Shria laws etc." They all looked at me in agreement. These young people had excellent educations as engineers, Lawyers, communications engineers and IT people and Educators etc. with no particular axe to grind. They were armed just with the facts. All we had to do was to ask them. Where was our intelligence??? Needless to say this group today are desparately trying to flee their country . Some are already in Jordan but trapped as they could be sent home at any time. A few are now in the US and Europe but struggling to get into our society. The key word here is though, "These are innocents". Their pleas to me for help keeps me awake at night. I seem to have few allies in the US Government on these issues. Whether we like it or not we as a Nation are responsible for their plight. I am not in favor of an immediate withdrawal for obvious reasons.
World War II and Iraq
An interesting comparison between WW II and Iraq. Japan attacked us, not Germany. Why did we go to war with Germany? Because one of our allies was a war with them? But Germany did not pose any risk to us. Did Roosevelt lie and people died? Was intelligence "made up" to support the case for war.
What is interesting is no one has faulted Roosevelt for this.
In case you missed the 1990s
Jim Soyars,
You say Saddam's Iraq was "a sovereign country that had not attacked us and was clearly posing no threat to us or any of our so-called allies in the Middle East."
Actually, wrong on all counts. Iraqi sovereignty was compromised and conditional throughout the 1990s. There was no armistice after the Gulf War; Saddam and the US continued to wage war. The US bombed, ruled the skys and imposed a blockade on Iraq through the 1990s. Iraq did pose a threat; encirclement by US armed forces simply mitigated that threat.
your not going to get the lefties
to change their story by arguing facts. Ya there was evidence of WMD, ya Saddam was snuggling up to terrorists and subsidizing Muslim militias, ya he had invaded all his neighbors except Turkey, but narrative of the left is that America is all bad. Its not a matter of facts, its between their ears, and nothing else will do.
Bush is going to come out of this with a mixed report card, just like every other President. The lefties need to gear up to demonize the next President, whomever that will be, including Obama. They want the "evil-America" narrative more than they want wisdom.
"However I was the one "shocked and awed" by the irresponsible military attack on a sovereign country that had not attacked us and was clearly posing no threat to us or any of our so-called allies in the Middle East."
____________________
If Saddam was posing no threat to us or any ally, then why had we spent ten years in the desert "containing" him? Clearly someone thought he was a threat - one we could no longer contain from Saudi Arabia, as well.
The hubris of liberals is astounding
They KNEW in 2003 with 100% certainty that Saddam posed no threat and that he would NEVER pose a threat and that he would NEVER produce WMDs and he would NEVER give them to Al Queda.
This kind of absolutism is the realm of religion not world affairs.
The only thing we KNEW for sure in 2003 was that Saddam was a very dangerous leader with an appetite for mischief beyond his borders who had a proven capability to produce WMD and no moral qualms about using them. Anyone who claims they KNOW what he would have done if he were left in power and who he would have done it with is a ignorant fool.
The world is better of with Saddam gone. In 10 years we might easily look back on the invasion of Iraq as one of the most positive transformative events in world history. The start of democratization of the Middle East.
The only thing I am sure of is that liberals will work to insure that this does not happen. They would much prefer to see there whole region turn into a genocidal hell hole than question their holier-than-thou version of reality.
"Why did we go to war with Germany"?
Er...we didn't. Two days after we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us and unleashed their U-boat fleet on US shipping. By the time we sent 8th Airforce to England they had already begun sinking our ships. Germany was bound by treaty to join Japan against us and they were pretty ticked off about it - they'd been trying to keep us out of the war until at least they had dealt with Russia and could use the full industrial might of occupied Europe against us.
Moving to modern times, after the inspectors left Iraq in 1998 it was generally believed, with good foundation, that Iraq retained enough of its WMD stockpile and programs to be a threat to regional peace once sanctions were lifted. It didn't matter if Hussein wasn't very good at making WMDs, all he had to do was make one and smuggle it into some Western capital to cause massive (and deniable) chaos. We trust the British with WMDs; we trust the French with WMDs. We even sort of trust the Russians with WMDs because they've seen first hand the cost of letting a nuclear device get out of control does (Chernoybl). We had no basis whatsoever to trust Hussein with WMDs. Whatever trust we might have develioped went *squish* when he bugged the UN inspectors' hotel rooms.
