Read other letters about this article

• Monday, November 17, 2008 01:17 PM

  @ Juan Enrique

  re: I am not acknowledging that Reagan was an accomplice of Hussein.

  It matters not whether you acknowledge it. It's a fact. Read the articles I previously posted. Watch the video of Rummy shaking Saddam's hand. It's all irrefutable evidence.

  re: Reagan had to have the same intentions that Hussein and he did not

  Of course he did, which is why he supported him. You don't support someone unless you have the same intentions, now do you? Reagan characterized Saddam as a "stabilizing force" in the Middle East. He helped him kill thousands of Iranians. The fact that a few Kurds got gassed along the way didn't cause any shift in Reagan's support of Saddam, as the articles cited clearly show.

  re: everybody, including the United Nations and most democrats in Congress believed that Hussein had WMDs

  An oft-repeated lie.

  In fact, democrats in Congress relied on the Bush administration for the intelligence -- intelligence which, as we now know, was supplied by Cheney's "Office of Special Plans".

  SEE:

  The Stovepipe

  How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq’s weapons.

  by Seymour M. Hersh

  ...the intelligence reports about Iraq provided by the United Nations inspection teams and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitored Iraq’s nuclear-weapons programs, were far more accurate than the C.I.A. estimates. “Some of the old-timers in the community are appalled by how bad the analysis was,” the official said. “If you look at them side by side, C.I.A. versus United Nations, the U.N. agencies come out ahead across the board.”...Part of the answer lies in decisions made early in the Bush Administration, before the events of September 11, 2001. In interviews with present and former intelligence officials, I was told that some senior Administration people, soon after coming to power, had bypassed the government’s customary procedures for vetting intelligence...Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, whose book “The Threatening Storm” generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, told me that what the Bush people did was “dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership...“They always had information to back up their public claims, but it was often very bad information,” Pollack continued. “They were forcing the intelligence community to defend its good information and good analysis so aggressively that the intelligence analysts didn’t have the time or the energy to go after the bad information.”

  http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/27/031027fa_fact

  Have a nice day.

  —Scorpio69er Read Scorpio69er's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel