He rationalizes everything that the neo-cons have done over the last eight years. (Big surprise, hunh?)http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/03/60minutes/main3992653.shtml?mpid=1732#PostInsider: Iraq Attack Was Preemptive
Pentagon Insider Tells 60 Minutes U.S. Attack On Iraq Was Anticipatory Self-Defense; Not 9/11 RetaliationComments 206
April 3, 2008
(CBS) The first Pentagon insider to give his account of the run-up to war says the attack on Iraq was more a defensive move against possible future threats from Saddam Hussein than a retaliation for the 9/11 attacks. Douglas Feith, the former undersecretary of defense for policy, also tells Steve Kroft that the Pentagon failed to foresee the insurgency or the need for more troops to prevent the post-war chaos that included looting. Feith’s interview will be broadcast on 60 Minutes Sunday, April 6 (7-8 p.m., ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
"What we did after 9/11 was look broadly at the international terrorist network from which the next attack on the United States would come," says Feith, the No. 3 person in the Pentagon’s hierarchy from 2001 to 2005. "Our main goal was not merely retaliation for the 9/11 attack, it was preventing the next attack," he says. Pressed by Kroft on the importance of getting the 9/11 plotters, Feith responds that getting them was important, but "it was also important to go after the broader network … and prevent whatever plans there were for following attacks," Feith tells Kroft.
Feith concedes this line of thought could rationalize attacks on other countries, including North Korea, Syria and Iran. But he says Saddam’s attacks on his Middle Eastern neighbors, use of chemical weapons on his own people and his interest in building a nuclear weapon made Iraq a special case. "In an era where weapons of mass destruction can put countries in a position to do an enormous amount of harm, the old idea of having to wait until you actually see the country mobilizing for war doesn't make a lot of sense," says Feith.
When all the factors were considered, says Feith, Saddam had to go. "If we had left him in power, we would be fighting him down the road at a time and place of his choosing," Feith says. President Bush weighed the options.
"The president decided that the risks of war … were overweighed by the risks of leaving Saddam Hussein in power," Feith tells Kroft.
MORE
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
