If you didn't catch President Bush's Veterans Day speech, here is the abridged version: I didn't lie about Iraqi WMD. I was just really, really wrong. But so were many Democrats and Europeans, so why are y'all blaming me. Sup wit dat?
To paraphrase Dr. Phil: take ownership of your mistakes, President Bush. Sure, Bill Clinton and German intelligence may have believed that Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. But they didn't invade his country based on this mistaken belief. You did. And since when did incompetence become a virtue? It's hardly vindication to be wrong instead of a liar, particularly when the contested point centers around a war that's resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.
In the same speech, Bush warned Syria: "The government of Syria must stop exporting violence and start importing democracy."
.....whaa?
Who writes this crap? Ok, so if I get this straight, the solution to Syria's problems, and what will win back the country into the good graces of the US, is for it to embrace democracy. What does that mean exactly? One man, one vote? Does anyone in their right mind think that such "mob rule" (and let's face it, democracy is essentially just that) will lead to a kinder, gentler Syria? This is boneheaded... Turkey is more moderate and look at their parliament!
This Administration has followed the ridiculous path of Clinton in sanctioning ourselves out of any influence (to paraphrase Dubya) with these terorrist countries. We have no leverage and no sway over their governments at all due to this narrow-minded approach to foreign policy.
Democracy for these countries is a joke, and a horribly and dangerously stupid approach to dealing with such nations. Conversely, a country that is ruled with an iron fist by a dictator leaves one with a very clear path to success. With the second example, you only need to "win over" one man, with the first, you need to win over the whole damn country.
You seem to be conflating separate questions:
(1) Was the conclusion that Iraq had WMD's a reasonable inference from the available data?
(2) Assuming that Iraq had WMD's, was invasion an appropriate action?
Not knowing anything about the standards and methods of intelligence gathering, I cannot directly determine the answer to (1). However, given that a former president (briefed by his expert advisors), the former Director of the CIA, multiple foreign intelligence agencies, and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee all answered in the affirmative, what grounds do I have to disagree?
As for (2), I agree (in principle) with the President (though, WMD or no, the invasion and subsequent search were poorly executed). In a nutshell, my rationale is this: a common enemy (the U.S.) is a basis for collaboration ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend").
Because I agree with the President on (2), the difference between wrong and liar is significant. Someone can be wrong without fault.
The President has to answer for the Office of Special Plans. To say that it was the blame of faulty intelligence or that "everyone" believed it is a flat out lie. We cherry picked intelligence to give us reason to invade Iraq and then acted on that cherry picked intelligence.
If "We cherry picked intelligence," then "a former president (briefed by experts), the former Director of the CIA, multiple foreign intelligence agencies, and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee cherry picked intelligence."
Not the consequent, therefore, not the antecedent. QED.
Since we have had so much fiery debate about the strategic and moral ramifications of the invasion of Iraq, let's tally up the cost benefit ratio of the war and see if it is a reasonable investment shall we? I will go into this assuming the US is going to win the Iraq war, because if we lose obviously there couldn't be any justification for it as an investment, it would be a waste.
Costs:
-A large number of US troops deployed to Iraq cannot be deployed elsewhere, this is an obvious opportunity cost, and a large one considering the volatile political situation in the world today.
-Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent in Iraq, I cannot remember the exact number, but we have paid quite a large monetary cost.
-Over 2,000 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq. This poses no real threat to our ability to operate efficiently, but the emotional ramifications of it on the American people are a cost of their own.
-The displeasure of some US allies (I find this one questionable. The pro-American ministers of Japan, Australia, and Britain all remained in power. The pro-American candidate just became Chancellor of Germany, the pro-Russian, anti-American candidate was soundly defeated in the Ukrainian elections, the pro-American candidates won the Prime Ministership and the Presidency of Poland, and the pro-American minister of the interior is likely to be the next President of France.)
Benefits:
-The dismantling of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist government, a large supporter of Middle Eastern terrorism and regional unrest, and a longtime thorn in the America's proverbial side.
