July 6, 2008
Feith: Iraq Attack Was Preemptive
Pentagon Insider Douglas Feith Tells 60 Minutes Attack On Iraq Was Anticipatory Self-Defense; Not 9/11 Retaliation
-
Play CBS Video
Video
The Path To War
Considered one of the main architects of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, former top-ranking Pentagon official Douglas Feith speaks to Steve Kroft about the Bush administration's decision to invade.
-
Photo
Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy (CBS/60 Minutes)
-
Interactive
Iraq: 5 Years At War
Five years after the U.S.-led invasion, the war wears on.
-
News Tools
60 Minutes
Email AlertSign up for our 60 Minutes email alert.
"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."
Produced by L. Franklin Devine and Michael Rosenbaum
© MMVIII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Recent Segments
Scroll Left
Scroll Right
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 19
- next
See all 911 CommentsRiiiight. Good thing we didn''t try this madness during the cold war.
So, no matter what we''ve ''learned'' he believes the war he helped promote, organize and launch was still justified. What a effen'' surprise. These neocons are all alike: ''We are never wrong.''
This ****** belong in jail or a loony bin. He certainly is a long, long way from being the super-genius he believes himself to be.
Posted by notblue at 05:12 PM : Apr 03, 2008
What ''fact'' is that, slick? This is one of the architects of the war, moron. Like we''re going to get anything but lies and pointless neocon babble about ''possible future threats'' from him?
Go ahead and lick up this trash if you want. Don''t expect the rest of us to believe anything this man says or support any of the tortured logic or rationale he gives for his vanity war.
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.
That''s just one American city,
about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.
When some claim that President Bush shouldn''t
have started this war, state the following:
a. FDR led us into World War II.
b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost .
an average of 112,500 per year.
c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea
North Korea never attacked us
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost .
an average of 18,334 per year.
d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.
Bosnia never attacked us .
He was offered Osama bin Laden''s head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
g. In the years since terrorists attacked us ,
President Bush has liberated two countries,
crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and, North Korea
without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation..
in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida!!!
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB !
The Military morale is high!
But wait!
There''s more!
(2 of 2)
#2 There is probably nobody on the entire planet that holds more responsibility for the fraud-based and criminal "war" against Iraq. This filthy, treasonous, craven, Zionist pile of excrement was a member of the Office of Special Plans.
The Office of Special Plans, who laughingly referred to themselves as the "cabal" (real *** funny, get it?) is the group that spear-headed the effort to FABRICATE BLATANT LIES and "stovepipe" them to the White House.
The "intelligence" that formed the fraudulent case against Iraq was NOT simply wrong. It was NOT a mere mistake. It was INTENTIONALLY FABRICATED AND COOKED by men like Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz.
In conclusion, there is little doubt that the Bush regime and their accomplices MUST face a war crimes tribunal, gallows, firing squad, etc., if we ever hope to achieve any kind of justice here, and if we ever hope to regain any of our squandered dignity, and this Zionist ************* traitor Feith should be near or at the front of the line when that happens.
Some people still don''t understand why military personnel
do what they do for a living. This exchange between
Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum
is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive
impromptu speech, but it''s also a good example of one
man''s explanation of why men and women in the armed
services do what they do for a living.
This IS a typical, though sad, example of what
some who have never served think of the military.
Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
''How can you run for Senate when you''ve never held a real job?''
Senator Gl enn (D-Ohio):
''I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps.
I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions.
My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different
occasions. I was in the space program It wasn''t my
checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was
not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the
daily cash receipts to the bank.''
''I ask you to go with me . . as I went the other day...
to a veteran''s hospital and look those men ..
with their mangled bodies in the eye, and tell THEM
they didn''t hold a job!
You go with me to the Space Program at NASA
and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans
of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee...
and you look those kids in the eye and tell them
that their DADS didn''t hold a job.
(1 of 2)
Let''s clarify 2 things, if we may.
#1 The criminal war of aggression against Iraq was NOT, I repeat NOT a "preemptive" attack. A "preemptive" attack is an attack that is in response to a CLEAR AND PRESENT THREAT. Not only was Saddam''s Iraq not CLEAR AND PRESENT THREAT to the U.S., but it was not even a vague and distant one. Iraq was no threat at all, other than Saddam''s decision to trade oil in Euros, which is a valid choice on his part.
The criminal, lie-based invasion of Iraq was a PREVENTATIVE attack, not a PREEMPTIVE ONE.
What''s the difference? Plenty.
A PREEMPTIVE attack is allowed under international law, in the face of a CLEAR AND PRESENT THREAT, until such time as the U.N. Security council can pass an applicable resolution as to how to resolve the crisis.
A PREVENTATIVE attack, such as the illegal invasion of Iraq, is NEVER allowed and is ALWAYS a very serious crime. Many WWII era Nazis were sentenced and HANGED for this very thing.
Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends
buried than I''d like to remember, and you watch
those waving flags.
You stand there, and you think about this nation,
and you tell ME that those people didn''t have a job?
What about you?''
For those who don''t remember
During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney
representing the Communist Party in theUSA
Now he''s a Senator!
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.
Kiss my petunias you lilly livered turdballs.
The good part about that exposee is that they are all Democrats. LOL. Ciao and ta-ta!
And we haven''t forgotten about you either, Richard "Price of Darkness" Perle....
Start running, you disgusting, subhuman fecal monument!
Posted by mudrose at 05:20 PM : Apr 03, 2008
Finally...what? We''re supposed to believe this neo-con nut job? We''re supposed to take the word of one of the premiere architects of the war that the only reason was this nonsense about ''possible future threats''?
In his upcoming book it appears he talks about ''ruining the reputation of America overseas.'' Well, at least he''s writing about something he knows.
Posted by notblue
What FACT? That in 10 or 20 years Saddam could have been a threat? Get a grip. We had the north and south of Iraq under our control, he wasn''t going anywhere. This was a willful invasion of sovereign country already on its knees from 10 years of international sanctions that posed no credible threat to us at all. That is a war crime... you just don''t get it. Bush and Cheney are hanging the nazi mantle around our necks like a shiny medal and you got a s**t eating grin on your face! What a bunch of morons.
Posted by WogerWabbit at 05:36 PM : Apr 03, 2008
I have a question.
How long were you prepared to contain him, and what do you think he or his sons would be doing if we stopped their containment?
Posted by notblue at 05:36 PM : Apr 03, 2008
The truth? What in the hell does the Bush administration know about the truth? They''re incapable of anything but lies to cover their collective as*ses. they''re scum. They''re a lower life form. They belong in prison.
Should read that he decided the risks of war were over-weighed but the chance for profit and to hell with how many innocent people or troops have to die.
Supoosedly TOP SECRET memos are being leaked to the press, Pentagon former employees are blabbing government secrets, and the military is allowing former inmates at Gitmo to describe their encounters with TORTURE, firsthand! All of this is happening while the Great Emperor was on a state "holiday" in the Balkans, where the climate both weather-wise and politically were more to his liking.
Now deeply concerned about what else might "hit the fan", the Great Emperor is hurrying back to the USSA so that his heavy boot and iron fist will bring peace and order to the rising chaos here and stop the dangerous flood of incriminating information from reaching the citizens of the USSA!
SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!
sig heil, (more of the same) McCain!!!
The damage they are capable of, is too horrific.
The damage they are capable of, is too horrific.
Posted by kesac4650 at 05:52 PM : Apr 03, 2008
That does not justify the invasion of another country that was no threat to us at all. If we were to invade every other nation that had a leader that didn''t like us and "might" become a threat to us "someday" then we we need an army of 10''s of millions of troops. besides this war had nothing to do with a threat to us and it never did. It''s about money and money alone. War is terribly expensive to the people of the invading and occupying nation, but very very profitable to the people that manufacture weapons, supplies and support. The only real reason for this war was to make the already rich even reacher. That''s all. That''s it. Nothing much else to see. That''s why we''re fighting in Iraq. To make the rich richer.
Posted by badaxmofo at 05:44 PM : Apr 03, 2008
...your warped and twisted desire to rationalize a pointless, counterproductive war that has wasterd countless billions of US taxpayer dollars, ruined our credibility and reputation, destroyed the US dollar as a viable currency, sickened and allienated our allies and emboldened our enemies?
Nah, I''ll just watch the Feith piece on Sunday instead.
Re: "The days are gone, when the US can blithely sit back, and let the bad guys take the first shot at us.
The damage they are capable of, is too horrific."
Posted by kesac4650
Your comment is reminiscent of those of an infant, trapped in a cartoon land.
Is there anything that you guys are NOT scared of?
Anything at all?
Posted by notblue at 05:57 PM : Apr 03, 2008
I know you''re blinded to the truth, but I am infinitely more American then Bush, Cheney, Fieth or any of the supporters of this insanity. they wave the flag in one hand and the bible in the other, while their supporters pick our pockets and send our brave troops off to die in their war for money. That''s not American, that''s fascist.
WOW!!! Talk about propaganda! ROFLMAO!
Re: "Look. He was willing to tell us he is a liar and a killer because he thinks he is justified. So now we have his own confession."
Posted by CBS_Oliver
Another excellent point and brilliant conclusion from our friend "CBS_Oliver"!
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 19
- next
See all 911 Comments