Too funny; the IPS and some no-name nutjob named Emad Mekay has such immense credibility that the FACTS and the Joint Resolution have nothing to do with us being in Iraq.
Here’s your first clue; if not even a Bush hating New York Times will carry a story like this, it’s probably make believe.
Carry on.
:rofl
In short: The article misinterprets the story of what Zelikow said.
The details: First of all, consider that I am a loyal American, HUGE GWB supporter and believe the war was in the USA's and the World's best interest. So, why would I introduce a story such as this which seemingly casts the USA and President Bush in an inaccurately unflattering light?
Because it contains a singular report which provides the piece to the puzzle that the President and the Administration fails to disclose and it fills in the blanks better than the opposition's stories which slam the President's invasion motivation.
The President, for whatever reason, doesn't want to make clear exactly what his motivations were for going toward regime change beyond the Cease Fire resolution violations (the Casus Belli), the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, and the perception of WMD's (which explains the need for haste in taking action).
His critics have taken the KNOWN facts and weaved them into what they contend is an airtight case for wrong actions and a bad, unnecessary war.
But somewhere between the President's story, which he confidently and tantalizingly says will be revealed to history after we are gone from the scene, and the varied 'indictments' of his actions by the legions of critics lies this singular fact: there was nothing of real interest to the USA which was threatened by Saddam's WMD's - if they existed. We had no bases or facilities that Saddam would have wasted a nuke on. The ONLY American interest that Saddam could have threatened which would have prompted our action was our ally Israel.
If Saddam had threatened Israel with WMD's it would have grave implications.
Emad Mekay's story suggests we would have sought to protect Israel from destruction. But we all know that Israel has a bristling and robust military capability. So why would we care if Saddam threatened Israel if Israel could have dealt with the threat itself, without our help?
Because of what might happen if Israel struck Iraq without apparent provocation. It could start a broader war. And THAT is what I say this story about the Israeli's desire to attack the IRANIAN Nuclear program helps illuminate.
Whenever Israel is threatened she neutralizes that threat herself. And she'd have done so in the case of Iraq's WMD's just as she sought to do so with Iran's Nuclear program. But in BOTH cases GWB prevented Israel from acting by initiating substitute courses of action.
As I said, this story seems true it is just interpreted incorrectly...in an inaccurately biased and incorrect way. Emad Mekay interprets the story to make it seem like we were protecting Israel. One can speculate as to why he might have done this.
But what he wants us to believe are the facts of the account can also be interpreted to read that the USA was trying to protect the Middle East from a broader war that might have broken out if Israel had been allowed to protect itself from Saddam's perceived WMD's.
As I have said before this is very difficult for me to explain because I see it very clearly and I can't know what part you can't grasp nor how to explain it to you any better than I'm trying to do here.