-Making an example out of Saddam Hussein to other leaders in the region.
-The encircling of Iran on all sides with US military forces
-The military and political isolation of Ba'athist Syria
-A large offensively orientated US military presence in the heart of the Middle East that grants the US much more leverage when dealing with other states in the region, as exemplified by Libya's turning over of it's WMD program, Syria pulling out of Lebanon, and tentative steps towards democracy in Egypt and (to a lesser extent) Saudi Arabia
-Long term combat experiance by the US Army and US Marines in dealing with fighting the terrorist enemy, the kind of experiance they could not recieve in the Afghan theatre, where most of the fighting was done by the Northern Alliance, supported by US Special Forces.
-Denying Iraq's oil wealth to Saddam Hussen, a man who did just about anything he could to hinder us at every turn.
-A very major defeat for the Jihadi cause in the Middle East.
Considering the risks, costs, and benefits of the Iraqi regime change project, I see a worthwhile investment.
Thoughts?
Ralph, the former President also cherry picked intel when it came to his bombing Yugoslavia. You think he didn't do the same when he bombed Iraq?
Tenet presided over one of the worst intelligence failures in American history. He should have been booted out on his ass on 9/12. Why you or anyone else would listen to him is a mystery.
What are these multiple foreign intel agencies? Israel feeding us false info to get us mired in their fight? Iraqi dissidents feeding us false info so we can carry their banner?
I believe the Senate intelligence committee got intelligence only after it had been vetted by the OSP. They had no idea how flimsy the intel they were being fed was.
Ben, I don't want to take issue with your entire statement, but rather would like to pick at a few of the points you list as Benefits.
Syria has not been, either politically or militarily, isolated by any means. In fact, due to military support from Russia and major engagement by the EU in financing massive modernization efforts (I think the last contract I saw was for 8 Billion Euro for infrastructure development), Syria has never been in a better position in the last 20 years.
Iran is not surrounded, though with the trouble with Northern Kurds and the natural barrier of the Caspian Sea, it would seem so. They have strong support from Russia, and they aren't acting like their back is against the wall.
The moves towards democracy in the Middle Eastern countries you name may well be a result of the war in Iraq, but may not be such a great thing in the long run (see my earlier post on Bush and Syria in this topic). While I'm less concerned with the Egyptians, who tend to be "Egyptians" first and muslims second, I'm much more concerned about every Saudi having a say in his Government's policies. I think the reason for this should be obvious.
Due to the comprehensive US and UN embargoes, Saddam's oil wealth had already been denied to him. This is one instance where comprehensive economic sanctions (Libya being the other) actually worked to a large extent.
We have yet to see if this campaign will indeed yield a major victory over the Global Jihad.
Obi:
(1) The Senate Intelligence Committee receives its intelligence directly from the intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA, etc.). The Committee never received any intelligence from the DOD Office of Special Plans.
(2) The German, French and Russian intelligence agencies (not to mention their leaders) agreed with the Bush administration that Iraq possessed WMD.
(3) The claim that Tenet presided over significant intelligence failures is not equivalent to the claim that he lied in his assessment of pre-war intelligence.
Your view of matters amounts to a massive conspiracy spanning two presidential administrations (of different parties, no less) and multiple domestic and foreign intelligence agencies. Perhaps you and Oliver Stone should work on a screenplay.
Who says the German, French, and Russian intel agencies agreed? I keep hearing this claim from Bushites, but not a lot backing it up. Even when Clinton bombed in 1998 we did not get support from Russia or France (I'm drawing a blank on whether Germany also did not support us).
I never claimed Tenet lied, just that he was functionally retarded in his job.
When you say the Senate Intel Committee "directly receives" their intel what does that even mean? Spell it out. They get what exactly?
Homer, on your two points:
Iran is not surrounded? I don't know what to say about this but "yes they are." US troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan, on both sides of them. There is a major US Navy presence in the Persian Gulf below them. I meant they were literally surrounded. They have certainly been behaving arrogantly, but wait until they cross the line with Israel and a few well placed missiles are going to put a stop to that real quick.
