Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
More instructive is this quote ;-
Secy. of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it

What was the "it" ? What is it that they wanted ? Saddam overthrown ? The vatican sized embassy and permanent bases ? What was so important it was worth telling all of these bare faced lies ?

Whichever, it suggests that there was a bipartisan view that, post Gulf War 1, something was worth overthrowing Saddam for, or at least coralling him over. If GB1 was a part of that view, then one wonders if the deliberate ambiguity in response to Saddam asking for permission to invade Kuwait was deliberate. However, it's worth remembering that the US took a lot of convincing that an invasion was justified. Personally I think he was out of the loop.

It was Albright who seems to have defined the problem and been belligerent when clinton seemed ambivalent at best. Of course, Cheney would have bought into the idea and been well placed to bamboozle bush. But what did they want ? Oil is almost too banal, although the country that controls the oil effectively rules the world.

So was Albright a PNAC co-signer ? Or does it come back to likud and AIPAC after all that ?

What was it all for ? What was "it" ?

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jun 4th, 2007 at 11:16:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series