Bush never said Iraq was involved in 9/11. No one in his Administration ever said Iraq was involved with 9/11. Some might have (reasonably) suspected Iraq was involved but their suspicions were quickly set to rest by careful investigation. The one undeniable linkage to 9/11 is that in an age when even unsophisticated savages will hijack civilian airliners and crash ihese into US skyscrapers we cannot afford to trust in the good intentions of murderous madmen in positions of power. Hussein had proven himself untrustworthy in every way possible so he had to go. He could have made it easy: everyone gave him the chance (several times) to pack a couple of suitcases of money, flee the country, and let a UN-monitotred transitional government hold elections. That's essentially what happened with Idi Amin and he died in his bed of old age surrounded by loved ones. Amin was a worse monster than Hussein; he used to eat his victims. But he went quietly and lived out his life in a palace in Saudi Arabia. Uganda became one of the few bright spots in Africa. Brighter, anyway. Absent rational thought by Hussein, Bush did what Clinton should have done in 1998. 9/11 gave him the impetus to act.
I believe that Iraq had WMD's either moved them or buried them in the sand somewhere over there. Just because the were never found is no sure sign that they did n't have them. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement "Bush never said Iraq was involved in 9/11. No one in his Administration ever said Iraq was involved with 9/11. Some might have (reasonably) suspected Iraq was involved but their suspicions were quickly set to rest by careful investigation. The one undeniable linkage to 9/11 is that in an age when even unsophisticated savages will hijack civilian airliners and crash ihese into US skyscrapers we cannot afford to trust in the good intentions of murderous madmen in positions of power. Hussein had proven himself untrustworthy in every way possible so he had to go." I believe that President George Bush has been falsely accused and demeaned by the Demoncrats and if I have ever been convinced in my hearts that the liberals are only interested in votes of the fickle self centered ,self serving gulliable, I am now thorougly convinced. Praise God for President George Bush a man of principle and loyal to what America is supposed to be all about.
Saddam and WMD
The actual physical existence of WMDs in Iraq is immaterial. Saddam Hussein was required to verifiably destroy all of his unconventional weapon stockpiles.
Hussein may have destroyed his WMDs. But, he did not do so in a manner that was verifiable as required by the cease fire agreement, UN Resolution 690.
When a nation violates the terms of a cease fire agreement it is essentially reengaging in a war with the other party. Throughout the previous 12 years, the US only took a half hearted view of these problems. The "no fly zone" and "sanctions" were ineffective in controlling Hussein's power.
In the pre-9/11 era, maybe it was plausible to ignore such levels of threat. Maybe the Cole incident and previous World Trade bombings were not enough to justify any levels of response, but any prudent leader after the 9/11 attacks is going to evaluate the threats to the United States much differently. That is why people like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry supported the action to go to war. Based on the evidence it was the right thing to do. Every Democratic leader from Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Jay Rockefeller concured with the intelligence, the evaluation of the intelligence, and the action steps based on that intelligence.
THe claims otherwise, and the squirming around to impugn their own votes is laughable except for the fact that these muddles people like Hillary want to be the next president. Their lack of will only makes George W. Bush appear superior.
Barone, JD of LA, Chris of AZ, et al:
All of you apparently think that those of us who were alive, awake, alert, paying attention, during the 30 years or so leading up to W's Iraq adventure have either lost our memories or have died of old age.
Surprise! Some of us are still here, with memories intact and plenty of back-up documentation. We are sick of you propagandists lying to our impressionable children and grandchildren.
See if you can dredge up a little integrity instead of adding to the damage that has been done to our country and the world.
Invasions?
