NP: Iraq

[cfalbert]

" know this referring back and forth to the transcript is a touch tedious.
But looking at the interplay of the conversation it seems pretty clear to me
at least that, contrary to Kristol's argument, Wolfowitz made a somewhat
ambiguous statement. Tenanhaus followed up in order to clarify what he
meant. And Wolfowitz goes on to say exactly what Tanenhaus said he said:
that the need to get US troops out of Saudi (and eliminate the goad to
terrorism and instability they created) was an important reason for the
invasion.
On this point at least, Kristol seems on pretty shaky ground saying that he
distorted Wolfowitz's meaning. I think Tenanhaus' point about 'bureaucratic
reasons' holds up pretty well too. But I'll leave that for another post."

I've always been a fan of JMM.........

love,
cfa


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Morris" <fqmorris at yahoo.com>
To: "cfalbert" <calbert at hslboxmaster.com>; <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: NP: Iraq


>
> --- cfalbert <calbert at hslboxmaster.com> wrote:
> >
> > If this "balance sheet" thing has any merit it should follow some kind
of
> intelligble principle............do you want  to take a stab at it?
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm not trying to formulate a foreign policy doctrine.  If
> someone decries the "untold thousands of dead," one should also consider
good
> results.  Sadaam's ouster is one of those good results, IMHO.
>
> > "Untold thousands" had died and were dying at the hands of Sadaam before
we
> ever went to war.  The war stopped that.
> >
> > uh...........not exactly.........to the best of my knowledge "mass
killings"
> in Iraq pretty much ended in 1994, though "targetted assassinations" and
random
> persecution continued.....but this doesn't make Iraq much different from
its
> neighbours....
>
> OK, most of the murders occurred a while ago, but at least the murderous
regime
> is gone.  Is that worth nothing?  At least the people now aren't afraid to
> protest the forces ruling over them.
>
> > it is becoming increasingly celar that the WoMD issue was largely
fabricated
> to provide a rationale for invasion....Even Wolfowitz, the prime mover
behind
> this policy, no longer denies this......
>
> This is not entirely true from what I've read today.  Take a look at this
> Talking Points Memo:
>
> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/
>
> (June 1st, 2003 -- 2:08 PM EDT // link)
>
> In any case, the latest brouhaha is over Sam Tanenhaus's upcoming article
in
> Vanity Fair, Paul Wolfowitz's statement about WMD contained therein, and
now
> whether Wolfowitz actually said what Tanenhaus claims he said. Over the
weekend
> Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol wrote a short piece in the Standard
> purporting to show that Tanenhaus had in fact distorted Wolfowitz's words,
> taken them out of their proper context or simply twisted their meaning.
>
> Now, the problem with verbal interviews is that, unlike the case in
written
> English, people tend to speak in fragments and not always in a purely
linear
> fashion. And that often makes quotations ambiguous and open to different
> interpretations.
>
> Having said all that, I think that Kristol's review of Tanenhaus' material
is
> at least not the final word.
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com
>