But what about the claims that General Zinni has made? Is it true that, as he says, there was no real reason to go to war with Iraq? Hmm, let's see what he had to say before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2000, 11 months before President Bush took office:
• Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region. This is primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD [emphasis added], oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) …
• Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, … Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months. [Emphasis added]
• The Iraqi regime’s high regard for WMD and long-range missiles is our best indicator that a peaceful regime under Saddam Hussein is unlikely.
• … extremists may turn to WMD in an effort to …overcome improved U.S. defenses against conventional attack. Detecting plans for a specific WMD attack is extremely difficult, making it likely such an event would occur without warning. [Emphasis added]
Lefties won't mind the inconsistency. To them, inconsistency isn't a bug, it's a feature!
3 comments:
General Zinni was making an argument for a containment mission, not an invasion.
You and I both know that one must invoke a sense of urgency in order to be properly funded and resourced. At the time there was talk of lifting the sanctions against Saddam.
This is the best example I have ever seen of quoting someone OUT OF CONTEXT!
Whether it be for containment or invasion, General Zinni was very clear about the danger Saddam posed to the US--specifically because of weapons of mass destruction.
You can run from the facts, anonymous, but you cannot hide.
Hey Anon
You forget GEN Z was part of the Clinton Administration. It’s not “He lied”, but “What he said then is no longer operative.”
You better get back on the bandwagon!
In all seriousness, what he was describing was a threat to one of the major interest of not only this country, but of the world, i.e. stability in the Middle East. It didn’t change until Saddam was removed in 2003.
I wonder Anon, was GEN Z lying through his teeth? Everyone is saying Bush and Rummy are but some reason Slick Willie, ex SECDEF Cohen, ex SECSTATE Albright were not lying when they said the same things in the late 1990s.
GEN Z was stating the perceived threat of Saddam and it had no relation to what GEN Z was asking for. In Rio Linda English, CINCCENTCOM was asking for resources (translation money) because there was a threat from Iraq that justifies it.
Darren is not taking his words out of context…get a clue.
Full disclosure, I’m currently deployed to the Middle East with the US Army.
Post a Comment