Conclusion 83.....

[Murphy]

From the Report on the U.S. Intelligence community's pre-war intelligence assessments on Iraq

"Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence the Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgements related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities."

http://intelligence.senate.gov/conclusions.pdf

[JoeChalupa]

That is fine but I still think we need to know how/why the intelligence about Iraq was so f***ed up.

[Yonivore]

That is fine but I still think we need to know how/why the intelligence about Iraq was so f***ed up.
We don't know that it was. Maybe they were just that good at getting rid of the evidence.

There are still a whole buttload of UNSCOM-inventoried WMDs that Iraq NEVER -- Let me repeat, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER -- accounted for.

[Marcus Bryant]

I don't believe the intel about Hussein gaming the UN to get the sanctions lifted so he would be able to continue his weapons programs was off. So if he didn't have them operational at the time of the invasion, they would've been so in a couple of years. Oh no.

[Yonivore]

I don't believe the intel about Hussein gaming the UN to get the sanctions lifted so he would be able to continue his weapons programs was off. So if he didn't have them operational at the time of the invasion, they would've been so in a couple of years. Oh no.
Actually there was testimony to the Duelfer investigators that certain chemical weapons could be reconstituted within days or weeks of sanctions lifting...not ramping up production, mind you, but, operational weapons.

I believe that's where the huge stockpiles of pesticide -- conveniently located next to ammo dumps -- came in.

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, since monday morning quarterbacking is en vogue, the US took out a Hussein who would've been free (and who definitely had an interest to do so) to develop WMDs otherwise if left unfettered. Bush fucked up by placing too much emphasis on the current existence of the WMDs. Still, there was a threat and it was removed.

[Yonivore]

Well, since monday morning quarterbacking is en vogue, the US took out a Hussein who would've been free (and who definitely had an interest to do so) to develop WMDs otherwise if left unfettered. Bush fucked up by placing too much emphasis on the current existence of the WMDs. Still, there was a threat and it was removed.
Well, I think the President also knew that France, Russia, Germany, the U.N. Secretary General's office, and possibly China were all being actively bribed and lobbied by Saddam's regime to have sanctions lifted and to veto any UNSC action initiated by the U.S. to act against Iraq's violations of the existing U.N.S.C. resolutions.

12 years of having your military shot at in the no-fly zones.

12 years of watching Saddam Hussein commit humanitarian and environment atrocities in his own country.

12 years of witnessing the erosion of UN Sanctions by the corrupt Europeans.

12 years of witnessing the diversion of OFF funds from humanitarian to regime pet projects.

12 years of watching Saddam Hussein position himself for a quickly reconstituted WMD program.

And, the imminent dropping of sanctions.

Something had to be done.

[Yonivore]

If these people were saying this:


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

And Duelfer concluded that the administration didn't monkey with the Intelligence. Why is it so hard to believe that the U.S. acted in good faith or that Iraq successfully concealed their WMD's BEFORE jumping to the conclusion that Bush lied?

I've never heard one of Bush's critics concede that it was possible that Hussein was successful in getting rid of any weapons he may have had, prior to the invasion -- even though it's one scenario allowed by Duelfer.

I've never heard one of Bush's critics concede that they -- like their God Bill Clinton -- also believed Saddam Hussein had WMD's, as late as 2003.

I've never heard one of Bush's critics allow that WMD's weren't the only justification for toppling that regime -- EVEN IF THEY WANT TO CLAIM THAT'S THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION EVER GIVEN BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION (which, of course, it wasn't).

[IcemanCometh]

ha ha

[Yonivore]

Okay, let me pull this one quote -- from those listed in my previous post -- and then ask the "Bush lied" crowd a single question.


"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

A mere 55 days later, the United States -- presumably based on the same intelligence Senator John Kerry relied upon to support this statement -- invaded Iraq with the intent of disarming a despotic regime, ending its reign of terror on it's own people and neighbors, and liberating an oppressed citizenry.

If, as it has been concluded, the Bush Administration did not manipulate intelligence in order to justify its invasion and overthrow of the Ba'athist regime of Iraq, why is the President any more wrong than was John Kerry or, for that matter, anyone else quoted in my post over the past 7 or 8 years?

It appears to me, from what they were saying, the President of the United States did precisely what they wanted him to do. In fact, it was what they had asked Clinton do in 1998.