Have you not been watching the news lately? Syria has been forced to pull out of Lebanon, allow a US investigation into the murder of Rafik Hariri, more or less allow US troops to stage anti-Insurgent raids inside Syria, and Bashar Al-Assad is clearly quite worried for the survival of his regime.
I am equally distrustful of the people of Saudi Arabia, but the monarchy sure as hell isn't getting the job done, so we might as well see what a reformed semi-monarchial semi-democratic solution could do. I tend to think that there is NO positive way to deal with Saudi Arabia though.
Due to the Oil-For-Food Scandal, Saddam's oil wealth had in fact not at all been denied to him.
And yes, we do not know whether this will be a major defeat for Global Jihad or not. But we do know that, should we win, it will be. I prefaced my post by saying I was assuming for the sake of argument that the US would be the victor, since there is obviously no way to justify a war that the US lost.
Iraq's highest ranking defector, Hussein Kamel, didn't mince words when it came to the fate of WMD: "everything was destroyed; nothing remained." This information was accurate and the Bush Administrtion ignored it; defectors passed along false information and the Bush Adminstration peddled it. Any suggestion that it was the result of "bad information" is a lie. Any suggestion that the Bush Administration didn't misuse intelligence is also a lie.
You people and your neo-conservatism. This is why I drink.
*unscrews flask*
C'mon Dan. What would you have done in his situation? Nothing? That would have been even more dangerous.
Everybody has 20-20 vision in hindsight. We don't need a Monday morning quarterback. We need a leader. Here's one Iraqi Freedom Vet who thinks Bush made the right decision, regardless of WMD's.
Eric,
What a weak comment. Bush et al. (a rather large and authoritative group of others) are liars because they discounted (perhaps on the basis of other information) the information provided by a single defector? Your anti-war zeal has gotten the better of your judgment.
Ben-T, thanks for the replay.
As far as Iran, look at a map. More importantly, look at 1)if they ACT surrounded, and 2) who their friends are (my central point) and that influences their posture.
Have you not been watching the news lately? Specifically, have you not been watching the business news lately? Follow the money, and look at who a country's friends are to gauge how effective we are at hurting the country. The EU is heavily engaged with Syria and dumping money all over the country. We've seen time and again that the only way that US sanctions and pressure on a country are effective is when the rest of the world joins us. It's not working in Syria.
I guess you kind of agree with me on Saudi.
Oil for food??? Ben, don't believe the hype. Anyone that has done business in Iraq can tell you that very very few goods were getting into the country. This easey to discern simply by looking at what they did NOT have when the country was opened up for business. Stuff just wasn't getting in, the oil-for-food scandal notwithstanding. Sanctions aren't perfect, but when the US and UN sanctions work together, they can be pretty effective and they WERE effective in the case of Iraq and Libya.
I'll concede the Jihad point in the hopes that you're right.
Ben Duffy: I thought the war was a bad idea before it happened. I said so in a very public manner on Donahue in late '02, O'Reilly in early '03, and in numerous other forums. It's not Monday-morning quarterbacking to say the same things prior to the war as after it has started. There have been some positive consequences because of the war, but the idea that not going to war was more dangerous than going to war doesn't mesh with reality. Reality is there are more than 2,000 American dead (not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi dead that Ben T omitted as a war "cost"). If we hadn't gone to war, Iraq would have killed probably zero Americans. What were they going to do, fire their pretend weapons of mass destruction at us with their short-range missles that would pretend to reach us?
I am looking at how Iran is acting. They are acting like they're back is against the wall. They have been forced into dealing with the UN, something they weren't doing before, they have reached the point where they are fighting tooth and nail for the right to keep a nuclear program that before 2003, they had a free pass on.
Their friends are the Russians, yes. The Russians are castrated. Just look at what happened in the Ukraine.
