• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

"Doug Feith: Israel didn't push for Iraq War"

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
1
76
http://www.ynetnews.com/articl...7340,L-3542925,00.html

In an interview to an Israeli newspaper, Doug Feith denied any Israeli pressure for the attack on Iraq, even saying Israeli officials predicted the results we see today.

Former US undersecretary of defense tells Ynet he never saw evidence of Israeli pressure on America to launch Iraq War. In private conversations, Israelis warned that Iraq failure could undermine effort against Iran, he says

Yitzhak Benhorin
Published: 05.13.08, 19:41 / Israel News

WASHINGTON - As opposed to frequently cited claims, Israeli officials did not push their American counterparts into launching a war in Iraq, Former United Stated Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith told Ynet in a special interview.

Addressing claims that Israel pushed the US Administration into the war, Feith said "I never saw that."

"What you heard from Israeli officials in private discussions was that they were not really focused on Iraq," Feith said. "They were much more focused on Iran."

When asked why Israel did not publically object to military action in Iraq, he said this was a result of the strong relationship between Israeli officials and the Bush Administration.

"The relationship between Bush and Israel was so strong and so friendly that the Israeli government was not going to join Germany and French in opposing the US," Feith said, and added that "what you heard from the Israelis was not any kind of advocacy of war with Iraq."

Feith said that he heard "constant (Israeli) emphasis on the importance of the Iran danger" and added that Israel was worried about a scenario that ended up materializing, namely that "if the US got into a military conflict in Iraq and it didn?t go well, it could make our diplomacy with Iran less credible."

'People were looking for ways short of war'

Feith, whose new book War and Decision aims to present his take on the Iraq War, also dismissed claims that the Bush Administration had its mind set on war in Iraq even before the September 11 attacks.

"A lot of the decisions came after September 11th," he told Ynet. "I think one of the things the book explains is that Iraq was a major issue before September 11th - it was a major issue since 1990 for the US, and there was a debate within the US government on what to do about Iraq."

"After all, you had the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, which said the US policy is regime change, the Senate passed that law unanimously, and President Clinton signed it," he added.

"I review the debates inside the administration on what to do about Iraq and what I point out is that no decisions were made," Feith said, referring to his book. "There were debates about the no-fly zone enforcement, strengthening economic sanctions, and the CIA had been talking about the possibility of a coup. There were debates about whether we can create an autonomous enclave in the south? people were looking for ways short of war to deal with the problem."

Feith also rejected suggestions that the Bush Administration chose to target Iraq because it was the easiest move at the time.

"I don't think it was the easiest," he said. "We looked at each of the states supporting terror, and we said we need a policy appropriate to that country. In the case of Iran and North Korea, it was clear that before anyone could even consider any military action there was important diplomacy that had to be tried."

"At the time the UN was dealing with Iraq for 12 years," Feith said, and added that "the risks of leaving Saddam Hussein in power were very serious."
So, was it really done in the name of Israelis interests? Debate.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
weird, I've never even heard the argument that we went to war with Iraq because of Israel before.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,172
20,884
136
Me either, although I now think the strongest evidence that we DID go to war for Israel is the fact that Doug Feith said we didn't.
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
1
76
Some people might be under the impression US presence in the Middle East comes as a result of Zionist lobbying. That article goes against it.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,859
8,186
126
It's the Saudis. I've been saying that forever.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: loki8481
weird, I've never even heard the argument that we went to war with Iraq because of Israel before.
For quite some time before the invasion, suicide bombers were hitting Israel hard. Saddam was giving money to the families of the bombers, IIRC.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Me either, although I now think the strongest evidence that we DID go to war for Israel is the fact that Doug Feith said we didn't.
:laugh:. Not sure what rumors he had to dispell here.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Well, another way to look at it is the missing in action Israeli opposition to the US brainfart in Iraq. Can you spell Joe Lieberman? And now I am worried, can I spell Wolfawitz? Does it really make any difference?