Throw in his humanitarian (gassing Kurds and massacreing Shi'ites) and environmental crimes (draining the wetlands and torching the Kuwaiti oilfields), his defiance of over a dozen UNSC resolutions, his repeated violations of the 1991 cease fire agreement, his obstinence with the UNSCOM inspectors, his bribery and corruption of the UN and several of our allies, his diversion of humanitarian aid to regime "projects" at the expense of starving Iraqi children and you'd think EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THESE PEOPLE I'VE QUOTED WOULD BE PRAISING THE PRESIDENT AND THANKING GOD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS FUCKING GONE.

SERIOUSLY, WHAT IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM?

[Nbadan]

Let's all stick our heads in the sand, aka Yonivore and Murphy and pretend like the last few weeks never happened...

‘Cheney cabal hijacked US foreign policy’
By Edward Alden in Washington
Published: October 20 2005 00:00 | Last updated: October 20 2005 00:19


Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others had hijacked the government's foreign policy apparatus, deciding in secret to carry out policies that had left the US weaker and more isolated in the world, the top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed on Wednesday.

In a scathing attack on the record of President George W. Bush, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January, said: “What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.

Finanacial Times (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/afdb7b0c-40f3-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html)

So much for empty claims that everyone received the same intelligence.

:lol

[Nbadan]

More:

[QUOTE]WASHINGTON , Oct 20 (IPS) - As top officials in the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney’s office await possible criminal indictments for their efforts to discredit a whistleblower, a top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Wednesday, accused a ''cabal'' led by Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld of hijacking U.S. foreign policy by circumventing or ignoring formal decision-making channels.

Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Powell’s chief of staff from 2001 to 2005 and when Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Armed Forces during the administration of former president George H.W. Bush, also charged that, as national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice was ''part of the problem'' by not ensuring that the policy-making process was open to all relevant participants.

''In some cases, there was real dysfunctionality,'' said Wilkerson, who spoke at the New America Foundation, a prominent Washington think tank. ''But in most cases..., she (Rice) made a decision that she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president.''

''…the case that I saw for four-plus years,'' he said, ''was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberrations, bastardisations, and perturbations in the national-security (policy-making) process'', he added.

''What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.''

Wilkerson also stressed that the ''extremely powerful'' influence of what he called the ''Oval Office Cabal'' of Cheney and Rumsfeld, both former secretaries of defense with a long-standing personal and professional relationship, adding that both were members of the ''military-industrial complex'' that former President Dwight Eisenhower warned the nation against in his 1961 Farewell Address. ''… don’t you think they aren’t among us today in a concentration of power that is just unparalleled'', he asked.

Wilkerson’s remarks came as the administration is besieged by record-low approval ratings and anticipation that a special prosecutor will hand down indictments of top aides to both Bush and Cheney, including Bush’s political adviser, Karl Rove, and Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, in connection with efforts to discredit retired ambassador Joseph Wilson.

In July 2003, Wilson publicly challenged the administration’s pre-war depiction of Iraq’s alleged nuclear-weapons programme, and particularly its assertion that Baghdad had sought to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger, an assertion that Wilson himself investigated and rejected in early 2002 after traveling to Niger as part of a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) mission.

White House officials, including Rove and Libby, told reporters that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and played a role in selecting him for the mission.

On Wednesday, Capitol Hill was rife with rumours that Cheney himself may also be indicted or resign over the scandal. They were given more credence by an anecdote recounted that Powell had told a prominent Republican senator that Cheney had become ''fixated'' on the relationship between Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, after he and Bush learned about it directly from Powell.

Since his departure from the administration, Powell has declined to publicly criticise U.S. policy or his former cabinet colleagues. Until now, Wilkerson has also kept his counsel, although he publicly opposed John Bolton’s confirmation as UN ambassador. At that time, most analysts believed that Wilkerson reflected Powell’s private views on Bolton.

That would not be surprising, as Wilkerson worked directly with or for Powell for some 16 years out of their 30-plus-year military and government careers. At the same time, Wilkerson said he had paid a ''high cost'' in his personal relationship with Powell for publicly speaking out.

''Wilkerson embodies Powell and (Powell’s deputy secretary of state, Richard) Armitage,'' who is also a retired military officer, Steve Clemons, who organised Wilkerson’s NAF appearance, told IPS. ''That’s how his remarks should be seen.''

If so, it appears that Powell and Armitage have little but disdain for Rice’s performance as national security adviser, although Wilkerson was more complimentary about her work at the State Department and the relative success she has enjoyed in steering U.S. policy in a less confrontational direction compared to the frustrations that dogged Powell.

