Thursday, June 16, 2005
Important? We think the Downing Street Memo that states that Saddam's WMD capability was less than Libya's to be pretty important. From the memo: "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." Less than Lybia strikes us as pretty weak. And if any place is easy to knock over, it would be Lybia, so why not go there first? Are we missing something here? Is/was Libya considered by the U.S. public to be a danger? And by extension, Iraq "less than Libya" means it could still pose a significant threat. For all the talk about the memo's content about Bush having made up his mind, it strikes us that the "Less than Libya" component is equally, or more, worthy of coverage. But it doesn't seem to be getting much (in the media or even with liberal bloggers). Reader comments as to how significant the Libya remark is are welcome.
posted by Quiddity at 6/16/2005 11:34:00 AM
5 comments
no one ever posts, man...
I think a great Newsweek cover headline would be
LESS THAN LIBYA
Less than Lybia strikes us as pretty weak. And if any place is easy to knock over, it would be Lybia, so why not go there first? Are we missing something here? Is/was Libya considered by the U.S. public to be a danger? And by extension, Iraq "less than Libya" means it could still pose a significant threat.
ok, i'll bite. libya might not have been considered a threat because we already had our claws in there?
why invade a state where we exercise influence?
halliburton, despite sanctions, had contracts there. and i'm guessing we benefited in blackmarket sale of arms and military equipment there as well.
there was a cia agent who after selling plastique to libya, was wrongfully sent to prison for it. nightline ran a special on this not long ago. it could be that story was just the tip of an iceburg in terms of what else could have been sold there. wonder if any of that cia plastique inadvertenly got used in the lockerbie crash.
(and here i'm willing to admit might approach tin territory):
qaddafi giving up his weapons post iraq invasion, the timing seemed a little too convienent me. after all, the cia had sent him weapons before. what are the chances he was on the cia payroll a la saddam in the past?
in 2000 cheney suggested we lift sanction in libya, iraq and iran. what does that say about the threat these countries posed?
a little quick google, found it went further than that. in 1997, cheney, as ceo of halliburton lobbied to lift sanction in libya. sounds like a relationship's been developed for him to do that.
"halliburton, despite sanctions, had contracts there. and i'm guessing we benefited in blackmarket sale of arms and military equipment there as well.
there was a cia agent who after selling plastique to libya, was wrongfully sent to prison for it. nightline ran a special on this not long ago. it could be that story was just the tip of an iceburg in terms of what else could have been sold there. wonder if any of that cia plastique inadvertenly got used in the lockerbie crash."
But these things (or similar things) were also true in Iraq. During the period of sanctions Halliburton went to extreme lengths to do business with Iraqis. We were the very source of Iraq's original WMDs. We provided them with weapons for more than a decade.
But these things (or similar things) were also true in Iraq. During the period of sanctions Halliburton went to extreme lengths to do business with Iraqis. We were the very source of Iraq's original WMDs. We provided them with weapons for more than a decade.
true, but at some point saddam must have stopped playing ball with them in terms of favorable contracts.
plus qaddafi wasn't the one who tried to kill poppy bush. i was reading something DSM related where an analyst related that it looked like bush's grudge factor was a component.
there is also a level of opec politics in play here. woodward's book revealed that classified plans to invade were given to prince bandar of saudi arabia even before powell was notified. i believe saudi princes approved the unseating of saddam. bob baer's book mentioned how saddam has bucked opec strictures before by selling iraqi oil for less cost thereby undermining opec prices. cheap iraqi oil didn't make saddam popular.
and then off course, we can't underestimate the greed of american oil interests.
saddam got caught in the cross hairs of all these forces.
Libya?
Libya had the magic words that amounts to a "get-out-of neocon gunsights-free"
The three wrods are "Light Sweet Crude."
It is easier to deal with Qaddafi that it is to fight him. Less costly.
Iraq is ideological business, but Libya was pure business.
|
