Begin forwarded message:
From: "Atkinson, Robert" <rca53@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: December 23, 2005 11:22:00 PM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [IP] more on Congressman Conyers calls for select
committee tostudy impeachment
Dave:
As I understand it, the "real objective" of our involvement in Iraq
was and still is to minimize the risk to this country (and allies)
that unstable, hostile countries or terrorists could acquire weapons
of mass destruction. After 9/11, even the slightest possibility of
terrorists or rogue states having WMDs became intolerable. Period.
Is "no WMDs in hostile hands" a necessary and worthwhile national
security objective? It's hard to think that it isn't; certainly
nuclear proliferation isn't good.
So, with "no WMDs in hostile hands" as the principal national
security objective, the thinking was and is that the invasion of Iraq
could help achieve the objective in three ways:
1) By making sure that Saddam Hussein's Iraq didn't have WMDs or the
capability of developing them (this mission was accomplished quickly:
despite expectations to the contrary, no WMDs were found and it is
unlikely that the "new Iraq" will ever have WMD capability);
2) By making it clear to other rogue states (such as Libya, Iran,
North Korea) that the United States will never permit them to have
WMDs, and that they will suffer Iraq's fate (ruination) if they try
(this mission was accomplished with respect to Libya; success is less
assured with respect to Iran and North Korea and the "lack of will"
currently being shown in the United States may mislead Iran and North
Korea into thinking they have nothing to fear); and,
3) By establishing a stable, civilized, democratic society in the
Middle East in the hope that it will minimize the need for the United
States to police the region for the foreseeable future (this mission
has not yet been accomplished and might be the most difficult; it
will be a long time before any judgment can be made).
The Afghan/Iraq actions seem to have reduced the possibility of
nuclear war between India andPakistan and they helped to expose the
dissemination of nuclear bomb-making know-how to rogue states by A.Q.
Khan. These unintended consequences can help achieve the objective
of "no WMDs in hostile hands" and are a "bonus."
Was the invasion of Iraq the best way or only way to achieve a
critical national security objective? Could different things be done?
Obviously, there is a lot of debate about that now. But you asked
about what is the "real objective," not the means of achieving it.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 6:15 PM
To: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [IP] more on Congressman Conyers calls for select committee
tostudy impeachment
Frankly they don't give a damn whether we succeed in our
objectives in either Afghanistan or Iraq
I may give a damn if someone would explain to me what the real
objectives of our involment in Iraq?
Dave
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: December 23, 2005 10:47:55 AM EST
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Congressman Conyers calls for select
committee tostudy impeachment
Reply-To: dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Note: This comment comes from reader Dave Hughes. DLH]
From: "Dave Hughes" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: December 21, 2005 8:51:52 AM PST
To: <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] re: Congressman Conyers calls for select
committee tostudy impeachment
My source of information did not come from Drudge. I don't read or
use his trash.
What angers me is that Congressional antagonists (I don't call them
'critics' any more - they are far more interested in political
advantage for the next election and media grandstanding than
serious or responsible critique of how this war is being waged)
don't have a clue, and could care less, what it takes to cope with
the militant 100 year Islamic war aimed at the United States being
waged by Al Quaeda and its global wanna-be's. Which is based on
subversion, clandestine communications, the use of ever more deadly
and miniaturized weaponry and related technologies (which I warned
Secretary of Defense McNamara of 40 years ago would be the future
nature of war) now including encrypted internet, fleeting telephone
calls and coded messaging many of whose signals between agents in
two foreign countries technically route through switches in the US.
Resulting in singular acts of terrorism far more calculated to
break the will of naive American people through their chosen weapon
of television than the amount of real destruction.
Frankly they don't give a damn whether we succeed in our objectives
in either Afghanistan or Iraq and are perfectly willing, starting
with what is printed in the New York Times in blatantly revealing
the details of every classified operation the US undertakes.
Whether or not that directly contributes to the death of more
Americans or more terrorist strikes or not, either in Iraq or New
York.
As for my crack about Clinton's use of executive powers, just don't
forget that the botched intelligence about Iraq and the degree to
which it had, or was making, WMD, was provided a new President,
Rumsfeld and Powell, after 9/11 by the incompetent CIA Director
George 'slam dunk' Tennant whom Clinton selected and over whose
agency he presided for 8 preceding years, while Al Quaeda grew and
laid down its long range plans to destroy the infidel - the United
States.
Clinton and his cabinet was utterly asleep at the foreign
intelligence and terrorist threat switch, even after Al Quaeda
started blowing up embassies. And even blew the opportunity to grab
or kill Osama Bin Laden, who had been identified by the previous,
Reagan, administration, when he was offered up on a silver plate by
another country.
Dave Hughes
dave@xxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dewayne Hendricks"
<dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Dewayne-Net Technology List" <dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 1:35 AM
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Congressman Conyers calls for select
committee tostudy impeachment
[Note: This comment comes from reader Dave Hughes. This blog
item might provide some clarity to Dave's comment: <http://
thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/>. DLH]
From: "Dave Hughes" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: December 20, 2005 5:11:56 PM PST
To: <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Congressman Conyers calls for select
committee tostudy impeachment
Gee, I wonder why the Republicans overlooked the opportunity to
add counts to Clinton's impeachment hearings, since he too
authorized warrentless wiretapping of Americans in the US during
his 8 years.
Dave Hughes
Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as rca53@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as blondino@xxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/