Feith: Iraq Attack Was Preemptive

Pentagon Insider Douglas Feith Tells 60 Minutes Attack On Iraq Was Anticipatory Self-Defense; Not 9/11 Retaliation

(CBS)  The American public was led to believe that Saddam Hussein had large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them, something which famously turned out not to be the case.

"One of the reasons people were told we were going to war in Iraq was because of the imminent attack with weapons of mass destruction was about to happen," Kroft observes.

When Feith replies, "I don't believe anybody in the U.S. government said that," Kroft begins to read to him from a statement by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Rumsfeld’s statement is followed with words from President Bush warning, "The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American," which, in turn, is followed by Vice President Cheney’s statement, "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us."

Feith responds, "It is true that there was a serious error that the CIA made in saying that we would find WMD stockpiles. And it was a terrible mistake for the administration to have made those stockpiles in any way a part of the case for war. I don't think we needed to."

"Wasn't that the whole lynchpin for the war?" asks Kroft. “I don’t believe so,” the former Defense Department official answers.

Feith insists that Saddam still had WMD programs in place and the capability to resume production. He says even Rumsfeld conceded privately that the U.S. might not find any weapons of mass destruction on the ground. And he told the president so in a memo that outlined all of the things that could possibly go wrong.

Some call it, “the CYA Memo,” but Feith says that is a mischaracterization of the list. "I mean, it was very intense and very disturbing work to anticipate all the possible problems of a war."

Feith called the document "the Parade of Horribles," and printed many of them in his book, he says, to refute the perception that Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush launched the war without considering or understanding the possible consequences.

Kroft summarizes some of them, including the possibility that the U.S. could become so absorbed with its Iraq effort that it would pay inadequate attention to other serious problems; that war could cause more harm and entail greater costs than expected; that it would not go on for two to four years, but eight to 10 years; that terrorist networks could improve their recruiting and fundraising as a result of the U.S. being depicted as anti-Muslim; that Iraq could experience ethnic strife among Kurds, Sunnis and Shia and that the war could damage America’s relationship with allies and its reputation in the world community.

Kroft asks Feith if perhaps one or two of these “horribles,” might happen. Feith responds, "One of the things that is reflected in this memo is Secretary Rumsfeld's deeply-held view that it's foolish to try to predict the future," says Feith.

"Well, as it turned out, he was pretty good at anticipating problems” Kroft responds, “because virtually all these things have happened."

"Well, in a broad sense,” Feith concedes. “A lot of these things happened. It was a very honest effort to assess what the downsides of war would be."

When Kroft follows up with, "You still recommended that it was the right thing to do." Feith explains, "We certainly understood that these are the things that might happen. That's why we wrote them down. And I do think that, when the president assessed the risks of leaving Saddam in power, you could have come up with quite a serious, troubling list of the risks involved in leaving Saddam in power."

[spookietooth44]

I watched the segment a couple of times. I don't believe Mr. Kroft has all of his facts in order. Regarding the point Mr. Kroft made in the segment referring to Atta meeting an Iraqi spy in Prague pre-9-11, Mr. Kroft failed to mention any evidence there is available for the American people to see. He obviously wants people to believe him without any question. He say's, " the report has been widely discredited". But by whom? Partisan politicians? Blacked out intelligence reports? You mean there is actually blacked out parts of reports regarding this intelligence?

Mr. Kroft failed to tell the whole story regarding the Iraqi spy meeting with Atta in Prague. And on what date(s) CBS and Mr. Kroft are you referring to? You provide no actual dates this meeting has been discredited, but a general blanket to discredit any date. You don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Just like Dan Rather story, Kroft doesn?t have his facts straight.

The American people should see the evidence there is available. Now for the real story: http://www.thexreport.com/the_prague_connection1.htm

[gaetan4-2009]

the usa will continue againt with his crusade against Muslim countries and also subcontract wars for Israel, a country which does not comply with UN resolution as the Bush administration and at the finaly the U.S. ''s debt to pay for these wars

good luck

[gaetan4-2009]

the usa will continue againt with his crusade against Muslim countries and also subcontract wars for Israel, a country which does not comply with UN resolution as the Bush administration and at the finaly the U.S. ''s debt to pay for these wars

good luck

[atxchill]

Hey Dogsoul

If youre all about this war why dont you quit making these stupid comments and take your A#$ to the front line and help our our exploited military fight this rich mans war. Back up what youre saying.

[gzuckier]

you can be sure that the republicans have given up on the war when they start trying to tell us the democrats were behind it.

funny how they needed to attack Iraq because Al Gore said Saddam had WMD, but when it comes to global warming he''s a big fat liar.

[sbenassi]

Nice Tie, same color as the Israeli Flag, we went to war for Israeli interests.

[miro3408]

It he wasn''t such a moron, he would be pathetic.
This was one of the sharpest minds in the Bush administration?...that figures.

[brundlefly76]

I could not believe how poorly prepared Fife was for this interview. It is truly frightening this man was behind the decision to go to war. He even contradicted his own book on camera.

I totally understand the drive behind the decision to go to war - however, it was wrong, and congress was lied to, and Bush needs to be impeached.

That we have not even begun impeachment proceedings to date astonishes me.

[barocalto]

On July 6, 2008, the Associated Press reports that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear program

[michael0004]

Do you''''ll AGREE that if the ever popular liberal mantra ''''Bush lied'''' is true - then you ALSO agree that people such as Al Gore, John Jerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi and more ALSO lied with regard to Saddam''''s WMD program - is that what you''''re saying? Okay, but your point NOW is that at least the liberals didn''''t actually invade...

Even if I accept your premise, which I do not, it still does not explain the incompetency of the Bush Administration in the execution of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Nor would one persons lie justify another. Bush lied and he and his administration is incompetent. No matter how much you want to spread the blame around, these are facts you can not evade.

[dogsoul]

...yeah, look at the dates SuperDem - boy... you must feel really stupid.

[dogsoul]

The U.S. SUPPORTED IRAQ in the Iran/Iraq war !"

Dear stupid liberal - in the dirty business of fighting one''s enemy, one must at times ally oneself with such unsavory characters who may at the time find some commonality insofar as a shared enemy - ie the enemy of my enemy need not be my friend.

Do you think Bin Laden''s buddies are standing around saying, "...geeee, Binny - you were aligned with America against the Soviets - what''s all THAT about eh Binny???" Of course not, they may be terrorists - but they''re not stupid liberals...

Of course, that only works if these temporary or functional allies are not directly fighting YOU. When stupid liberals engage in these kinds of unsavory alliances - e.g. the Liberal/Radical Islamic alliance in the fight against Republicans... Liberals, again, get it wrong because the terrorists are actively planning the death of liberals very much in the present day as well....

[notblue]

superdem, the Democrats were making those statements when Clinton was still president, nobody fooled any body, there were no lies, it was what EVERYONE believed. Just because you choose to believe a politically motivated lie perpetrated by move.omn and fellow Dems doesn''t mean it''s fact.

[superdem]

You can dredge up all the statements politicoans made about Weapons of Mass Destruction - it only proves how successful the Republican lies were. They manufactured all the intelligence, they made it up lock stock and barrel because the invasion PROVED there were no WMDs. So you fooled the Democrats - BIG DEAL. The Republicans STILL LIED.

[dogsoul]

...and frankly - even though Bill Clinton all but stated he''d have DEFINITELY have gone into Iraq in a post 9/11 environment... I suppose all you liberals'' claims that ''at least liberals didn''t actually invade'' means something important - if that''s indeed true. Well let''s examine that for a moment.

Do you''ll AGREE that if the ever popular liberal mantra ''Bush lied'' is true - then you ALSO agree that people such as Al Gore, John Jerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi and more ALSO lied with regard to Saddam''s WMD program - is that what you''re saying? Okay, but your point NOW is that at least the liberals didn''t actually invade...

Sooooo, talking tough without ACTUALLY doing anything of substance to defend your nation.... hmmmmm..... I guess you''re right in the sense that such WAS our national policy towards Al Queda for a number of years leading up to 9/11 - gee.... ya think maybe they got the impression we were all talk???? Think maybe that plan backfired just a bit???

Liberals - all talk, all the time....

[superdem]

How can Feith keep a straight face when he says Iraq''s attack on Iran justified the U.S. invasion ? The U.S. SUPPORTED IRAQ in the Iran/Iraq war ! Feith will say absolutely ANYTHING to divert the blame for this disaster. An absolutely shameless REPUBLICAN who will look you right in the eye while he lies to you. Saddam kept the Islamic terrorists under tight control, which vanished when we invaded. He kept al Qaeda out - that vanished when we invaded. We cannot regain control in Iraq. Thank you Mr. Feith, now take your place in the Hall Of Shame.

[wardoglrs]

The Americans will pay a heavy price for this such as there economy and value of there dollar. And they suffer because they believe in War and destruction of other nations to control them like oil.

America has been responsible for the deaths of so many people around the world and like lemming''s they follow there leader to there own doom.

There doom is now in play. There banks will take there money and sell them to other countries. They still haven''t figured out why there economy is going bankrupt. It never ceases to amaze me just how foolish Americans are with all the fear they have of the world around them. Perhaps there undefeated in a fight but there defeated economically and that is a long suffering they deserve. They only want entertainment and music movies and popcorn.

I can see this foolish people living in a third world in there own country. They have leaders that are not interested in there future but rather in there own personal life at the expense of these tax paying fool''s.

There constitution is the greatest of any other in the world if they had followed it they would be the richest of us all. But they put there trust in a leaders that dont care to follow that great document.

Even there own forefathers warned them of these things. And they still choose to ignore it

[achilles281]

minuteman; We all know that sadam was a bad man when he attacked iran at the encouragement of the united states...he was friend of the u.s.originally then turned enemy like osama bin laden fought against the russian with help of the united states and then turned against the u.s.Now we are looking for him to take revenge and in the process losing thousands of more innocent lives on both sides.....something is sreiously wrong here in our foreign policy.....

[dogsoul]

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

"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

"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

[dogsoul]

"It is bad enough they lied, made up facts, and exagerated other facts to convince Congress and the American people that we ought to invade Iraq"

Read the many MANY quotes from below proving beyond ANY doubt that these so called ''lies'' were mirrored almost verbatim by Bill Clinton & other leading Democrats DURING HIS PRESIDENCY and beyond

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

Also, you liberals may want to read up on what Billy Boy has said with regard to the decision to go into Iraq in a post 9/11 environment...