Bush & Blair: Making & Breaking Rules for Agendas

[pattylou]

Umm, did you read Chomsky's speech? Saddam bloodily put down a Shi'ite uprising, and you know what he did to the Kurds, who were also in rebellion against his (Sunni-secular) regime.

Sorry - meant the shia-sunni civil unrest towards each other, was not an issue. (I'd assume the uprising was directed at the government, and that it was "put down" as a matter of maintaining civil order, not as a manifestation of civil war.)

I'm repeating what iraqis are saying, in any event... The ones I hear being interviewed. I'll try to find a reference if you want one?

So why did bush/Blair indicate in 2003, that sectarian violence wouldn't be a problem? And why are they now saying that the present sectarian violence is all due to Saddam, rather than them?

Does this change in bush's position seem problematic to you?

 

[edward]

State Department experts warned CENTCOM
before Iraq war about lack of plans for
post-war Iraq security

Planning for post-Saddam regime change began
as early as October 2001

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 163
Posted - August 17, 2005

The new documents, released this month to the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act, also provide more evidence on when the Bush administration began planning for regime change in Iraq -- as early as October 2001.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB163/index.htm

This is a great link for finding declassified information.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/

 

[Amp1]

In his lecture Chomsky also called 'almost inexpresibly ironic' the fact that Bush sort of said he wanted to stop Saddam because he would give WMD and WMD material to 'Terrorists' but right after the iinvasion the UN inspectors were booted aside and the WMD materials they found and were gaqurding was opened up for looting by WHO none other than the very types of groups Bush claimed he didn't want to have access to those very materials!