First off, that report by the scientist was in 1993, not now, second, why was that article never used by this administration, the development of two biological weapons. I heard talks of terrorism and developing nukes if memory serves. Along with our people at the u.n stating they have intelligence that makes this all true, i am still waiting for that truth today.

Saddam gave compliance about his weapons, was it truthful or not, who knows now. If we never find any, we will just say they were moved or something won’t we?

On a long shot it was basically an agnostic approach, or 50/50 really then, if he did or did not it seems to me. Of course most people just look towards the more indulging side of some irrational madman with stockpiles of all the deadly stuff that no one can find a trace of. I am sure we have taken many scientists into custody along with other important Iraqi people, why has not even one of them giving any evidence to support these claims, i am not saying that saddam was a nice guy, but you would think one of these people would break, really under the light that saddam is not coming back to power and that the u.s could grant safety to someone who did leak such information.

I still see this war as nothing more then global and economic power moves. We know how other nations were getting with Iraq for its oil, we also knew a terrorist group wanted to attack and had before. I think that is what the administration was waiting for. I don’t think that anyone really expected what had happened, but i just think it was an event trigger for plans if you will. We go along that information existed that showed this attack was to occur. Soon after this administrations eyes took shape on Iraq, and we went going off the event of 9-11. I also know of so many conflicting points from people in the government over this, the creation of secret intelligence groups over the use of the CIA, or anything existing. There is to much hogwash and shadows for it to be this simple. Private energy meetings, the people whom fill this administration, leak of a cia official, and of course my favorite group pnac on top of it.

Clinton tried to invade Iraq during his administration, the people of America did not want that and they came out about such. It is not the same this time around, people have fear, and that is what this administration played on, and i am pretty sure they knew what they were doing. I am not saying its a total lie, i am just saying its a misrepresentation of the truth slightly.

Nile,

That report by the scientist was NOT from 1993. The interview, of which a link is posted above, is current information. The scientist told David Kay's investigators that he was given the poison to house in 1993. When David Kay's investigators visited this man's home recently, it was still in his fridge, still active.

David Kay spoke to these things in his appearance before Congress just a few weeks ago. That the press chose not to report it and some members of Congress choose to downplay it is, in my opinion, proof of a political bias.

Headlines like:

Weapons hunter: No sign yet of WMD in Iraq
U.S. finds no Iraq weapons evidence

But, Mr Kay's report summarized in a speech to the House Intelligence Committeee actually says:



Due to the spin placed on this speech and on other information about Iraq by the mainstream media, the Bush administration has had to take their message beyond the main stream media in order to get it out to the public.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Clinton did not try to invade Iraq. He bombed a factory and the majority of Americans supported his actions, I certainly did. Some right wing extremists and political rivals tried to say his only purpose in doing this was to divert attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. Who knows. It didn't hold much water with me then and it doesn't now.

Good link, Bela, thanks.

Perhaps this is a good time to reflect on what some politicians said in 2002, just a bit before the war. Juxtapose this with what they're saying (or just as importantly, not saying) now:Democratic politicians who said Saddam was a threat in 2002

Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA):
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force— if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” - October 9, 2002.
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.” - January. 23. 2003.

Letter to President Bush signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and other Democrats:

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” - December 5, 2001.

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI):
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” - September 19, 2002.

Former Vice President Al Gore:
“We know that he (Saddam Hussein) has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” - September 23, 2002.
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA):
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” - September 27, 2002.

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV):
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.” - October 3, 2002.

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV):
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” - October 10, 2002.

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA):
“He (Saddam Hussein) has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” - October 10, 2002.

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY):
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, and comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” - October 10, 2002.

Bela and SoCal, I won't be discussing France's actions with you anymore (at this point at least). I gave ample explanations and refutations of your ideas in my previous posts throughout the different boards. Obviously, you chose not to read them or just to discard my opinion as irrelevant.

In both cases, it's unfair. I hope that other readers will question your opinions, and/or make their own research to realize that you're missing the point. I used to think that anti-French behavior were a myth, but now I'm starting to reconsider.

Horyok -

my posts have not been directed towards you at all. The posts I've written are not so much based on opinions horyok but facts. Facts about the relationships, contracts and actions certain countries took with with Saddam prior to the war.

I merely wanted to point out that while these facts are known they are overlooked in favor of continuing to JUST focus on the US. True the thread is entitled Reasons for Iraq War, however I also felt that it was JUST as important to demonstrate some the reasons others may have chosen NOT to go to war. Much has been made of the idea that the US has purposely broken alliances in going to war unilaterally, can we not try to discover possible reasons as to WHY the US did not agree with France, Russia, Germany?

There are many conspiracy theories related to this war, all aimed at the US. I think it's time to explore all aspects and ALL players . Your feelings of "victimization" by me or Bela or anyone who dare challenge French policy is just unfounded.

you found the certain facts I presented pertaining to France, distasteful. Links were provided to show these were not mere allegations. I cannot see how this is anti-french behavior.

The fact is the NATO countries shared a common enemy during the Cold War. Few of the interventions, in other nations, were approved by the UN in the Cold War. Would have been real difficult considering the USSR and USA both had veto power. What we must recognize is that France and the US do have, at times, conflicting interests, and just like in the Cold War, the fact that the UN grants veto power to several nations can well prevent UN authorization for an act one nation may consider in it's national interest. Chirac took a position that he felt was in the best interest of France, the US took a position that they felt was vital for national security. Neither side has to be wrong. We can recognize that nations have different interests that may prompt them to be on different sides of an issue. The veto power of the UN prevents a nation from going to the UN to get approval for an aggressive action that may be needed for national defense.

The war is about national security. The price tag is too high for it to be about oil. Certainly for France, Russia and Germany the status quo position, prior to the invasion of Iraq, was advantageous.

Horyok,

First, I didn't even know you were from France. I now know as I've looked at your profile, but didn't realize it before.

Second, my post was not anti-France.

Third, I don't read every thread on these boards and although I have read a few of yours, I have never seen you discuss this issue.

Fourth, I welcome other posters questioning my opinions. I encourage them to refute the facts I present.

Sorry if you got your feelings hurt. It certainly wasn't my intent.

