Scowcroft's arguments

Submitted by Josefina Carranza (United States), Mar 29, 2006 at 13:54

While we may argue the merits of the retired military man's arguments, the logical reasoning ...is consistently missing. Scowcroft's logic posits that Saddam is sort of like a bee, who really doesn't want to attack America directly unless it interferes with his direct plans. The author then uses numerous examples of Saddam's intentions of attacking Americans as proof that Scowcroft is misled. However, in each of the author's examples, he cites cases from situation when the US was directly opposed to Saddam, and was either responsibe for issuing UN sanctions against Iraq and then invading the country, twice. In each of these cases, Saddam was obviously "at war" with the US. Scowcroft's logic though, whether we might agree with his conclusions or not, only says that Saddam was not interested in attacking America, really until America began interfering in his totalitarian horror-fest.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".