As for Syria, the fact don't line up with your rhetoric. They have pulled out of Lebanon, they are allowing investigations into some of the highest ranking members of their regime, and Bashard Al-Assad worries for his survival.
And Iraq, again, the facts just don't line up. According to all reports I've seen, Saddam was getting plenty of cash via oil for food. No, oil for food was not working in the intended way, to provide infrastructure to the Iraqi people, but that isn't relevant. It WAS working to provide Saddam Hussein's government with plenty of oil wealth.
The following was brought to my attention the other day: www.bushresignationpetition.com
Started by a Republican voter who has no confidence in W, it's informal but simple. I think it's a bad idea. But I'm curious if Republican support for this could grow.
Interesting petition, in that it expresses displeasure in the Bush presidency in failing to "mobilize the resources of the Federal government" with regard to Hurricane Katrina and in "the torture and degrading treatment of prisoners" at Gitmo and elsewhere. These don't seem like the issues that bother the rank and file GOP voters about Bush. Tellingly, of the dozens of signatories to the petition, just two identify themselves as Republicans. Not only is the Republican who organized this petition at odds with the vast majority of his party, he is at odds with the vast majority of that small minority in his party who happen to be disaffected with the Bush presidency.
I first assumed it was from a liberal Democrat, and emailed objections to him based on that. I doubt it'll go far.
Ralph,
Lt Gen. Hussein Kamel was the highest ranking Iraqi defector in history and actually oversaw the construction -- and destruction -- of Iraq's WMD. No other Iraqi defector had his breadth of knowledge or his high level access. Other defectors -- Curveball, Libi -- were not given as much credence but the Bush Administration had no qualms peddling their stories as if they were the unvarnished truth.
Besides you cannot argue that they discounted Kamel's testimony because they often cited his defection as the reason for Iraq disclosing its biological weapons program. In other words, they ignored part of his testimony -- the part concerning the destruction of WMD -- and not the rest. Why? The reason if because his testimony regarding the destruction of WMD wasn't a good sales pitch for war -- "mushroom clouds" work much better.
So we can't say we had bad information when in fact Iraq's highest ranking defector provided us with accurate information. Nor can we argue the Bush Administration didn't misuse or cherry pick intelligence because never once did they cite Kamel's testimony in regards to the destruction of WMD. So the facts are simple: the Bush Administration misused intelligence to start a war. This is a fact, not an opinion.
Eric,
Then you are committed to the absurd position that French, German, Russian and domestic intelligence agencies, the Senate intelligence committee, and the Clinton administration were all in on Bush's 'lie'.
Ralph,
You didn't refute one single point I made and that's because my argument is irrefutable. However, you have managed to compound your error by parrotting a well-known Bush cultism: everyone said Iraq had those weapons. Actually, no. French intelligence, DGSE, said there was no case Iraq had any weapons; Vladimir Putin said he'd see no hard facts to substantiate the case Colin Powell made against Saddam Hussein. The U.N. weapon inspectors said there was no evidence Iraq had any WMD programs in Iraq. So this idea that "everyone said Iraq had those weapons" is just as false as the idea the Bush Administration didn't misuse intelligence to start a war. "German intelligence" is just synonymous with Curveball who the Germans had grave suspicious about and elements within our intelligence community didn't support other Administration propaganda -- like the aluminium tubes. The IAEA also said that Iraq had not re-started their nuclear weapon program contrary to the bald lies of Cheney et al.
The Bush Administration had accurate information about the fate of Iraq's WMD -- everything was destroyed -- and chose to ignore it. The Bush Administration had inaccurate information about Iraq -- Curveball, INC -- and chose to peddle it. Well, when you deliberately peddle inaccurate information and ignore accurate information you're statements are going to be inacurrate.
another tangent: The American Conservative recently took to task longtime leftist journalist Christopher Hitchens over his vehement pro-Iraq war stance. The Oct. 10 article, "The Purest Neocon," cites many instances H's anti-capitalist and anti-Catholic statements over the years. AmCon doesn't blow him out of the water, but it does offer an interesting look under the hood of H's roaring polemical engine.
Eric, so "everything" was destroyed? Well, reading the attached, I guess Hans Blix disagrees with your position, which is of course, based one would assume on the words of Hans Blix. Feel free to read the attached and then offer more opinions masquerading as fact. But I would stop using superlatives which are inaccurate at best, and "lies" at worst!
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540&ojrss=wsj
Ralph,
Hussein Kamel's defection was in 1995 and the weapons he was referring to were the ones destroyed in the summer of 1991. In the mid 1990's Iraq did begin experimenting with other biological and chemical weapons and tried to conceal these from the UN weapon inspectors. However, all the facilities that were involved in this production were destroyed around 1995/1996. So these weapons were documented by the United Nations. The weapons that Hussein Kamel claimed to have destroyed were not -- and can never be -- documented because they were eliminated outside of UN supervision.
Poddy continues to lie that all other intelligence agencies thought Iraq had WMD. As I've pointed out many times this is empirically false. UN inspectors left Iraq saying there was no evidence of any WMD programs in Iraq. What evidence did President Bush have that the inspectors on the ground did not? That's right -- nothing. So yes President Bush is a liar -- and so is Poddy. What about "everything was destroyed; nothing remained," do you Bush cultists find unclear, ambiguous or incomprehensible?
Clearly "everything" was not destroyed. Mr. Kamel supposedly said in the summer of 1991 that Iraq elimated all of its WMD and all that remained were blueprints. "Everything" could not have been eliminated at this time because according to former chief weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus inspectors destroyed large quantities of chemical weapons in 1992-1994. If by "everything" Mr. Kamel meant only declared weapons then his statement was misleading. I think it is more likely that he simply did not know about the others. As to declared or undeclared weapons, it seems Saddam could have easily cleared this up but he chose not to. Also we had a chemical lab complete with instructions on how to make chemical weapons found in Fallujah after coalition troops captured it last year. The statement that everything was destroyed is either an uninformed statement by Mr. Kamel or he is as Mr. Ekeus once put "a consumate liar." I think he simply did not know about the other weapons. In any event, none of this means the war in Iraq is justified. The biggest problem I have with it is I am concerned that this has caused us to divert resources from dealing with much bigger problems such as Russia and China. Russia and China are the two greatest threats to America right now. Iraq is down on the list somewhere.
Clearly the intellegence was faulty, as the weapons are not "there." At least they are not where we thought they would be. We need an investigation into this to determine why it was faulty. Both parties should focus on getting to the bottom of this rather than trying to use it to score political points. It seems we went wrong sometime around 1998. To date all investigations have assumed the pre war intellegence was wrong and our post liberation knowledge is perfect. This seems a dubious assumption to me, as the security situation for parts of Iraq is unstable at best. The Iraq Survery Group had to suspend part of its investigation due to the unstable security situation. Part of this investigation should focus on the possibilty that our pre war ana=lysis could have been right but the post liberation information is incorrect. For example the Iraq Survey Group was never able to determine conclusively what was transferred to Syria prior to the war. The investigation should focus on completing this aspect of the Iraq Survey Group's mission. Unfortunately this investigation will probably not happen, as the results could be uncomfortable to both Republicans and Democrats. The results of this investigation would likely undercut the Democrat/Main stream media talking point that "Saddam was no threat" and it might reveal President Bush as an incompetent leader. From my perspective he does not look like a good President. As some might say, I am being a "Monday morning qaurterback." They could be right. In any event we need to get to the bottom of this. We have major threats with Russia and China that need to be dealt with. Good intellegence will be crucial to dealing with these threats. If we use it properly we have a golden opportunity to learn from this and to improve. Was Saddam a major threat to the US? I would have to say yes. Did the threat rise to the level to justify war? I would have to say I am uncertain of that. We certainly should not focus on Iraq at the expense of dealing with larger threats.
Eric,
If you declare Podhoretz (sp?) a liar how about a citation for your claim that French and Germans knew WMDs were already gone? Just in the interest of reality.