Hugo -

that is a fair assessment. That EVERY country operates in the best interest of its National interests. France has NO oil, invents nothing therefore it will do what is best for France to get the oil it needs and the revenue to benefit its people regardless. Germany also needs oil, Russia has oil but both have faltering economies and NEED the influx of cash from arms sales to these countries. The US does not depend on Iraqi oil, nor does the US need revenue from arms sales to Iraq. the US has survived nicely without trade with Iraq, Syria and Iran.

The US and UK has been at war basically with Iraq since the "No-Fly zone" was put into effect. The US and UK did not believe in this idea of indefinite containment. The idea that this was a "rush to war" is false as it was after 12 years and 17 UN resolutions, Saddams lies, his brutal treatment of Iraqis and countless other reasons. Should Saddam have been taken out in '91? Yes, by all means. The UN was against it and Bush Sr. acquiesced. Bad move. So here we are 12 years, countless dollars spent protecting the Kurds in the north and Shiia in the south from Saddam, keep troops in SA all without the help of our said Allies, except the UK.

They and NOW this is my opinion...took the easy way out. Lives, and money. France, Germany and Russia...would their citizens/their govt put up 87 billion of their countries revenue to rebuild another country?
For this to be about Daddy's revenge, money for Cheney' Halliburton or that George Bush wanted to rule the world, is just too stupid for words.

to quote Hugo:

I believe I will bow out of this debate. The dead horse has been beat enough. No matter how many facts are revealed,some people will never listen to another view except what they preceive as the truth.

Thanks for letting me vent my opinion. lol

Don't give up on yourself too easily.

Read Mrs P's quotes from Democrats concerning Iraqi WMDs in 2002, and read quotes from leading Democrats today. Minds can change.

I believe that most of the nation felt Iraq had WMDs and that the general public felt intelligence proving this was much more detailed and accurate.

IMO the Bush administration perceived Hussein to be willing to use WMDs to dole out to terrorists and harm the United States.

I have never agreed with this. If we need to adopt a WMDs prohibition for rogue nations than so be it. Iraq and north Korea are definitely among the club of countries that can be considered rogue nations.

However I have stated from the beginning of this mess that Hussein was a power loving dictator whose primary motivation was staying in power. Anything else was gravy for him. It made no sense for him to work so hard to develop WMDs and then hand them off to some Islamic terrorist group. This would have been proven and he would have been removed from power, the thing he loved more than anything in the world.

The belief that Iraq had WMDs and that they posed an immediate threat to the United States was the primary motivation for the war. IMHO.

Specifically, what admissions are you referring to? And from what I recall, the UN documented discrepancies, not evidence of WMD possession and production. And it wasn't but a month or two ago that information was released believing the discrepancies to be the product of poor accounting and management.

The intelligence from the United States intelligence community prior to the war had nothing but speculation as I have brought up before in previous topics. In those same topics I asked for anything which stood up to scrutiny from the administration and was answered with silence. If there is evidence that Iraq had and produced WMD immediately prior to the war, do please enlighten me.

If there is something out there, I haven't seen it.

Abs said:


…in 1995 Iraq admitted that Al Hakam had produced 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 8,500 liters of anthrax, and had experimented with gases that produced gangrene.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/biological.html

The link above provides excellent information about Iraq’s programs. I could have found more documentation of these admissions but if you’re really interested you will look for them yourself.

QUOTE

And from what I recall, the UN documented discrepancies, not evidence of WMD possession and production.

The UN inspectors documented Iraq's admission of producing 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin and 8,500 liters of anthrax.



It may have been poor accounting and management. It may have been accurate information. Either way, this “revelation” a couple months ago was NOT the data the Bush administration, international intelligence agencies and the UN Security Council were looking at when drafting Resolution 1441. It was not the information the Bush administration had when it made the final decision to liberate/invade Iraq. Iraq’s admission of producing WMD was part of the intelligence package.

Hindsight is 20/20 they say. We learned that lesson well on 9/11.



A good portion of intelligence is speculation. But speculation isn’t all they had and you’ve been provided that numerous times on different threads. Just look at what all David Kay has uncovered in his few months on the job in Iraq.

There is no information that can stand up to scrutiny if a person opposes the data for political, religious, etc. reasons. A good example of that is located on another thread regarding whether or not the US landed on the moon.

Look at statements made by BOTH parties, in particular those provided by Mrs. Pigpen on this thread (excellent post btw, Mrs. P). Look at Bob Graham’s own words in December 2001. Here is a man who heads the Intelligence Committee, who had the same access to data as the president and who declared clearly that Saddam had reinvigorated his weapons programs. They have access to data we don't.

We both have access to the some data. We analyze that data and come to a conclusion. It’s much like what our intelligence community does on a much smaller scale.

You looked at the data, elected not to believe it and wouldn’t have acted on it. I looked at the data, chose to believe it and would have acted on it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Popeye said:



What facts have you presented? I looked back over your posts on this thread and the only thing I saw you present as fact was information about Cheney’s meeting with Lay. Then you directed this statement to me:



In the post that prompted your response, I had stated and then reposted in quotes the following:

QUOTE

Ken Lay did ask Cheney to reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps and a few days later the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission agreed to price caps. Cheney didn’t stop price caps.

How is that contradictory to what you said?

I suggest you start a new thread if you wish to discuss this issue further since it really doesn't belong in this thread. General Debate might be a good category.

I did.
I presume those not included in this Washington site are left off for a reason?
I would have thought for them to be included would be an indication of good will and freedom of information.
Perhaps you are suggesting us out here turn a blind eye to America's possession of chemical, biological, nuclear and the massive military?

Regards........Alan

Or, perhaps she's suggesting that you could address the question for debate, which is 'reason for Iraq war', not...'what weapons does the US have'?, or 'did we make the right decision'? Or somesuch.

I do not think terrorists getting hold of these weapons was necessarily the reason they posed a threat to us. Rather, Saddam could use such weapons for exactly the purpose above--staying in power, and possible gaining more. The reason being that, if he had such weapons, he could always threaten to use them--terrorists being just one such delivery mechanism. The U.S. doesn't necessarily have the means to prevent such an attack. Therefore, this would severely impinge on our ability to control Saddam in the future. Consider the following scenario. Saddam continue to defy UN sanctions. This in turn heats up anti-US sentiment across the Middle East. It become increasingly clear that the only way to resolve this conflict is to remove Saddam from power. However, he then threatens to provide WMD to terrorists groups, to use against the US or Israel. Whatever administration is then in power is faced with the following: is it worth risking New York, Washington D.C, or Tel Aviv to eliminate the problems Saddam is causing? I for one would not relish that choice, especially if the threat is real. Do you think our security forces could ever guarentee that such a weapon could ever arrive in the US? I could easily see it simply being placed on a cargo container arriving in Manhattan. Would this prevent the US from acting? If so, wouldn't that condition simply snowball, as more and more countries tried to achieve such a power balance? If we wouldn't act in this scenario, what would happen if Saddam then tried to expand his power again, against say....Kuwait. Is it now worth us risking New York? I think the simple solution that was arrived at was that these situations simply couldn't be allowed to transpire, and that the problem had to be eliminated before it ever got to that stage. Basically, Saddam sought such weapons to keep himself in power, but the weapons program is what really led to his downfall. This is the same scenario in North Korea. NK could never launch a successful first strike against the US without being wiped out. But, imagine what would happen if they attacked South Korea, and indicated LA would be toast if we responded. Would we risk it to save South Korea? Or, what if the threat was against Tokyo (much more achievable target). Don't you think the Japanese would be pressuring us heavily to protect their citizens? This would severely limit our options (or greatly expand their cost). It is certainly not in our national interest to even allow such situations to be possible, especially with leaders with both the inclination and the desire to use such weapons.

Alan, I suggest you take another, more thorough look at the site. It lists US companies.

Try this link as a start.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/search/search_db....emical&sm=exact

Doesn't this logic mandate attacks on North Korea and Iran immediately?
We had demonstrated our will to act and we were getting new results from the new inspections. We could still have inspectors over their now, and a spirit of international cooperation and we would have found just as much as we have so far.

I cannot support a preemeptive strike doctrine. And I am embarrassed about how thin our intelligence turned out to be in this case. Now the United States has a very difficult time restricting other nations from preemeptive action and the world is a less safe place.

I sure hope the Bush administrations didn't go to war with all of these what ifs as the primary motivation for war. I hope they truly felt that Iraq presented an immediate threat to the world. It sure looks like they were wrong about that, and I think the margin for error for reasons to go to war should be 0%. War is a last resort. The Bush administration did not use it in that way.

The primary motivation better not have been to go over and remake the Middle East into a democracy.

Maybe. But we may find more than we would have with Saddam in power in the future. Both UNSCOM and UNMOVIC agreed that the inspection teams were never equipped to handle Iraqi intransigence. Which we now can see was still very much Saddam Hussein's policy towards inspections. That is why regime change occurred, to remove the obstacle of the Hussein government to the disarmament of Iraq.

The administration never said it formed its policy on an immediate threat. Rather a threat that could not be allowed to become immediate.

Belief in Iraq's possession of WMD has been US policy since Bush Sr.. What changed, I believe, was the estimation of the level of threat . After 911 the administration felt that Iraq's possession on WMD was a risk they could not run. That is what changed the rhetoric.

One of the critical problems is exactly how the control is to be gained and kept. Even if elections were fixed or deals made (not an easy task in itself) that would only be effective when Iraq's oil production is up to sufficient levels to be worth the effort. Which is likely to be years after the administration leaves power anyway...
Sure there may be a motive, but "where there's a will there's a way" only goes so far, I'm afraid...

I feel that ONE of the primary reasons the administration decided to invade and occupy Iraq was the prospect of combat air patrols over no-fly zones into the foreseeable future combined with pressure from the Saudis to abandon air bases in their country. Land based air power and air surveillance in the ME is a critical component of the U.S. war on terrorism. The U.S. will now have air bases in Iraq for at least ten years (my guess).
The withdrawal of our armed forces from Saudi Arabia will help appease radical Islamists that threaten the status quo there.

Bela, a 1995 admission says nothing for whether Iraq possessed or produced WMD at any time in 2001, 2002 or 2003 as the administration stated. President Bush clearly said in 2002 that Iraq continued to both possess and produce the weapons without a shred of evidence supporting the allegations. There remains no support even in the aftermath of invasion and months of inspections.

In regards to David Kay's report, I asked about intelligence prior to the war supporting administration claims in 2002 that Iraq possessed and produced WMD. David Kay wasn't in Iraq or writing reports until just recently in 2003. Even his reports still have nothing in regards to possession or production of WMD.


What data? Where is any data supporting administration claims prior to the war that Iraq either possessed or produced WMD, much less both? Where is the data even after the war to support this? You must have some data that I haven't had access to because I have yet to see any evidence supporting 2002 claims that Iraq retained or continued production of WMD.

Turnea, there seems to be a difference between what the situation was under Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. The WMD situation in the early '90s was not merely a belief but a verified fact which was dealt with by both the United States and the United Nations. There doesn't seem to have been any verification under the current President Bush and belief without support is hardly a reason to invade a nation at the expense of thousands of lives.


The control need only be kept through close relations with American business and government. Whether it's by way of a puppet government or an engineered dependency on American aid, removing Saddam Hussein prevents any favoritism being given to European and Asian competitors as the value of Iraq's oil fields increases. Those who control our government are not strangers to puppet governments or ensuring the dependence of other nations on American aid.

Of course it does. If they were there before they may still be there...

Even under Clinton after months of inspections the policy was reasonable. It was not verifiable that Iraq had WMD in 1998. But if inspectors had been finding them for years, with no real end in sight is it not reasonable to assume that Iraq still has WMD? It was not merely a belief, it was the most likely theory that fit the facts. Without evidence of destruction of Iraq's WMD it remains the most likely theory. Aged evidence is not the same thing as "no evidence".

This assumes that Iraq will refuse to use it's oil wealth to it's own best benefit and that the people of Iraq will vote according to "plan" to have the right people running the state-controlled Iraqi oil industry. How exactly would this puppet government work?
Any evidence this plan is taking place? Is a puppet government being set up?

