Bush I National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft wrote an article on August 15, 2002, for The Wall Street Journal titled, ‘Don’t Attack Saddam.’ ” ‘We will all be better off when he is gone,’ the retired general and Bush family confidant began. …There was ‘scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks.’ What’s more, there ‘is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression.’ So, Scowcroft methodically proceeded, attacking Iraq would undercut the U.S. counteroffensive against terrorism. Some of his secondary points were prescient, such as his prediction that a ‘military campaign very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long term military occupation.’ …Scowcroft was most worried by the regional effects. His bottom line: ‘If we reject a comprehensive perspective, however, we put at risk our campaign against terrorism as well as stability and security in a vital region of the world.’ ”
– Thomas E. Ricks, Fiasco, Page 47