Understanding Kamel's testimony is not that difficult. Because the question was concerning unaccounted for weapons -- that means weapons that were destroyed outside of UN supervision. Weapons that were destroyed under UN supervision are not unaccounted for. So the relevant question was what happened to the weapons Iraq declared but were not destroyed under UN supervision? Of course LT Gen Hussein Kamel knew that Iraq was experimenting and even producing biological and chemical weapons before 1995 because that was also part of his testimony. So the quote -- everything was destroyed; nothing remained -- was in refernce to weapons destroyed in 1991 outside the supervision of the United Nations. This is now the consensus of the CIA and Hans Blix and even David Kay -- so Kamel was not wrong at all. The Bush cultists here continue to take his comments out of context.
"Before the war, France repeatedly warned the Bush Administration against invading Iraq. DGSE, France's intelligence service, which had highly placed agents within Saddam Hussein's regime, informed the US Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, posed no threat, and would, if invaded, turn into a second Lebanon or West Bank."
Quote from an article by Eric Margolis who said prior to the war that Iraq did not have WMD.
Here is a quote by Vladimir Putin citing his own intelligence:
Fears are one thing, hard facts are another. Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."
And here is a quote from a UN meeting taken prior to the war:
UN INSPECTORS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF PROHIBITED WEAPONS PROGRAMMES
AS OF 18 MARCH WITHDRAWAL, HANS BLIX TELLS SECURITY COUNCIL
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7777.doc.htm
So Russian, French, and even the United Nations inspectors on the ground all said they'd seen no evidence Iraq had any WMD. So anyone who says otherwise -- like Poddy and the Bush cultists -- is simply lying.
At best the intellegence on Iraq's WMD was mixed. As General Wesley Clark stated the US was on a different posture following 911. Some French officials believed Saddam had WMD, as quoted by LA Times reporter Max Boot. In a Washington Post article, Vladimir Putin had said he thought Iraq had WMD but he disagreed with the decision to remove Saddam. I suppose the WAPO reporter could have mis quoted him. Reasonable people can and do disagree about what our response should have been regarding the threat posed by Iraq. As I stated previously, we should not focus on Iraq while igonoring other more dangerous threats. Hopefully we can get a non partisain investigation to find out what went wrong with our intellegence. Head ISG inspectors David Kay and Charles Duelfer pointed out that Saddam's regime maintained significant WMD capability that could end up in the hands of terrorists. That's part of why they supported his removal, at least according to the latest information I have.
Any investigation should be conducted by people not affiliated with the US gonvernment nor the United Nations. If it turns out in the unlikely event that both Demomcrats and Republicans lied in the run up to Operation Iraqi Freedom they should be prosecuted. By now everyone is pretty much intimately familliar with the case against Iraq's WMD. The evidence for Iraq's WMD needs to be presented fairly, as well. For people to be properly informed it would be helpful if the MSM would cover both sides of a story.
I'm not confident we can get a fair investigation from the government. The investigation would likely be unconfortable for both Democrats and Republicans. This investigation would likely undercut the Democrat/Main Stream Media talking point that Iraq was no threat. From my perspective Bush appears to be wholly incompetent as a President. He seems wholly unfit for this office. Hopefuly I'm wrong. This investigation might reveal this to the American public.
Hans Blix had stated back in Jan 2003 that Saddam had not come to terms with the fact that he needed to disarm but he did not supprt the American position on removing Saddam. The Americans wanted Rolf Ekeus to head weapons inspections thinking he would be tougher but Blix was the compromise choice. I'm not sure how much faith to place in the terrorist proxy known as the UN. We should stop supporting it with American dollars. In any event, my prayer is that we can get to the bottom of this, no matter where it may lead.
Hans Blix also said that just because some weapons are unaccounted for doesn't mean they exist. Generally we can call that position agnostic. President Bush said "intelligence leaves no doubt...Iraq continues to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised." Generally, we can call this position unfounded.
Eric
Clearly the intellegence was wrong. I think everyone agrees on that. Clearly the WMD is not "there." At least not where the government and our allies thought it would be. Maybe the stockpiles did not exist or maybe they were moved. The Clinton administration also "knew" WMD would be there to. Flynnfilers are familliar with the quotes so there is no need to repeat them. I think both administrations acted in good faith. If not hopefully a non partisain investigation will bring it to light. As said previously we were wrong. Hopefully both Democrats and Republicns can work together to find out why.
Btw, the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force describes why we removed Saddam. It goes beyond WMD. The resolution is available for public inspection.
Best Wishes
B.Poster
Eric, you're an angry man who carelessly throws around superlatives which aren't accurate. You also interpret the words of others to support your absolute statements when their statements aren't reflective of your position. Discussions and debate are great, but once again, you can't call people everyone who disagrees with your position names (e.g., "liars"), assume "facts" not in evidence, and call it debate.
First of all it can not be assumed that Clinton or other Democrats really believed Iraq had weapons because -- as far as I know -- they were privvy to the testimony of Lt Gen Hussein Kamel and also supported aggressive action in Iraq in 1998. So clearly President Clinton would have a political interest in maintaining the fiction that Iraq had WMD and was a threat to this country. However, earlier in the Bush Administration things were not so cut and dry.
Colin Powell in February 2001: " He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. "
Condoleezza Rice and the CIA's own estimate on Iraq had similiar things to say regarding the existence of Iraq's WMD and any potential threat. So what changed? Why did the an-alysis go from being ambiguous and insiginifact to as if Iraq was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb and might detonate it in the United States? Was it A) all intelligence? B)All politics? C)Or combination thereof?
Clearly we can rule out A because Rumsfeld himself said we've received no new intelligence on Iraq since 1996, so the an-alysis of Iraq's WMD and its threat to this country had to have a political element in it. That is to say the intelligence was fixed -- remember the Downing Street Memo -- to start a war. We can just use the shorthand and say President Bush lied us into war -- more or less, it fits.
Eric
Part of the Downing Street memo discusses a British response should Iraq have used WMD. So it seems at least some of the British believed Saddam had WMD stockpiled. The main stream media ignored or glossed over that aspect. It doesn't fit their agenda very well. The memo does not fit their agenda very well is why it was largely ignored in the American main stream press. The following article contains more on what may have happened to Saddam's WMD. http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20154. My personal opinion is they were probably moved to another location or possibly hidden in a part of Iraq where the security situation is to tenuos to do a detailed search. That being said I hope the conventional wisdom is correct and there were no stockpiles. In any event we need a non partisian investigation that will get to the bottom of this. This has nothing to with support for or opposition to Bush. It is a matter of national security. In fact failure to secure the country lends credence to the theory that he is incompetent as Commander in Chief. In any event making the issue entirely about WMD would seem to be a media red herring. The reasons given for our actions are spelled out in the resolution authorizing the use of force. It goes beyond WMD.
While it is certainly plausible that Bush and Clinton both lied, it does not seem likely to me. There is very little to gain and everything to lose from such a deception. It might be plausible if Saddam was some weak leader against the big bad USA but this was clearly not the case. Saddam was very powerful and had very powerful allies. There's simply to much risk involved in picking a fight with a country as powerful as Saddam's Iraq for political purposes. In any event, my prayer is that we can have a non partisain investigation into all of this to find out where we went wrong. If prosecutions are in order, let the chips fall where they may. The American people and the troops deserve answers.
Eric
I re read your last post. I think you are correct that there was a political element regarding the war in Iraq. There is also likely a political element to the war in Afghanistan, as well. I think before 911, due to the tremendous world wide influence of Saddam and his allies there was a tendency to understate what various people beleived the threat to be. I have implored Congress to get on with a non partisain investigation to find out why our intellegence estimates were wrong. Unfortunately most Congressional investigations either turn into partisain battles or the results are spun by the media to support a leftist position. Also investigations into Saddam's WMD have often been to narrowly focused.