"Aged evidence" that says Iraq had WMD in 1995 is not evidence at all that Iraq possessed or continued to produce weapons anytime between 2001 and 2003, turnea. The administration didn't go before the nation or the international community saying they questioned whether Iraq destroyed WMD and ceased production; they went before the people of the world and said definitively that Iraq retained and continued to produce WMD. Information from 1995 says nothing at all about possession or production of WMD almost a decade later.

Regarding a government, there's no indication as to when exactly American forces are going to fully turn over control of the country to an Iraqi government. I also didn't limit the possibility to a puppet government but also mentioned an enduring dependence on the United States.

So what exactly is the axiom here? When does past evidence become irrelevant to the present and why?


But all indications point to the fact that they are working rather rapidly to that goal. Do you believe the plan is for prolonged occupation(long enough to exploit the oil, ie.several years)? Is that even feasible?


For what, funds? That involves both the compliance of the American people for an extremely longs period of time (not likely) and belief that new Iraq will not garner other alliances that are not as, restrictive. Also a guarantee of the willingness of successive administrations to continue to employ the tactic(then again that apply to all variations of the oil theory). Maybe security, except an Iraqi armed force is already being created, and who would attack Iraq with the world watching anyway? This isn't South Korea with a highly aggressive neighbor. Dependence on what and how might it be supported?
A democratic government is not as easy to puppet as say a South American dictatorship. Two different situations...

Abs, look at the information provided in the link below.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#01

This site indicates that “Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions.”

The relevance of David Kay’s report, in my opinion, is that it CONFIRMS the CIA’s report.

Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle were privy to intelligence information and stated in no uncertain terms that Saddam was proliferating WMD.

Resolution 1441, was voted for unanimously by international leaders who in one voice stated, “Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,”

International intelligence agencies all over the globe agreed based on their intelligence.

You and I are not privy to the specific evidence viewed by these people and used to draw this conclusion because it’s confidential and could be a breach of national security.

I’ve provided you everything I can to try and convince you that our government as well as those of other countries believed Iraq was continuing to produce WMD. I can’t provide you with anything more.

I realize I may be asking a lot here, but where is any evidence to support these claims by either the CIA or by the administration that Iraq possessed and continued to produce WMD in the present? Is there or isn't there any evidence to support claims before the war that Iraq had and produced these weapons?

As I recall posting in separate threads dealing with the WMD issue, there were many within the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency who were openly skeptical of claims made regarding Iraq and WMD. While I'll have to go back and see, I recall the Defense Intelligence Agency revealing the information on Iraq to be nothing more than speculation.

While you may feel David Kay's report confirms the report you've linked to, Bela, I don't recall Kay's report citing any discoveries of any WMD or WMD program, much less in accordance with what the CIA report claimed.

Resolution 1441 provides no evidence of any retention or continued production of WMD by Iraq. Resolution 1441 is within the power of the United Nations to enforce, not the United States. Our country doesn't have the authority to go to war in the name of the United Nations without UN approval of such. They called for more inspections as a result of 1441 whereas we called for the removal of inspectors, favoring invasion instead.


Many who are presumably privy to this information remain unconvinced. International leaders are unconvinced, international intelligence agencies are unconvinced and even our own intelligence agencies are unconvinced. I have no specific evidence to convince me that Iraq was indeed retaining and continuing to produce WMD, and the skepticism of those with such access does little to change my mind.


Past evidence is irrelevant when it says nothing at all about present conditions. The situation of eight years ago says nothing conclusive about the situation today. While there might be a probability that such weapons were retained, there is still no evidence to support that notion. Saying they had them in 1995 is not evidence of possession in 2002 or 2003, especially when considering UNSCOM worked for another three years after that admission destroying prohibited weapons.


Dependence on business, financial assistance, etc. A decade of sanctions crippled the country before our invasion led to wide scale destruction of infrastructure and business. American businesses have been given various contracts for reconstruction with additional provisions leaving loop holes for retaining influence well after any extraction of American troops. And while a democratic government may not be as easy to puppet, it's not as hard to control by way of political or financial pressure.

Sadam Hussein has produced and used chemical weapons in the past. When the war started he was still torturing people in his prisons and murdering people for political gain. Do you really think that Sadam, while maintaining things like his torture chamber for Olympic athletes, kicked the WMD habit? Do you think he reformed this one aspect of his life and rule?

I think he had WMD’s at the time of the war, but regardless I think you can use logic and 2 undisputed facts to show that removing him from power eliminated at least the potential of WMD’s in Iraq.

I'm not chasing my tail anymore Abs. I and others present reports from the CIA, documented evidence from the UN, cite proclamations made by leaders throughout the world based on intelligence for their eyes only and you continue with the "but where is any evidence routine."

Pardon me if I just don't feel like wasting my time anymore.

I'm not asking you to chase your tail, Bela. Repeating the same claims isn't providing me with the support I'm seeking for those claims. Whether it's a CIA report which has been in part discredited, President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld making the claim, what I have been continually asking for is evidence to support the claims. And I have continually failed to receive it.

While you may continue on with this "your eyes only" story, there are plenty of those with privileged access who have yet to be persuaded as well. When last I checked there are those in Congress even on the Republican side who have yet to see any evidence of WMD or WMD programs obtained before, during or after the war. There are also those within the American intelligence community and the intelligence communities abroad.


There is a considerable difference in beatings and mutilations at the hands of a human aggressor and the equipment and personnel required for continuing WMD production. A relentless craving for WMD technology would not alone give Saddam or any other Iraqi dictator the means to retain or continue production of them.

Share those with us Abs.

I reiterate, Saddam, through his actions and politics, negatively impacted the security of the US in the following ways:

1. His continued power in the region, and refusal to adhere to UN Security Council regulations, forced the US to maintain a presence in the region and to continue to apply the UN sanctions which mainly impacted the Muslim citizens in Iraq. This, in turn, caused widespread hatred of the US for their military presence in the Muslim Holy Land. It was obvious that nothing short of war would ever change this, and that this directly contributed to militant Islamic hatred of the US.