He attributed her success to several factors, including her ''intimacy with the president'' and the fact that the administration ''finds itself in some fairly desperate straits politically and otherwise.''

Most of his remarks, however, addressed what he described as national-security policy-making apparatus that was made dysfunctional by secrecy, compartmentalisation and distrust, as well as the machinations of the Cheney-Rumsfeld ''cabal.''

''You’ve got this collegiality there between the secretary of defence and the vice president,'' he said. ''And then you’ve got a president who is not versed in international relations -- and not too much interested in them either. And so it’s not too difficult to make decisions in this, what I call the Oval Office Cabal, and decisions often that are the opposite of what you thought were made in the formal (decision-making) process.''

''Why did we wait three years to talk to the North Koreans? Why did we wait four-plus years to at least back the EU-3 approach to Iran,''’ he asked. ''…the formal process …camouflaged the efficiency of the secret decision-making process. So we got into Iraq''.

''And then when the bureaucracy was presented with those decisions and carried them out, it was presented in such a disjointed, incredible way that the bureaucracy often didn’t know what it was doing as it moved to carry them out,'' he said.

''If you’re not prepared to stop the feuding elements in the bureaucracy as they carry out your decisions, you are courting disaster,'' he said. ''And I would say that we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran.''

Wilkerson was particularly scathing about the former Undersecretary of Defence for Policy, Douglas Feith, citing Gen. Tommy Frank’s famous description of the neo-conservative ideologue as the ''fucking stupidest guy on the planet.''

''Let me testify to that,'' he said. ''He was. Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man. And yet, after the (Pentagon is given) control, at least in the immediate post-war period in Iraq, this many is put in charge. Not only is he put in charge, he is given carte blanche to tell the State Department to go screw themselves in a closet somewhere. …That’s telling you how decisions were made and …how things got accomplished.''

He also denounced the abuse of detainees and said Powell was particularly upset by it. ''Ten years from now, when we have the whole story, we are going to be ashamed,'' he said. ''This is not us. This is not the way we do business. I don’t think in our history we’ve ever had a presidential involvement, a secretarial involvement, a vice-presidential involvement, an attorney-general’s involvement in telling our troops essentially, Carte blanche is the way you should feel. You should not have any qualms because this is a different kind of conflict.''

''You don’t have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you’ve condoned it,'' he said adding that ''it will take years to reverse the situation'' within the military. He said it was a ''concrete example'' of the result of the way the cabal worked.

Wilkerson also contrasted Bush’s diplomacy very unfavourably with his father’s. Referring to Bush’s first meeting with South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, Wilkerson noted: ''When you put your feet up on a hassock and look at the man who’s won the Nobel Prize and is currently president of South Korea and tell him in a very insulting way that you don’t agree with his assessment of what is necessary to be reconciled with the North, that’s not diplomacy; that’s cowboyism.''

''It’s very different when you walk in and find something you can be magnanimous about, that you can give him, that you can say he or she gets credit, that’s diplomacy. You don’t say, 'I’m the big mother on the block and everybody who’s not with me is against me.' That’s the difference between father and son.''

At the same time, Bush had been ''wonderful'' in ''put(ting) his foot down'' against a more-aggressive policy on North Korea, at one point saying, according to Wilkerson, ''I do not want a war on the Korean peninsula.''

''That was very helpful, very helpful,'' said Wilkerson. ''It helped us fight off some less desirable results''.

Cheney, he said, was a ''good executive'' as defence secretary under George H. W. Bush but appeared to change as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks. ''I think (he) saw 9/11 and the potential for another 9/11 with nuclear weapons and suddenly became so fixated on that problem that it skewed his approach,'' Wilkerson said, adding that neither he nor Rumsfeld could be considered neo-conservatives.

On Iraq, he said he was ''guardedly optimistic'' because ''we may have reached the point where we are actually listening to the Iraqis.'' U.S. troops will likely have to remain in Iraq for between five to eight years, however, because ''it is strategic in the sense that Vietnam was not.''

He predicted that a precipitous withdrawal ''without leav(ing) something behind we can trust, we will mobilize the nation, with five million men and women under arms to go back and take the Middle East within a decade,'' due to the U.S. dependence on the region’s energy sources.

He disclosed that the Department’s policy planning bureau had a discussion about ''actually mounting an operation to take the oil fields in the Middle East, internationalise them under some sort of UN trusteeship and administer the revenues and the oil accordingly.''[QUOTE]

Inter Press News Service Agency (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=30704)

Feith-based diplomacy.