Pashley said "...he had invaded all his neighbors except Turkey"
When did Saddam Hussein invade Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria? All three countries border Iraq.
Iraq borders six countries. Saddam invaded two, Iran and Kuwait. America supported the former, opposed the latter.
Sorry for not changing my story by arguing facts.
Saddam and WMD
The whole world believed that Saddam had at least chemical weapons. What is the evidence? He used them on the Kurds and Iranians and refused to have the UN verify that they were all destroyed. David Kay, chief arms inspector after the invasion, stated that elite Republican Guard commanders believed that other Republican Guard units still had chemical weapons. To expect our government to have better intelligence on Iraqi military capabilities than elite Iraqi commanders did is unrealistic. It was also well established that Saddam had a strong desire to acquire biological and nuclear weapons. Was the containment policy on Saddam Hussein working? In hindsight, apparently so, other than the tremendous abuse of the oil-for-food program. Would we have been better off completing the stabilization of Afghanistan before dealing with Iraq? Probably so. Were huge misjudgements made in the aftermath of invading Iraq? Most definitely. But remember, the Iraqis were shooting at our planes on a regular basis. Given Saddam's strong desire to attack us, would you want to be the president dealing with a death toll in an American city after you failed to act?
Here is another example of what a madman Saddam was. One of his retired air force generals wrote a book about his experiences. At one point, Saddam had already decided to send 70 planes to attack Israel with chemical weapons when he called in this retired general for advice. He was dissuaded only after being told that the Israelis would shoot down all of the planes before they got there because of the Israeli's more-advanced radar capabilities. That is the type of ruler we removed.
Curveball
"To expect our government to have better intelligence on Iraqi military capabilities than elite Iraqi commanders did is unrealistic."
Unless the elite Iraqi commander is named "curveball."
Invasions
Northern Pike of WI, Saudi Arabia was bombed by Iraq during the Gulf War. Although not exactly a neighbor, Israel was also bombed by Iraq in that war.
If you take the best estimates as to how many Iraqis Saddam killed each year and compare it to the US-caused civilian deaths each year, the Iraqis come out much better.
Saddam didn't exactly try for the 'Genocide on your own subjects' award many others did, but he did kill or order killed a whole lot. More than a few himself, which is more than Stalin or Mao can say.
The problem was the fundies and the militias, who were kept down by threat of brutality by Saddam, popped up and did what fundies and militias do in Third World countries. Kill, terrorize, and try to take control with essentially tribal warfare. We didn't expect it, despite it being a logical conclusion, and did little about it. And that killed a whole lot, until the Iraqis learned that US troops are a lot safer than fanatics with guns.
I am surprised at the lack of 'No Blood for Oil' idiots yet. Cause right now, a bet a lot of people are thinking that the US army should be sending home some oil.
False Rationale
Mr. Barone,
Fine and well.
However what is the rationale for remaining in Iraq now if we understand there are no WMD's? How is it worth the billions and billions of dollars that we now do not have to bail out medicare and social security, that we do not have for helping the homeless, that we do not have to build new bridges, that we do not have to fund cancer research, that we do not have to buy gas? How is it worth the interest on the national debt? How is it worth the lives of 4,000 plus Americans killed, and the thousands of maimed? How is it worth the thousands of Iraqi's killed and the thousands maimed, and the physical pain, and the emotional pain, the orphans, and the grief? How is it worth the revenge and hate this action has wrought?
Yes, please explain, how is the result of invading Iraq worth it?
Evidence of the threat Saddam posed
Evidence the MSM, propagandist and cover-up artist don't want you to know.
http://www.thexreport.com
'Evidence' of the threat Saddam posed
Wow!!! Photos of stuff that isn't there.
Boy, does that ever clinch the case for invasion.
Next: Photo of empty desert where Saddam kept WMD before burying evidence in Damascus.
Evidence of the threat Saddam posed
Northern Pike,
Try reading down the whole front page and not just the top half of it.
Better yet, try this link if reading is too hard for you.
http://www.thexreport.com/the_prague_connection1.htm
Pulling out inspectors
Haven't read Feith, but it is a matter of record that not everyone believed Saddam had WMD.
Briefly, Bush pulled US weapons inspectors out of Iraq ahead of the invasion then lied about it, claiming that Saddam had "kicked them out."
Safe conclusion, both then and now, no hindsight needed: we had inspectors on the ground who did not find WMD.
If we thought we had overlooked them, we could have continued looking.
Furthermore, in October of 2002 Bush deleted a statement from a speech claiming that we, the US, knew Iraq was getting yellowcake from Africa. He withdrew it because our intelligency agencies recommended it - they did not believe it happened. THEN, the intelligency agencies were right; NOW we ordinary citizens know it, too. Bush, THEN, followed their advice.
But three months later, in the State of The Union Address, Bush said we had learned from British sources that Iraq was trying to get yellowcake. The British had no "evidence" we didn't have, i.e., they had the same "evidence" our agencies had found to be false. See Joe Wilson, New York Times, 2003.
Bush wanted a war with Iraq. To do so, he ignored US intelligence data. He pulled out weapons inspectors. He lied about the reason they left.
The case for war was fatally weak before it ever began; how does Feith's assertion that "everyone" believed WMD were there strengthen that case?
Pulling out inspectors
russ ludeke,
"But three months later, in the State of The Union Address, Bush said we had learned from British sources that Iraq was trying to get yellowcake. The British had no "evidence" we didn't have, i.e., they had the same "evidence" our agencies had found to be false. See Joe Wilson, New York Times, 2003."
now that is really funny. According to the (U.K.) Butler report, the Brits said the following:
The Honourable House of Commons:
Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction
Chairman: The Honorable Lord Butler
14th July 2004
(Excerpt from the report)
499. We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the statements on the Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the Statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein has recently sought significant quantities of uranium Was well founded.
(Conclusion: Excerpt from the report)
503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi
attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:
a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in
1999.
b. The British Government had intelligence from several different
sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring
uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of
Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as
opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government
did not claim this.
d. The forged documents were not available to the British
Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact
of the forgery does not undermine it.
__________________________________________________________
LInk: http://web.archive.org/web/20051230181952/www.butlerreview.org.uk/report/report.pdf
Iraq
The book was never meant to change a fools mind these people believe
they know more than the number three man at the Pentagon . It appears to be
an honest assesment of decision makeing pros and cons in the wars aftermath
for people with fair minded ( not closed minded ) ideaology. Is it possible this guy
doesn't know jack or has some agenda sure, but i haven't seen evidence of that yet
until then it would be folly to underestimate it's content. You know the lefts hatred
of Bush allways appears to be the center of there argument and certainly undermines it! Fair minded people can allways find under the worst of circumstances some way to disagree without the outlandish stridency of todays
left leaning boy geniuses . Obviously not only a product of our outstanding marxist universities but of massive koolaid sugar consumption during the sixties,seventies
and eighties . sorry i couldn't help it.
Raising the bar
Feith has provided substantial documentation to support his recounting of events. Going forward, people who want to refute what he says are going to have to provide contrary, verifiable proof. People who rely on journalistic or unsubstantiated accounts are only arguing their prejudices, not engaging the truth. Of course, that is mainly how the Left has sold its version of the Iraq story thus far, which is why Feith provided so much countervailing evidence. Reminds me of the old lawyer saw, "If you don't have the facts or the law on your side, yell loudly!"
uh course it wunt bout dubya emm deez
it wunt bout finishin wut poppa bush started neither
i mean, 15 of the 19 9/11 bombers wuz iraqis right? uh course we gunna bomb em sums a guns. hehehe.
wut?
Add your thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our comment guidelines.advertisement
Threat to U.S.
WMD or no, Iraq posed no immediate threat to the U.S.. Step Forward??? If this is what you came away with after reading Feith you need to expand your library.
May 08, 2008 13:10:35 PM [permalink] [report comment]