2. His continued support of terrorists in Palestine also caused increased furor in the area, leading to increased terroristic sentiment and further hatred of the US.

3. His quest for WMD and improved delivery mechanisms posed an ever increasing threat to Israel (primarily) and the US (secondarily, through either terrorists or Iraqi agents).

4. His ability to thwart any action against him later, if he did indeed possess (or at least could credibly claim to do so), which would just make matters 1, 2, and 3 that much worse.

I have yet to see anyone disagree with these statements, and I think they are indeed what led to the war with Iraq.

I wonder sometimes how much of the anti-war sentiment is just distain for anything Bush or if the sentiment or position of being anti-war is actually based on well thought out conclusions given the LARGER picture, future geopolitical ramifications and really being able to understand the pros and cons of Saddam, and after him, his sons being allowed to remain?

To me, it is just TOO simple to merely END all discussion, be declared right, end all need to remove his festering disease from Iraq, due to whether or not he had one vial of bochulitium(sp?) or 1000 vials. was that the ENTIRE point?

Two camps maybe? Those who can't or don't want to see beyond the existence or non-existence of a nuke component to the entire picture that Saddam Hussein has, for the last 12 years, presented to the international community, OF which his proclivity towards wmd was only part? And those who made it through to conceptualize that it isn't JUST about the existence of one vial of chemicals and are puzzled as to why the president thought we might NOT be sophisticated enough to GET the larger picture?

Per Beladonna's request:

"It undermines the credibility of the director of intelligence to be making public statements relative to intelligence which are not factually accurate."
Senator Levin, Democratic leader of the US Senate Armed Services Committee

The above is in reference to CIA director George Tenet's dissemination of CIA intelligence to the United Nations prior to war.

CBS ran an article related to the UN inspectors acting on information from American intelligence. Citing specific instances in which intelligence led to dead ends, the article also quotes inspectors describing the intelligence "garbage after garbage after garbage."

CBS also ran a story about Greg Thielmann, a former director of military issues in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research who disputed alleged evidence from the administration, and the report leaked from the Defense Intelligence Agency (mentioned again below).

Regarding the interim report delivered by David Kay this month, leading members of the US Senate Intelligence Committee responded:
"I just think it's extraordinary that a decision was made to go to war and that we were told by our highest policy-makers that there was [an] imminent threat, dangers, national security was at stake, as well as regional security.

And intelligence had been taken and now we find that nothing is available. No weapons of mass destruction, the biological, the chemical, nuclear perhaps least of all. I think we've all known that for a long time.

You just don't make decisions like we do and put our nation's youth at risk based upon something that appears not to have existed."
Senator Rockefeller, Democratic vice-president of the US Senate Intelligence Committee

"I'm not pleased by what I heard today, but we should be willing to adopt a wait-and-see attitude - and that's the only alternative we really have."
Senator Roberts, Republican Chairman of the US Senate Intelligence Committee

I mentioned earlier the questions raised by the Defense Intelligence Agency regarding intelligence on Iraq's alleged WMD possession and production. Here is one of several stories covering the release of the Defense Intelligence Agency report which stated within it that there was "no reliable information" about Iraq possession or production of WMD.

Hobbes, forgive me if I don't find it as obvious that nothing short of war could have ended our extended presence in the region. Our government under past leaders took it upon themselves to create and enforce no-fly zones requiring the stationing of US pilots in the region and full scale war certainly hasn't diminished our presence any. It is not the right of the United States, as an individual member of the United Nations, to choose when and how to enforce UN Security Council resolutions.

Financial support paid to the families of suicide bombers did nothing to separate Saddam or Iraq from other nations in the region. Hatred of the United States is hardly grounds for invading another nation.

Your third and fourth points seem to rely on WMD of which there is no evidence. What I'm left with from your post is that we should have invaded Iraq so that we could reduce our role in the region and combat anti-American sentiment in the region. We now have an increased role in the region with potentially more anti-American sentiment. While there were questions relating to Iraq's compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, those are matters of the United Nations. Our government does not possess the authority to enforce UN resolutions alone or invade a nation in the name of the UN or UN resolutions.

Possession and production of WMD which could pose a threat to the security of the United States appears to be the only reason upon which war could be justified, a sentiment echoed by administration officials since engaging in combat. As we don't have the authority to act in the name of the United Nations, questions relating to resolution 1441 and other UN regulations are not justification for our going into a war without provocation.

Abs,

First, let me be clear--I'm not saying what I think should or should not have been done--just trying to state what I think are the reasons it was done.

With that....

1) If there is any evidence that anything short of invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power would have worked, I have yet to see it. There is certainly 12 years worth of history that it wouldn't. It is also worth emphasizing that, given the problems his continuation of power was causing, that the issue would be better solved quickly, which certainly seemed beyond the reach of any diplomatic solution. All that continued economic sanctions would achieve was making the problem worse, not better.

2) Granted, Saddam certainly wasn't alone in this. This was just another straw added to the stack....

3) Who doubted before the invasion that Saddam had WMD, and was working on getting more? The questions being debated then weren't whether they existed, but how best to get rid of them (or at least verify their removal). And to say there is no evidence is incorrect--there have been numerous findings of 'dual-use' substandces and devices. But, of course, we never said Saddam was stupid....so what else did we expect to find? Would you feel any better because you died from something that also had a valid economic use? If the possession of WMD was indeed a ruse, it was purposefully created and perpetuated by Saddam himself, for...

4) Reason # 4. Note that it doesn't actually take WMD to make this a successful policy--just the plausible threat. Again, no one at this time was stating that Iraq didn't have these weapons, so there was already a valid threat. And giving him more time just made the possibility of possession greater, not less.

But the real reason, I believe, was reason # 1. So, debating 2, 3, or 4 isn't really getting at the root cause. I would also add the following to the list, which is related to 1:

5) Continuing to allow Saddam to thwart the UN resolutions against him furthered the impression, already present in Bin Laden's (and others) mind that the US was a paper tiger was could be attacked with impunity without fear of reprisal. This feeling played a large part in the attacks of 911 (and earlier), and also would make it more difficult to negotiate future settlements with other countries (as it is always easier to negotiate from a position of perceived strength, not perceived weakness).

