Posted on 07/13/2008 4:37:52 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
INDIANAPOLIS, July 13 (UPI) -- The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was motivated by revenge for an assassination attempt former President George H.W. Bush, a former GOP member of Congress says.
John Hostettler of Indiana also says the invasion was intended to aid Israel. Hostettler -- one of six House Republicans to vote against the 2002 resolution authorizing use of force in Iraq -- makes the claims in a new, self-published book, "Nothing for the Nation: Who Got What Out of Iraq," the Indianapolis Star reported Sunday.
"It cannot be debated that toppling Saddam was accomplished by means of a 'private compact' with political appointees and their underlings in the Pentagon 'to support' the ideals of 'partisans ... dedicated to another cause,'" Hostettler wrote.
The conservative Republican, who lost his bid for a seventh term last year, said he wrote the book because conservatives must acknowledge the invasion was inconsistent with the nation's foreign policy principles.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
Same publisher as Scott McClennan? Sounds like the same whine.
|
Somebody’s been reading their spam emails again...
You got that right!
Publius is Hostettler’s. No other books.
PublicAffairs published McLellan’s book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PublicAffairs
The war in Iraq was not revenge, It was for
OIL
What’d ol’ Hos thing about those Iraqis shooting at American planes. What’d he think about Oil for Food and dropping sanctions against good ol’ Saddam.
What a dipstick...
What’d ol’ Hos thing about those Iraqis shooting at American planes. What’d he think about Oil for Food and dropping sanctions against good ol’ Saddam.
What a dipstick...
Amen to that!
Oh, BS.
I keep hoping there are historians out there actually trying to write about history, Doug Feith has done a good first draft but gets completely ignored, but I despair that we are well on our way to a Stalinist type of revisionism.
Self-published book! Even the many left leaning publishers must think the theory is BS or they would be all over a juicy angle like this.!
BDS Bush Derangement Syndrome
Well, look at who is hoping to be the new darling of the left.
So is this guy unemployed now and needs some quick income?
Sure it can. Just hang around here and it'll be debated all to pieces.
What he means is that it cannot be disproven. But the fact that he can't even make such a simple point clearly does not bode well for the book.
BTW, did you ever see so many parentheses in a single sentence?
No, nor so many quotation marks either.
Lot of good it done the us. I guess all the dipsticks are not in DC.
What you said.
“also says the invasion was intended to aid Israel.”
maybe but every time America tries to help anyone it always ends bad for us.
Give me a frikkin’ break.
All a person has to do is take a good look at the map of the Middle East, consider that the Saudis needed US forces GONE from their territory but that Saddam needed to be held in check (or just plain removed) and Iran and Syria countered with Kuwait, Dubai and UAE allowing US forces way too small a strategic footprint to see the forces (beyond the intelligence that Saddam had illegal WMDs) that were truly at work.
John Hostettler < a deep thinker.
What a load.
I think that this chump in all likelihood, did not deserve the "honor" of elected office. He is not alone in that distinction.
But "W" and his father were never that popular still are not.. If ONLY the republican party were THAT powerful..
But "W" and his father were never that popular still are not.. If ONLY the republican party were THAT powerful..
So Germany, Japan, and South Korea being allies is bad for the US?
Over the years, I've written and published 15 books, all by known (e.g., MacMillan, Prentice-Hall, etc.) publishing houses. Anytime you see the three words above, what it's really saying is that the writer could not find a reputable publishing house that would fund the book. Publishers shy away when they feel they can't recoup their investment, often because they feel there's no interest in the topic, a similar book already exists, the book is poorly written, or the book is fiction passing as fact. I don't know what the case is here, but the fact that he's self-publishing kinda tells me that publishers didn't like what he had to say, for whatever reason. You may want to start looking for large grains of salt.
Revenge was obviously not the “motivation” but it provided legitimacy in the eyes of the neighbors over there. We needed to get a handle in the Gulf region and Iraq is central and easier than Iran. Moslems are very big on revenge and we would have been sorely diminished in stature in their eyes if we had not gone for that revenge. For that there was far less local area opposition to the invasion than there would otherwise have been. I am sure that the revenge was understood by the arabs as being necessary even if not actually operative.
Nope not a deep thinker but a deep wanker...
He’s right. And there were a number of others who said the same thing when we first got involved. [Which doesn’t mean that we ought not to have got involved.]
Removing a regime that attempted to assassinate a U.S. President doesn’t sound too incredibly unjustified.
Self-published book huh? I guess most publishers feel the bush derangement syndrome market is pretty well saturated.
OK...got my clue to click into another thread.....
Sounds like he’s been drinking the Paulite koolaid.
I am guessing that this book will be just as successful financially and factually strong as Scott’s tell all book. AS IN NOT!!!
The war against Saddam Hussein was resumed because Bush #2 finally obeyed U.N. and confirming Congressional mandates. Diplomats and politicians laboriously parsed each phrase of these U.N. and Congressional resolutions, even though most now pretend they were cobbled together like some middle schooler’s term paper and without their knowledge.
The U.N.’s primary responsibility “to maintain international peace and security” directed U.N. passage of Resolution 678 “to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area” after Hussein invaded Kuwait. The resolution did not instruct the U.S. lead coalition to expel Hussein from Kuwait. The broader term “in the area” used phraseology of the previous U.N. resolution authorizing coalition military action above the 38th parallel to disarm North Korea.
Resolution 687 incorporated 678 and 19 previous resolutions without amendment and offered Hussein a conditional ceasefire in 1991. Instead, he ignored the responsibility to submit a comprehensive declaration of all WMD stockpiles and programs, and missiles with greater than 150 kilometer range. He thwarted the inspection program envisioned by menacing, parrying, and finally expelling the inspectors in 1998. He also continued forbidden involvement in international terrorism. In response, Bush #1, U.N. and Clinton ignored their responsibilities to deal with his ongoing material breaches.
Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill envisioned re-establishment of collective security when founding the U.N. in San Francisco. Finally in 2003 the United States, heading a coalition exceeding that Churchill and Roosevelt assembled to confront Hitler’s Germany, toppled Hussein’s regime and forced the U.N. to confront the reason for its’ existence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.