2020 hindsight, Israel should have opposed it. Israel's great enabler is now greatly weakened, hardly good news for Israel.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: Vic
It's the Saudis. I've been saying that forever.
I don't think I have heard you state this.

Very interesting nonetheless. For what reasons? Oil prices? What else?
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,814
1,131
126
Absolute revisionist nonsense.

Why else would the Israel's de facto senator, Joseph Lieberman, have been so consistently adament about attacking Iraq and staying there? I recall speeches from Lieberman where he cited protection of Israel as a reason for the invasion.

Remember too that during the first (legit) Iraq war, Iran lobbed quite a few missles at Israel and we used Patriot anti-missle defense systems to protect them.

And read Woodward's books about Iraq regarding this administration's intent to invade Iraq from day 1 after 9/11. That's a lot more credible to me than something from an apologist for the GWB adminstration.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,675
13,754
136
I'll go with eskimospy- basically, tail wags dog, then issues strong denial...

The Neocon establishment is shot through with divided loyalties between the US and Israel. Just the way it is.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,493
0
76
I don't think it was israel's idea but once it got rolling they played the Thatcher to Bush and told him not to go wobbly, arguing for the invasion. This is a very stupid point since the records show the israeli government encouraging the war.

 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
56,343
4,768
126
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
http://www.ynetnews.com/articl...7340,L-3542925,00.html

In an interview to an Israeli newspaper, Doug Feith denied any Israeli pressure for the attack on Iraq, even saying Israeli officials predicted the results we see today.

Former US undersecretary of defense tells Ynet he never saw evidence of Israeli pressure on America to launch Iraq War. In private conversations, Israelis warned that Iraq failure could undermine effort against Iran, he says

Yitzhak Benhorin
Published: 05.13.08, 19:41 / Israel News

WASHINGTON - As opposed to frequently cited claims, Israeli officials did not push their American counterparts into launching a war in Iraq, Former United Stated Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith told Ynet in a special interview.

Addressing claims that Israel pushed the US Administration into the war, Feith said "I never saw that."

"What you heard from Israeli officials in private discussions was that they were not really focused on Iraq," Feith said. "They were much more focused on Iran."

When asked why Israel did not publically object to military action in Iraq, he said this was a result of the strong relationship between Israeli officials and the Bush Administration.

"The relationship between Bush and Israel was so strong and so friendly that the Israeli government was not going to join Germany and French in opposing the US," Feith said, and added that "what you heard from the Israelis was not any kind of advocacy of war with Iraq."

Feith said that he heard "constant (Israeli) emphasis on the importance of the Iran danger" and added that Israel was worried about a scenario that ended up materializing, namely that "if the US got into a military conflict in Iraq and it didn?t go well, it could make our diplomacy with Iran less credible."

'People were looking for ways short of war'

Feith, whose new book War and Decision aims to present his take on the Iraq War, also dismissed claims that the Bush Administration had its mind set on war in Iraq even before the September 11 attacks.

"A lot of the decisions came after September 11th," he told Ynet. "I think one of the things the book explains is that Iraq was a major issue before September 11th - it was a major issue since 1990 for the US, and there was a debate within the US government on what to do about Iraq."

"After all, you had the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, which said the US policy is regime change, the Senate passed that law unanimously, and President Clinton signed it," he added.

"I review the debates inside the administration on what to do about Iraq and what I point out is that no decisions were made," Feith said, referring to his book. "There were debates about the no-fly zone enforcement, strengthening economic sanctions, and the CIA had been talking about the possibility of a coup. There were debates about whether we can create an autonomous enclave in the south? people were looking for ways short of war to deal with the problem."

Feith also rejected suggestions that the Bush Administration chose to target Iraq because it was the easiest move at the time.

"I don't think it was the easiest," he said. "We looked at each of the states supporting terror, and we said we need a policy appropriate to that country. In the case of Iran and North Korea, it was clear that before anyone could even consider any military action there was important diplomacy that had to be tried."