As to the WMD issue--I'm curious how many of those so adamantly opposed to the actions taken would be standing in line wondering why nothing was done if in fact they did exist, and were used? By its very nature, this is not an issue that can be resolved after the fact--it is something that must be resolved beforehand (unless losing millions of lives is an acceptable cost for achieving international diplomatic victories). So, this created a scenario would hadn't really been around before--what to do when someone seems to be creating weapons which could cause you massive harm, and is certainly known to have the mindset to use them. How much proof is required before action should be taken?

I find it ironic that the United States felt that it had to act without a UN resolution and state that the fact the UN failed to back up the United States in this course threatened to make the UN irrelevant. Then we wage war against international opinion and say later that we are enforcing the will of the UN.

It only seems an act of imagination to suggest that the United States would be a paper tiger if we were attacked. We had shown our power in the Gulf War and we remained twelve years later limiting the activity of the iraqi government.

There was clearly room for a delay in the war. WMDs obviously were not an imminent threat, and I find it appalling that our intelligence of a country that we had been at war with and we continued a direct presence in through enforcing no-fly zones was so poor. The best we can do is lean on intelligence gathered from 1998 or before.

The Bush administration has been widely reported to have used the worst case scenario of analyzing terrorist threats. This policy is an absolute joke. If I have a new neighbor move in, the worst case scenario interpretation is that person will molest and murder my children and leave me alive. That approach is not solid analysis it is fabrication and fantasy.

If Saddam had WMDs in reality we obvious did not know how to wage war against him and get him and his WMDs before he could do something with them. Our intelligence failed to be an asset in seizing said WMDs. Saddam Hussein had incentive once we launched this war to disperse whatever WMDs he had to anti-US terrorist groups. We couldn't even catch him, but we said small viles full of WMDs could cause horrible damage to the US.

I think the war in Iraq exposed our troops to a horrible WMD attack and it exponentially increased the likelihood of Hussein using the WMDs in the manner that were we citing when we declared war on him.

The world is not a better place when the dominant power has the other nations cowering their boots. The world is not a better place when the country that purports to wear the white hat (U.S.) launches preemptive wars without exhausting its diplomatic tools at its disposal.

Speculating how many people would be screaming that we did not do enough to stop a WMD attack if we did not invade Iraq is merely playing on our fears. We should be afraid of threats against our nation, but are we really capable of creating a world without threats? And I fail to see why attacking Hussein is in our best interests.

If air bases in Saudi Arabia were part of the problem, how is an army in the fertile crescent part of the solution?

Applause for Eeyore: well said!

And to quote Madeleine Albright on much the same matters:


and:



Read the rest of the interview here!

Again, much rhetoric, very little rebuttal. Let me try again....



Did Saddam survive the Gulf War, relatively unscathed and still in complete power, despite the US attack? Did the US react to the first WTC bombing? to the bombing of the Cole? to the bombing of its embassies in Africa? If that doesn't tell the tale of a potential paper tiger, then what does?



Really? and to exactly what purpose? So that the very anti-US sentiment caused by our sanctions could be allowed to grow? Or so that further useless diplomacy could be exercised? This path had been tried for 12 years. 12 YEARS!!! What on earth was providing any indication that continuing this path would ever lead to a solution. I'm curious, exactly how many times do you beat your head against a wall before it occurs that this isn't accomplishing anything but making your head bleed?



Those opposed to the war have been widely reported to have used the best case scenario of analyzing terrorist threats. So, I wonder, consider that we're dealing with terrorists and ruthless mass murderers, exactly which method seems more plausible to you? Wait, is that a mushroom cloud I see through those rose-colored glasses?




OK, now I'm confused....



This line of reasoning only follows if in fact Saddam has WMD and is willing to use them, which of course is precisely the argument used in support of the war, so I'm confused again....



America is not a better place when other nations and people feel they can attack or defy us with impunity. The world is not a better place when ruthless tyrants are allowed to remain in power, to the detriment of world peace and their own citizens, and despite extensive efforts to resolve the situation through peaceful means (and especially when those means are exactly what leads to the continued threat to our security and world peace).

All this, and we still haven't heard a single thing on our presence in Saudi Arabia and the sanctions we were enforcing being a primary cause of anti-US sentiment among the terrorists, which was actually what addressed the topic. So, that continues to go unrebutted, even by Madame Albright...

. I believe that connection is what I outlined in items 1 and 2. But this also goes against the topic here. Allow me to repeat....



Note that there is nothing in here requesting defense or attack of that motivation. Rather, the question simply asks what that motivation was. I believe I have stated what I think many of the factors were that led to that decision. Others here seem to want to argue whether those should have led to the decision to attack--that is not the question here (although I'll be glad to continue to rebut such attacks).

Count me in for relatively scathed. People believed he had a world class army before the war and IRaq was revealed to be a relatively paper tiger.

He was still in complete power in Iraq but he became isolated in the Arab world where he used to consider himself a leader.



What acts of violence against the United States had Hussein committed in this period?



If a deranged madman has WMDs wouldn't he be more inclined to use them if he was under attack? If he was simply a power hungry dictator who wanted ownership of WMDs for diplomatic purposes why would he want to use them against the US and ensure his own demise? But if he did have WMDs and we attacked him, weren't we increasing exponentially the risk that he would use them against our troops?

If we can't catch with all the best military tools that money can buy and 100K + soldiers, how could we have kept his regime from smuggling WMDs into the hands of terrorists after he realized that we were waging war against him? There's logic there. Not rhetoric.



Neither way is a good way of assessing intelligence. Shouldn't most probable meaning of the intelligence be a basis for analyzing information we gather. This system was simply a way to cook up a reason to go to war. I used to believe that we had sound intelligence that showed Hussein had WMDs. Now I believe we had shadows of rumors. The stuff was obviously once there, and yes Hussein sought WMDs, but was he doing it after 1998? Was he a credible threat in 2003? If he was not an immediate threat than we had time to come up with a diplomatic solution. Hussein very well new that it was a new game after 9-11-2001 and he was negotiating in his own way. He was much more cooperative and less demanding than North Korea is being right now.



I REPEAT that given the fact that these were sources of anti-American sentiments that created recruits for Al-Qaeda, how is it an improvement to still have air bases in Saudi Arabia, have used Qatar for the same purpose, and we now have an occupying army in the fertile crescent that is there indefinitely? How has this reduced the threat of recruiting Muslim Fundamentalists for Al-Qaeda?

Doesn't this seem like something that would upset these people more. An occupying army with airbases as opposed to airbases to impose no-fly zones? (that in part protected the Shia Muslim community in South Iraq) This must just be more rhetoric though and not really a reply to your argument.

The United States was not acting to enforce "the will of the UN". It is apparent that no such will existed.

What it was doing was enforcing existing UN resolutions. Resolutions which the UN itself, as a body, was unwilling to enforce.

The United States, as a member of the UN, was placed in charge of enforcing the cease fire resolutions that were passed at the end of the first Gulf War. There were no international troops or UN troops on the borders of Iraq, enforcing the "no-fly" zones. There were American and British troops.

The UN had wiped its hands of the entire Iraq situation, except to use the "oil for food" program to funnel money to some key UN people.

Resolution 1441 stated, unanimously, that Iraq continued to be in material breach of the previous resolutions, including the Cease Fire resolution. Breaching the cease fire resolution opened the door for a resumption of hostilities. There is no question that the resumption of hostilities was legal, based upon international law.

What is sad is that the UN was quite reluctant to do anything about the situation in Iraq. When UNMOVIC was created (via resolution 1284), four of the 15 Security Council members abstained from voting for it: China, France, malaysia, and Russia. Not surprisingly, these same members had either close economic or religious ties to Iraq.

From the discussion of the adoption of the UNMOVIC resolution:
UN discussion of Resolution 1284



There is no doubt in my mind that this action against Iraq was:
1. legal, and
2. justifiable.

Whether the 20/20 of hindsight will prove some of the assumptions going into the war to be false is not disputed. What is in dispute is what the situation would currently be if we had done nothing.

EDIT: to add link to the UN discussion.

Quoting Eeyore

I worked in a Congressional office last fall and winter during the lead up to this war. One of the daily reports that would come into the office was a running count of surface to air missile launches by the Iraqi military at American planes patrolling the no-fly zones. Pilots were fired on almost every day. This seems to be an “act of violence against the United States” to me.

Some liberals have argued that we shouldn't have been flying over Iraq in the first place. As a preemptive strike to that retort to my statement (pun intended), note that the no-fly zones were established after Sadam flew helicopter gunships into Kurdish areas and ordered his soldiers to spray Kurdish settlements with high caliber machinegun fire. The no-fly zones were established to prevent genocide of Kurds.

This is the most concrete and simplest example of Hussien’s aggression towards the United States. There are countless other examples over those 12 years that are more subtle. I think this example best addresses your question though.

Remind me again when the United Nations sanctioned the no-fly zones we felt were so necessary to enforce for over a decade?

There were no international troops or UN troops enforcing the no-fly zones because they weren't approved. While I understand Saddam attacked Kurdish populations protected by the no-fly zones, the United States to my knowledge had no authority to ever establish these zones in the first place. And as little as I like the thought of any foreign country being allowed to fire at American pilots, firing on airplanes in violation of national air space seems to fall more under the category of defense rather than aggression or simple "acts of violence against the United States."

Abs, then we disagree on the role of the U.S. throughout the world.

We allowed Sadam to keep flying helicopters when he signed the cease fire that ended the first gulf war. Subsequently he used those helicopters to massacre the Kurds because they were Kurds. So, in a humanitarian effort, the U.S. established the no-fly zones. They were not part of the cease fire.

Now, I feel that the U.S. has a responsibility as the world's sole super power to prevent things like genocide if possible. This is what the U.S. was doing.

If you disagree with that vision for the U.S, fine. But I think we are Americans first and world citizens second. I think we have a role to play in the prevention of human atrocities around the globe.

[quote]From Abs' post:
Per Beladonna's request:

"It undermines the credibility of the director of intelligence to be making public statements relative to intelligence which are not factually accurate."
Senator Levin, Democratic leader of the US Senate Armed Services Committee

The above is in reference to CIA director George Tenet's dissemination of CIA intelligence to the United Nations prior to war.[/quote]

I think it’s really important to put things in perspective.

[quote]Mr Levin wants a Senate investigation into whether US intelligence on Iraq was "shaded or exaggerated".

He says there are 550 suspected weapons sites, of which 150 were considered "top suspect sites" by the CIA. Of those 150, some were rated high or medium priority.

CIA director George Tenet said earlier this year that UN weapons inspectors were briefed on all "high value and moderate value sites", an undisclosed number.

Mr Levin disputes this, and wants information about the precise number of sites declassified.

"It undermines the credibility of the director of intelligence to be making public statements relative to intelligence which are not factually accurate," Mr Levin said, adding that a lack of confidence in the intelligence services would affect security in the future.

"Why did the CIA say that they had provided detailed information to the UN inspectors on all of the high and medium suspect sites with the UN, when they had not? Did the CIA act in this way in order not to undermine administration policy? Was there another explanation for this?" he asked.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools...cas/2996752.stm[/quote]

The above article ran on 6/17/03, after the war in Iraq. As you can see, the quote supplied has nothing to do with whether Levin thought Iraq had WMD.

Senator Carl Levin, Democratic leader of the US Senate Armed Services Committee on - September 19, 2002 before the war:

[quote]“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” [/quote]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

[quote]Continued from Abs post:
CBS ran an article related to the UN inspectors acting on information from American intelligence. Citing specific instances in which intelligence led to dead ends, the article also quotes inspectors describing the intelligence "garbage after garbage after garbage."[/quote]

That doesn’t mean they weren’t there. Can you show me evidence that they were never there? Can you agree that in the 6-month build up to this war they could have been moved? Do you think it possible that Saddam was privy to where the inspectors would check and therefore moved them? Did he ever do any of these things in the past?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[quote]Continued from Abs' post:
CBS also ran a story about Greg Thielmann, a former director of military issues in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research who disputed alleged evidence from the administration, and the report leaked from the Defense Intelligence Agency (mentioned again below). [/quote]

From the article above:
[quote]Thielmann was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. His office was privy to classified intelligence gathered by the CIA and other agencies about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

In Thielmann's view, Iraq could have presented an immediate threat to U.S. security in two areas: Either it was about to make a nuclear weapon, or it was forming close operational ties with al Qaeda terrorists.

Evidence was lacking for both, despite claims by Mr. Bush and others, Thielmann said in an Associated Press interview this week (this week being June 7, 2003, after the war). Suspicions were presented as fact, and contrary arguments ignored, he said. [/quote]

Which is it, Abs? Before the war Thielman believed Iraq was a threat in two areas. After the war he is suspicious? Should I deem his opinion credible?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[quote]Abs continued:
Regarding the interim report delivered by David Kay this month, leading members of the US Senate Intelligence Committee responded:
"I just think it's extraordinary that a decision was made to go to war and that we were told by our highest policy-makers that there was [an] imminent threat, dangers, national security was at stake, as well as regional security.

And intelligence had been taken and now we find that nothing is available. No weapons of mass destruction, the biological, the chemical, nuclear perhaps least of all. I think we've all known that for a long time.

You just don't make decisions like we do and put our nation's youth at risk based upon something that appears not to have existed."
Senator Rockefeller, Democratic vice-president of the US Senate Intelligence Committee[/quote]

Once again you have someone in political opposition to the President in a year leading up to an election, starting his sentence with this lie about an imminent threat. Then he has the audacity to state that we’ve known there were no weapons for a long time???? Mr. Rockefeller, were you doing drugs on October 10, 2002?

[quote]Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV):
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” - October 10, 2002.[/quote]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[quote]Abs continued:
"I'm not pleased by what I heard today, but we should be willing to adopt a wait-and-see attitude - and that's the only alternative we really have."
Senator Roberts, Republican Chairman of the US Senate Intelligence Committee[/quote]

I am not pleased that we haven’t found a mother's load of WMD either but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe they were never there to start with or that Bush made up information to get us into a war or that this war wasn’t justifiable.

I do believe Kay's report convincing and filled with enough specifics to conclude that Iraq was continuing its WMD program. Let me supply a few snippets from people in the know about the Kay report:

[quote]Former UN chief weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix
They found minor proscribed items and debris - and so did we - and I think they confirmed also that there were research and development activities that were proscribed, which should have been declared.

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw
The Kay report makes clear that as of today they've not found specific weapons, but what they have found is dozens and dozens, as they say, of programmes relating to the production of weapons of mass destruction...

You look at what is shown in the Kay report, which for sure shows a degree of continuation of activities which was not declared to or found by the UN inspectors.

What this adds up to, along with the experience we had of the Saddam regime, is a very dangerous regime which for certain did pose the kind of threat that we thought it did, and was plainly in breach of United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard
It's an interim report, I think that should be stressed.

It certainly has already demonstrated a great deal of concealment by the former regime and a clear intention to develop weapons programmes.

I think you have to suspend final judgment until the report has been completed. [/quote]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[quote]Abs wrote:
I mentioned earlier the questions raised by the Defense Intelligence Agency regarding intelligence on Iraq's alleged WMD possession and production. Here is one of several stories covering the release of the Defense Intelligence Agency report which stated within it that there was "no reliable information" about Iraq possession or production of WMD.[/quote]

I read the article, but where is any evidence to support the DIA claims?

This is a key point, and not often considered in the discussion of this issue. Saddam know exactly where the inspectors would check--they were only allowed to check sites on the requested list. This is why the US was a little upset that so many of the desired sites were left off the list. So Saddam know what sites would and would not be inspected. Would he leave any WMD in the sites to be inspected? You do the math....

"Virtually alone." We did get support as I remember, but the US that was the dominant figure in the war.



I was mainly after this one. How did the Bush administration display that further diplomatic means could not adequately protect the national security?

So then past evidence is irrelevant to the present when it say nothing about the present? A bit of a circular argument....

I'll give an example to clarify what exactly I'm getting at here.

Let's say during the early '90's inspectors found a stockpile of Iraqi mustard gas shells (not exactly a rare occurence in those days...) and left them were they found them (with instruction that they not be moved). Now let's suppose it's the next day, is it unreasonable to believe Iraq has WMD today? After all their presence yesterday says nothing "conclusive" about their presence today.

Get the idea?
So I'll ask again.



Could you elaborate on these "loopholes" and explain why Iraqis could not simply seek other companies to complete the work once sovereignty is gained?

This topic is becoming popular in the media...

The Weekly Standard: Why We Went to War

Newsweek: Why the War Was Right

Jonah Goldberg: The Case for War

This article : Because We Could is from earlier this summer.



This war can be justified on so many levels.

Goldberg's commentary is particularly acute:


Also, from Goldberg's pre-war justification: More of the Same Old Tired Arguments

1) Through 12 years of failed efforts--what was on the table that hadn't already been tried before, with no success?

2) Through the fact that the sanctions and troop presence required in the area while diplomatic measures were applied led directly to the anti-US sentiment that caused the attacks of 9-11. Continuation of these measure would just exacerbate that sentiment.

In short, diplomatic efforts had been tried extensively and exhaustively for years, to no avail, and continued delay would just make the situation worse, not better, and with no real evidence of success. Or, to view it another way, one of the definitions of insanity is to continue to repeat the same measures, expecting a different result with no indication that it is forthcoming (like repeatedly clicking the broken remote at the TV--after the first couple of useless clicks, it's time to move on to Plan B. We've been clicking this remote for 12 years, it would seem safe to say the danged thing ain't workin').

How did the Bush administration display that further diplomatic means could not adequately protect the national security?

Again, it’s really important to see the full text of something to gain true perspective. H.J.Res. 114 was passed on October 2002. In that bill was specific language stating:



UN weapons inspectors began their first day of inspections in Iraq on November 27, 2002, after the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441 to establish an enhanced inspection regime for Iraq's disarmament. 1441 also required Iraq to provide:



We all know, Iraq did not comply with this basic request in their Dec. 2002 report to the UN. A few examples for your consideration are: