PM Chretein did all right by us

[Sythen]

From most of the information that I've read about the period, it appears that pre 9/11 the NeoCons were pushing to have the Iraq problem finally resolved, and Hussein taken out of power. Many of the members of the Bush 2 administration who served under Bush 1 felt that they had unfinished business. Even in the early days after 9/11, several key figures in the Administration pushed to find links back to Hussein.

So the invasion of Iraq was inevitable, but 9/11 ended up rearranging priorities.

: :facepalm:

CBC opinion pieces I take it?

 

[PuckChaser]

: :facepalm:

CBC opinion pieces I take it?

Or towing the line from the CBC comments section...

 

[cupper]

: :facepalm:

CBC opinion pieces I take it?

:facepalm: Sorry, thanks for playing. I resent your implication.

None of the information I refer to comes from any Canadian news source. I'm referring to several books written by respected authors and journalists.

Tom Ricks "Fiasco" & "The Gamble", Woodwards series on the Bush Presidency, Cobra II by Michael Gordon, No True Glory by Francis West, Paul Bremer's "My Year in Iraq", "Betraying Our Troops: The Destructive Results of Privatizing War" by Rasor & Bauman, "The Man who Pushed America to War" by Aram Roston, "In the Comapny of Soldiers" by Rick Atkinson, "Chain of Command" by Seymour Hersh, "American Soldier" by Tommy Franks and several others that I cannot recall specifically.

Add to that the many articles printed in the Washington Post and other local DC papers during that period of time, several excellent PBS Frontline investigative reports, various on-line news sources, and many on-line national security and foreign policy websites.

 

[Sythen]

:facepalm: Sorry, thanks for playing. I resent your implication.

None of the information I refer to comes from any Canadian news source. I'm referring to several books written by respected authors and journalists.

Tom Ricks "Fiasco" & "The Gamble", Woodwards series on the Bush Presidency, Cobra II by Michael Gordon, No True Glory by Francis West, Paul Bremer's "My Year in Iraq", "Betraying Our Troops: The Destructive Results of Privatizing War" by Rasor & Bauman, "The Man who Pushed America to War" by Aram Roston, "In the Comapny of Soldiers" by Rick Atkinson, "Chain of Command" by Seymour Hersh, "American Soldier" by Tommy Franks and several others that I cannot recall specifically.

Add to that the many articles printed in the Washington Post and other local DC papers during that period of time, several excellent PBS Frontline investigative reports, various on-line news sources, and many on-line national security and foreign policy websites.

Might wanna try adding Steven Staples and others of his sort to your illustrious list of authors  :

 

[cupper]

Might wanna try adding Steven Staples and others of his sort to your illustrious list of authors  :

I prefer authors that actually intend to write fiction or humour, and opposed to those who achieve it inadvertently.

 

[Redeye]

Brad, you and I are pretty much along the same lines when it comes to this discussion.

During the whole run up to the invasion I knew that the WMD line was questionable at best. Up to 2003, there was no definitive evidence that Iraq was continuing to pursue any WMD program, however Hussein made it out to be the case. This would be a reasonable expectation for two reasons.

By late 2002, as I recall, Hussein was loudly screaming that indeed they had nothing. Before that, for a while, he made a point of obfuscating, probably for exactly the reason that you state - to maintain an air of power. A lot of that bluster is for domestic consumption, too. I'd submit for consideration that most of Iran's blustering about destroying Israel and so on is purely for internal audiences. Dictators and strong men need a "bad guy" to maintain legitimacy. To put it in another context, the reason that Fidel Castro remained in power for so long in Cuba is that he had the USA to point to, to say "look what I'm protecting you from" or "look what I stand against". The Cuban embargo has in fact probably been the best thing to ever happen to Fidel, it kept him in power as long as it did, whereas trade probably would have forced a liberalization of Cuba long ago. In the case of Iraq, the idea of Hussein standing up to the rest of the world probably increased his legitimacy in the eyes of the Sunni ruling minority, and the Iran wasn't willing to intervene to support the Shia majority either, nor were the Shia willing to do much on their own because the Americans didn't back them in 1991.

I don't think the invasion was inevitable, or in any way necessary, and that was even apparently to me back in 2003. The ridiculous effort to try to connect Iraq to 9/11 (which made very little sense) was required because even a lot of the American public was skeptical of the casus belli.

From most of the information that I've read about the period, it appears that pre 9/11 the NeoCons were pushing to have the Iraq problem finally resolved, and Hussein taken out of power. Many of the members of the Bush 2 administration who served under Bush 1 felt that they had unfinished business. Even in the early days after 9/11, several key figures in the Administration pushed to find links back to Hussein.

So the invasion of Iraq was inevitable, but 9/11 ended up rearranging priorities.

Inevitable in the sense that it was planned even before 9/11 while people just waited for the right excuse. Numerous sources support that - I'd add a couple of books to that list I read if I could remember the damned titles. They're on my shelf at home.

We did the right thing by staying out of it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien does a little self congratulatory back patting as he opens a "museum" dedicated to ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Jean Chrétien


Video reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail

 

[ModlrMike]

We did the right thing by staying out of it.

Yes, we did. However it wasn't because of any prescience from Mr Chretien.

 

[Redeye]

Yes, we did. However it wasn't because of any prescience from Mr Chretien.

I'm not sold that if someone else had been office (like perhaps the then-Leader of the Opposition) it might have been different. I don't give him all the credit - but there's some due. As leader of the government he winds up with both blame for mistakes and some credit for good decisions.

 

[PuckChaser]

As leader of the government he winds up with both blame for mistakes and some credit for good decisions.

But the Conservatives only get credit for the mistakes, if they make a good decision it was because the Liberals did something in the past to set it up.  :

 

[Redeye]

But the Conservatives only get credit for the mistakes, if they make a good decision it was because the Liberals did something in the past to set it up.  :

:eyeroll: :facepalm:

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Brad, you and I are pretty much along the same lines when it comes to this discussion.

During the whole run up to the invasion I knew that the WMD line was questionable at best. Up to 2003, there was no definitive evidence that Iraq was continuing to pursue any WMD program, however Hussein made it out to be the case. This would be a reasonable expectation for two reasons.

1) He did not want to appear to be in a weak position to his Iranian neighbors,

2) He may truly believed that he still had a significant WMD capability due to subordinates not wanting to tell he that there was nothing left, and all development programs were dead or complete failures.

From most of the information that I've read about the period, it appears that pre 9/11 the NeoCons were pushing to have the Iraq problem finally resolved, and Hussein taken out of power. Many of the members of the Bush 2 administration who served under Bush 1 felt that they had unfinished business. Even in the early days after 9/11, several key figures in the Administration pushed to find links back to Hussein.

So the invasion of Iraq was inevitable, but 9/11 ended up rearranging priorities.

An excerpt from the Iraq Survey Group's report on Iraqi WMD program:

Looking Ahead to Resume WMD Programs

The Regime made a token effort to comply with the disarmament process, but the Iraqis never intended to meet the spirit of the UNSC’s resolutions. Outward acts of compliance belied a covert desire to resume WMD activities. Several senior officials also either inferred or heard Saddam say that he reserved the right to resume WMD research after sanctions.

* Presidential secretary ‘Abd Hamid Mahmud, while a detainee, wrote: “If the sanctions would have been lifted and there is no UN monitoring, then it was possible for Saddam to continue his WMD activities and in my estimation it would have been done in a total secrecy and [with] concealment because he gained from 1991 and UN decisions.” But in another debrief, Huwaysh said it would take 6 months to reconstitute a mustard program.

* Saddam had said that after sanctions Iraq would resume production of WMD to “achieve international balance and protect the dignity of Iraq and Iraqis and the Arab nations,” according to former presidential secretary ‘Abd. ‘Abd wrote while a detainee, “He [Saddam] would say if only Iraq possessed the nuclear weapon then no one would commit acts of aggression on it or any other Arab country, and the Palestinian issue would be solved peacefully because of Iraq.”

* Saddam would have restarted WMD programs, beginning with the nuclear program, after sanctions, according to Tariq ‘Aziz. Saddam never formally stated this intention, according to ‘Aziz, but he did not believe other countries in the region should be able to have WMD when Iraq could not. ‘Aziz assessed that Iraq could have a WMD capability within two years of the end of sanctions.

* Saddam’s intent to maintain and compartment WMD capabilities was well known and often acknowledged by high level authorities, according to a senior Al Kindi State Company official. The Minister of Military Industrialization allegedly told the source that Saddam wanted a WMD program “on the shelf.” Huwaysh, in a written statement, explained instead that Saddam briefed senior officials on several occasions saying, “We do not intend or aspire to return to our previous programs to produce WMD, if the Security Council abides by its obligations pertaining to these resolutions [UNSCR 687, paragraph 14].” Saddam reiterated this point in a cabinet meeting in 2002, according to Dr. Humam ‘Abd-al-Khaliq ‘Abd-al Ghafur, the former Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research.

* Huwaysh believed that Saddam would base his decision regarding future Iraqi WMD development on how the Security Council followed through on its promise in paragraph 14 to establish “in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery.” If this promise was not fulfilled, Iraq should be free to act in its own interests. During an earlier debrief Huwaysh speculated that Iraq would have reconstituted many of its proscribed programs within five years if OIF had not occurred.

* During a custodial interview, Saddam, when asked whether he would reconstitute WMD programs after sanctions were lifted, implied that Iraq would have done what was necessary.

Preserving and Restoring WMD Infrastructure and Expertise

There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial, body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted by preserving assets and expertise. In addition to preserved capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD as soon as sanctions were lifted. The infrequent and uninformed questions ascribed to him by former senior Iraqis may betray a lack of deep background knowledge and suggest that he had not been following the efforts closely. Alternatively, Saddam may not have fully trusted those with whom he was discussing these programs. Both factors were probably at play. All sources, however, suggest that Saddam encouraged compartmentalization and would have discussed something as sensitive as WMD with as few people as possible.

My Emphasis.

Link here.

Saddam may not have had WMD prior to OIF, however, the statements above indicate that it was his intention to resume development after the fall of UN sanctions. 

 

[Scott]

Redeye, you're only reaping what you have sowed. Keep hitting yourself.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I'm not sold that if someone else had been office (like perhaps the then-Leader of the Opposition) it might have been different. I don't give him all the credit - but there's some due. As leader of the government he winds up with both blame for mistakes and some credit for good decisions.

I think this man sums up your argument when he said, "Hearsay and conjecture are FORMS of evidence"

On the same note- We could also assume that had Mr Harper been prime minister that the Canadian Forces would still not have had the capacity to force generate more than a couple of ships (which were in the gulf anyway), some CF-18s (though they couldn't do CAS at that time and there was no real air-air threat), and maybe a few odds and sod units to fly the flag.  I remember reading an article (can't find the link, but can post later) about how every Canadian diplomat in Washington at the time bragged about how Canada actually had the third most forces in Iraq during the invasion.  The overall jist was that Chretien wanted Canadians to think we weren't in Iraq and Americans to think we were. 

 

[Redeye]

I think this man sums up your argument when he said, "Hearsay and conjecture are FORMS of evidence"

On the same note- We could also assume that had Mr Harper been prime minister that the Canadian Forces would still not have had the capacity to force generate more than a couple of ships (which were in the gulf anyway), some CF-18s (though they couldn't do CAS at that time and there was no real air-air threat), and maybe a few odds and sod units to fly the flag.  I remember reading an article (can't find the link, but can post later) about how every Canadian diplomat in Washington at the time bragged about how Canada actually had the third most forces in Iraq during the invasion.  The overall jist was that Chretien wanted Canadians to think we weren't in Iraq and Americans to think we were.

That's what I meant - even if Mr Harper had been PM he probably wouldn't have been able to do much different - he may well have wanted to (as he did support the invasion at the time) but the issue of resources would have prevented that - unless, of course, forces were drawn drown from Afghanistan, but there would still only have been a token contribution.

Ref the diplomats, I remember that story too. I also remember the Canadian Embassy in DC sponsoring a big ad campaign to inform Americans about what great allies we were at the time, even without directly being involved in Iraq.

 

[jollyjacktar]

But the Conservatives only get credit for the mistakes, if they make a good decision it was because the Liberals did something in the past to set it up.  :

Ain't that the sorry truth in today's Canada.

 

[Brad Sallows]

*shrug* Military forces are somewhat fungible.  A foreign contribution in one place frees up an American contribution to go somewhere else.

 

[cupper]

An excerpt from the Iraq Survey Group's report on Iraqi WMD program:
My Emphasis.

Link here.

Saddam may not have had WMD prior to OIF, however, the statements above indicate that it was his intention to resume development after the fall of UN sanctions.

Sure he had the intent. I never said he didn't.

But you need both intent and an act in order to get a conviction.

All the information you posted proves is that the policy of containment had achieved it's purpose.

 

[OldSolduer]

Excuse me here, but was not Kofi Annan's son somehow involved as well, with the oil for food scandal?

The hopes of the UN EVER achieving anything but stern finger wagging mild rebukes have tow chances - slim and none and slim just rode off.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Sure he had the intent. I never said he didn't.

But you need both intent and an act in order to get a conviction.

Actually, not true. If I'm peeved off at someone and I tell them I'm going to go home and get a gun and come back and kill them, I'm likely to get arrested, especially if I've had a history in the past of going home, getting a gun and killing someone.