"At the time the UN was dealing with Iraq for 12 years," Feith said, and added that "the risks of leaving Saddam Hussein in power were very serious."
So, was it really done in the name of Israelis interests? Debate.


Well, we all know, the Israeli's would NEVER lie to us...

Just because Feith claims they had nothing to do with it doesn't mean they had nothing to do with it...in fact, the more they deny, the more I suspect them of involvement...BUT, I also believe Bush was going into Iraq no matter what.

http://www.sundayherald.com/se...becoming_president.php

(It was in the newspaper, so it must be true.) :roll:
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
It was Feith's office, along with the Defense Policy Group (DPG) whose members Feith appointed, that served as the point of entry and influence for Iraqi National Congress (INC) chief Ahmed Chalabi and his ''defectors'' who provided phony intelligence about Hussein's vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

It was Feith's office that was charged with planning the post-war occupation and reconstruction process, and, in so doing, effectively excluded input from Iraqi experts from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency , and even from the Iraqi-American community, who had participated in a mammoth project that anticipated most of the problems occupation authorities have since encountered.

It's no wonder, that Doug Feith was described by the military commander who led the invasion, Gen. Tommie Franks, as ''the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth''
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
As BMW says---It's no wonder, that Doug Feith was described by the military commander who led the invasion, Gen. Tommie Franks, as ''the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth''

NoNo No Tommy Franks is wrong, there are two sets of people even stupider. (1) That set that would buy a copy of his book and thus pay him royalties. (2) That set who are dumb enough to believe a single word that lying sack of shit says.

Either send the bastard to the Hague or revive that ancient American honorary custom of riding the fellow out of town on a rail in full tar and feathers regalia.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,859
8,186
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Vic
It's the Saudis. I've been saying that forever.
I don't think I have heard you state this.

Very interesting nonetheless. For what reasons? Oil prices? What else?
Yep. Economically, the Iraq War is the best thing that's happen to them since oil was first discovered there. But religious and cultural reasons as well. We're basically consolidating their empire in the ME for them AND footing the bill for it at the same time (which they are graciously lending us the money to do).
And uh... what nationality is bin Laden, AQ, and all those terrorists on 9/11?
But nah, let's go blame the Jews. Everyone else always does...
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Vic
It's the Saudis. I've been saying that forever.
I don't think I have heard you state this.

Very interesting nonetheless. For what reasons? Oil prices? What else?
Yep. Economically, the Iraq War is the best thing that's happen to them since oil was first discovered there. But religious and cultural reasons as well. We're basically consolidating their empire in the ME for them AND footing the bill for it at the same time (which they are graciously lending us the money to do).
And uh... what nationality is bin Laden, AQ, and all those terrorists on 9/11?
But nah, let's go blame the Jews. Everyone else always does...
Ok, not sure exactly how you are fitting OBL into the picture. Are you implying that he's in cahoots with the Saudi's? That their removing him from the country and disapproval of him all all a charade?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,859
8,186
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Vic
It's the Saudis. I've been saying that forever.
I don't think I have heard you state this.

Very interesting nonetheless. For what reasons? Oil prices? What else?
Yep. Economically, the Iraq War is the best thing that's happen to them since oil was first discovered there. But religious and cultural reasons as well. We're basically consolidating their empire in the ME for them AND footing the bill for it at the same time (which they are graciously lending us the money to do).
And uh... what nationality is bin Laden, AQ, and all those terrorists on 9/11?
But nah, let's go blame the Jews. Everyone else always does...
Ok, not sure exactly how you are fitting OBL into the picture. Are you implying that he's in cahoots with the Saudi's? That their removing him from the country and disapproval of him all all a charade?
I don't make those assumptions. I'm just saying that, for all the accusations that Israel was behind 9/11 and Iraq, there's little evidence that they have benefited from those.
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,190
41
91
Originally posted by: Lemon law
As BMW says---It's no wonder, that Doug Feith was described by the military commander who led the invasion, Gen. Tommie Franks, as ''the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth''

NoNo No Tommy Franks is wrong, there are two sets of people even stupider. (1) That set that would buy a copy of his book and thus pay him royalties. (2) That set who are dumb enough to believe a single word that lying sack of shit says.

Either send the bastard to the Hague or revive that ancient American honorary custom of riding the fellow out of town on a rail in full tar and feathers regalia.
:thumbsup:

Finally found the post expressing my opinion exactly. Thanks for saving me the time to type:beer:
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Vic
It's the Saudis. I've been saying that forever.
I don't think I have heard you state this.

Very interesting nonetheless. For what reasons? Oil prices? What else?
Yep. Economically, the Iraq War is the best thing that's happen to them since oil was first discovered there. But religious and cultural reasons as well. We're basically consolidating their empire in the ME for them AND footing the bill for it at the same time (which they are graciously lending us the money to do).
And uh... what nationality is bin Laden, AQ, and all those terrorists on 9/11?
But nah, let's go blame the Jews. Everyone else always does...
Ok, not sure exactly how you are fitting OBL into the picture. Are you implying that he's in cahoots with the Saudi's? That their removing him from the country and disapproval of him all all a charade?
I don't make those assumptions. I'm just saying that, for all the accusations that Israel was behind 9/11 and Iraq, there's little evidence that they have benefited from those.
Well, the sudden sharp decrease in suicide bombings would be one. :D

I mean, IIRC, it seemed like once a week, there was a SB'ing in Israel, and word got out that Saddam was paying the bombers' families (to rebuild their house after it was bulldozed by Israel was the rumer, again, IIRC). After we invaded, that stopped, or the media stopped reporting about it, one of the two.

As far as motivations go, a reasonable person could see the possibility that OBL was in cahoots with the Saudi's, and/or the USA. Using Islamic jihad to help further the agendas of the respective countries.

But of course, there are others with possible motivations and agendas as well. And likely, the truth isn't too far off from what we actually know.

It's like a global version of Monsters on Maple Street. :D
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Doug Feith was one of the ground floor planners of the Bushwhackos' war. Nothing he says is worth its weight in manure. Like all the rest of the rats on that sinking ship, the only thing they can come up with, now, is revisionist stories that somehow shift the blame for their heinous crimes anywhere but on themselves.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,807
4,715
126
Just because a neocon says something, doesn't mean it's true. But this time it probably is. I don't think Israelis are as dumb as American neocons to actually think going into Iraq would be a good idea.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Doug Feith was one of the ground floor planners of the Bushwhacko's war. Nothing he says is worth its weight in manure. Like all the rest of the rats on that sinking ship, the only thing they can come up with, now, is revisionist stories that somehow shift the blame for their heinous crimes anywhere but on themselves.
I agree with that take.

But the other thing we fail to mention is that while all these raving neocon geniuses were mutually self congratulating themselves over their brilliant, simply brilliant grant strategic visions of grandeur, the collected lot of these dumb MF's somehow figured their strategies would self implement themselves. And they then delegated the task of implementing their grand strategies to no one because they were all clearly above these petty details.

And as they say, the rest is just history.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Thump553
Absolute revisionist nonsense.

Why else would the Israel's de facto senator, Joseph Lieberman, have been so consistently adament about attacking Iraq and staying there? I recall speeches from Lieberman where he cited protection of Israel as a reason for the invasion.

Remember too that during the first (legit) Iraq war, Iran lobbed quite a few missles at Israel and we used Patriot anti-missle defense systems to protect them.

And read Woodward's books about Iraq regarding this administration's intent to invade Iraq from day 1 after 9/11. That's a lot more credible to me than something from an apologist for the GWB adminstration.
Correction....Iraq lobbied missiles not Iran.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY