The Rice/Powell stuff struck me as just registering the change in views about acceptable risk that Sept 11 occassioned.
I would also point out that it is evidence against the 'they always wanted to attack Iraq' line. But then a lot of criticisms of US policy are cancelled out by other criticisms.
There could have been some doctoring of pictures. It's wartime, military powers do that sort of thing.
As for Saddam's history, I thought Sir John Keegan's piece covered that well. It's the old 'no permanent friends, just permanent interests' reality of diplomacy -- particularly in the Middle East snakepit.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-12-18 04:22 am (UTC)http://isntapundit.com/?date=20031216#dipnut_144951
The Rice/Powell stuff struck me as just registering the change in views about acceptable risk that Sept 11 occassioned.
I would also point out that it is evidence against the 'they always wanted to attack Iraq' line. But then a lot of criticisms of US policy are cancelled out by other criticisms.
There could have been some doctoring of pictures. It's wartime, military powers do that sort of thing.
As for Saddam's history, I thought Sir John Keegan's piece covered that well. It's the old 'no permanent friends, just permanent interests' reality of diplomacy -- particularly in the Middle East snakepit.