A report came out today (link to key findings - PDF) which basically confirmed what we now know. The AP had this to say:


The report also contends that Saddam was a threat:

But if you check out the key findings listed above you'll see the following:


Questions for debate:
1. If this report were available to the Bush administration in 2002/2003 would going into Iraq have been the right decision? Why or why not?

2. The evidence presented in this report lays out exactly what the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein was, given that information was Iraq the best use of our resources in the war on terror? Why or why not? Should other situations have taken priority? If so which ones?

3. Will this report further damage the credibility of the Bush administration and effect the election?

4. If you supported our action in Iraq, does this report change your mind?

I don't understand the "saddam was a threat" part. Is this mind reading?

Back in Gulf War 1.0, Saddam had WMD left over from the Iran/Iraq war that hadn't deteriorated, but he never used it. From 1991 until 9/11/2001, he managed to resist the temptation to sell WMD to terrorists. Since 1991, his weapons have faded away.

But he's still a threat? Because he might do something in the future? For one, I'd have to hear this rhetoric straight form his lips because no way will I believe anything second hand. Furthermore, does that make him unique? Do we start invading countries because someone is thinking about weapons programs? How many world leaders fit into THIS category?

This news should be devastating, but it won't. It will be politics over principle as usual. Our credibility is shot, our intelligence services have been scapegoated to irrelevance, and not only has nobody been fired, they'll use it as an ADVANTAGE for re-election.

1. If this report were available to the Bush administration in 2002/2003 would going into Iraq have been the right decision? Why or why not?

Whether or not the report was available, invading Iraq was the wrong decision. If you're asking if Dubya, et al, would have invaded anyway, then the answer is yes. Congress would have still given Dubya the authority to attack Iraq, however the vote would have split along more partisan lines.

2. The evidence presented in this report lays out exactly what the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein was, given that information was Iraq the best use of our resources in the war on terror? Why or why not? Should other situations have taken priority? If so which ones?

As many of the pro-invasion folks have stated, the issue for them is that he could have been a threat in the nebulous future. He was also giving funds to suicide bombers against Israel. Apparently, this is sufficient justification for invasion these days.

3. Will this report further damage the credibility of the Bush administration and effect the election?

No...you're assuming that evidence, facts, reason and rationality govern the day. Unfortunately, we live in times when ideology trumps that.

4. If you supported our action in Iraq, does this report change your mind?

Well, I didn't support it but I'll reverse the question. If the report did show that Saddam was a credible threat, then I likely would have changed my position (or greatly softened it). With regard to Iraq, I've always considered myself on the "left side of the fence". That is, I weighed the available evidence and while I could see some good arguments for invasion, the justifications were insufficient for me to support it. This report for me has moved me very far away from the "fence" at this point.

1. If this report were available to the Bush administration in 2002/2003 would going into Iraq have been the right decision? Why or why not? No, because UNSCR 1441 called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons. This was the basis for the invasion of Iraq. No weapons=no threat=no violation of resolutions which was the justification for the invasion. This is true regardless of any secondary justifications. Of course, since this went forward from the perception that Saddam did possess WMD, looking backwards doesn't help us. Things would have been different with more information, but that is true of most all of human history.

1. If this report were available to the Bush administration in 2002/2003 would going into Iraq have been the right decision? Why or why not?

The approach to Saddam would have been completely different had this information been available. Of course, in Saddam's police state, there was little chance that we would get candid knowledge of where his WMD programs stood. Saddam deceived his own men about his WMD programs.

The jury is still out. Apparently, Saddam has told interrogators that he needed to reconstitute his WMD programs to gain face in the Arab world. link. How far would he be willing to go to gain face with his Arab neighbors? I don't think it is unreasonable to at least entertain the notion that a man like Saddam would provide such WMDs to terrorists in order to attack the evil US.

This report leaves no doubt that Saddam was seeking WMDs and was simply waiting for sanctions to be lifted. Duelfer specifically said that the sanction were indeed crumbling, implying it was only a matter of time before Saddam's programs (which had not lost their equipment or their scientific knowledge) and that they could be reconstituted rather quickly. The report also made it clear that Saddam was using the UN's corrupt Oil for Food program to sock money away for use to reconstitute those programs and his military in general. It is clear that the sanctions were not working and that the humanitarian efforts to help Saddam's people were being used to fund Saddam's ambitious future plans.


2. The evidence presented in this report lays out exactly what the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein was, given that information was Iraq the best use of our resources in the war on terror? Why or why not? Should other situations have taken priority? If so which ones?

The evidence also points out that it was only a matter of time before Saddam became the threat exactly as Bush portrayed him. The timetable was wrong, but the decision was still correct.

Remember that the US was under increasing pressure to get out of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden had used both Iraq's children's suffering and the US's "occupation" of the holy land (Saudi Arabia) as rallying calls to jihad. Sanctions were not working against Saddam. Lifting the sanctions would have opened the door for Saddam to move ahead with his WMD plans. Damned if you do, damed if you don't. Deal with the threat now, or wait until he became a bigger threat. Which to pick? Well, hindsight is 20/20, but this decision is still not cut-and-dry.

Without a troop presence in the Middle East, we would have absolutely no leverage to work on Iran with. The reasons to go after Saddam go beyond WMDs. I would have still deposed Saddam (as has been the US's policy since 1998).

3. Will this report further damage the credibility of the Bush administration and effect the election?

No. Duelfer himself said that Saddam was certainly going to become a threat. There is really nothing new here to hurt Bush. We have already learned that Saddam did not have stockpiles of WMDs. What we didn't know for sure was that Saddam really was hell-bent on reconstituting his WMD programs. This report says that WMDs remained a strategic goal for Iraq. If anything, it bolsters Bush's contention that situation with Iraq was damaging our situation in the Middle East, both on the War on Terror front and on the Israeli-Palestinian front.

4. If you supported our action in Iraq, does this report change your mind?

No. Had Duelfer come out and said that Iraq had dismantled their programs in 1991, perhaps it would have. Instead, he stated that Saddam was very intent on obtaining these weapons. It is shocking that his reasoning was that he wanted to impress his neighbors. Saddam himself has told investigators that he intended to obtain nukes.
Saddam Told Interrogators of Iran Fixation


We now know that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. I think you can draw your own conclusions. Saddam was a threat, he remained a threat. He needed to go.

EDIT: fixed a rogue quote.

Yes, this is one of the points I found compelling during the run-up to invasion. At the time, my counter-argument was: how are we to know whether or not Iraq is complying (with regard to WMD) without actually verifying it? As I understood it then, the only way to know was to have weapons inspectors. I was greatly heartened when during 2002 and early 2003, the weapons inspectors were able to go wherever they wanted. Of course, they weren't turning up any evidence of WMD. This to me indicated that either Saddam had very successfully hidden them or that there weren't any WMD to be found. I tended to lean towards the former explanation rather than the latter. But, to be fair, I did concede that I didn't understand the details of the inspection process (which upon subsequent reading seemed pretty thorough). Of course, now with 20/20 hindsight it is clear the latter explanation is the correct one.

The other issue I had with this argument is that on the one hand, we were "enforcing" the will of the UN; while on the other hand, we were declaring the UN to be basically meaningless when the majority of the UN disagreed with the US invasion plans. I believed and still believe that you can't have it both ways. Particularly when using Dubya logic...we're either with the UN or against it.

That said, at the time the argument was compelling (though insufficient). Now, however, it appears that giving the UN weapons inspectors more time would have been absolutely the correct action at least with regard to WMD detection. Without verification, we were running on hunches, misinformation, poor intelligence and wishful thinking. Have we no standards? Is there no accountability?

Saddam was threat, WMD or not. Just ask Coalition pilots patrolling the No-Fly Zone (where we had the undisputed legal obligation as part of the UN to be there)...

Iraqi AAA fires on Coalition aircraft



Also from that article...



Here's more of Saddam threatening US/Coalition pilots...

Iraqi AAA shot at Coalition aircraft 67 times in two weeks



What's reasonable nowadays?

But if you don't believe that, what about the words of his immediate neighbors?

Kuwait on alert after Iraqi threats...



Arab League criticizes Iraqi threats against its neighbors



The we have the speech George Tenet made a Georgetown University...

Tenet's Speech

In it, he details what was uncovered in the aftermath of the war, such as information on Iraq's development of UAV's, missiles, and the reconstitution of its WMD programs. Tenet described these procurements and developments as a threat to the region, inhabitants and foreign troops alike.

But don't take my word for it!



What I want to know is, if twelve years of inspections (or eight depending how you see it) couldn't verify squat, what good was another five or ten do? Non-verification is not vindication. Oh, and they were not able to go wherever they wanted. Not without the regime trying to add stipulations to their presence there.

1. If this report were available to the Bush administration in 2002/2003 would going into Iraq have been the right decision? Why or why not?

The answer to this question, IMO, depends on one thing. Saddam's willingness to allow UN Weapons Inspectors uninhibited, unfettered, and complete access to anything and everything that the inspectors wanted access to.

And we know that wasn't gonna happen.

Hans Blix himself pointed out the gaping holes in Iraq's last chance at a peaceful resolution, the weapons declaration it provided on the ninth of December, 2002.

Blix on inconsistencies



To quote part of the aforementioned Tenet speech, "To conclude before the war that Saddam had destroyed his existing weapons, we would have had to ignore what the United Nations and allied intelligence said they could not verify."

What were we supposed to think after he kicked inspectors out in 1998 and the constant insistence of conditions that the regime was trying to push on inspectors?

That he didn't have anything?

What were we supposed to do then?

Take his word for it?

"You know that guy they call the Butcher of Baghdad? He may be a bloodthirsty tyrant, but his word's as solid as an oak!"



If Saddam had done what was asked of him, none of this would have transpired the way it transpired. But even given the scenario that, say, he did give a complete and honest account of all his weapons, I believe sooner or later action would of have to taken place. Between the firing on jets in the no-fly zone, his active financial support of terrorism in Israel, and the blatant corruption of the UN Oil for Food program, the Coalition of the Willing would have made a move at one point in time. (And you can imagine the look on Annan's face when we tell him that we're cleaning up the mess you and your son helped facilitate!)

2. The evidence presented in this report lays out exactly what the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein was, given that information was Iraq the best use of our resources in the war on terror? Why or why not? Should other situations have taken priority? If so which ones?

Well, as they say, hindsight is 20/20. We could "what if" our allocation of resources in the WOT until Gabriel blows his horn but the truth is we had two and a half years from 9-11 to our invasion to put the hurt on OBL. (Not saying that we didn't.) To contrast, Clinton had seven years to hunt him down. (If he had made the choice.) Now I'm not trying to play the "who shoulda dunnit" game, but it's still hard to say whether or not Iraq was the logistic priority it appeared to be now that this report is out.

3. Will this report further damage the credibility of the Bush administration and effect the election?

Nope. The report said Saddam was a threat nonetheless. The campaign/administration will use that to their advantage (hopefully).

4. If you supported our action in Iraq, does this report change your mind?

C'mon Cube, 'ol buddy! You know better than to ask me that!

In all seriousness, I believe it was just a matter of time before we had to do this. So no, it doesn't change my mind.

Edited to add response to Logo's post...

This is being a little fast and loose with history here. Just months before invasion happened UN weapons inspectors were able to inspect areas at will (including previously off-limits palaces). Here's Hans Blix's security council report on 7 March 2003. A few choice quotes:




I freely admit that massing troops on the borders of Iraq was an important factor to improving Saddam's "willingness" to allow those inspections to happen. In fact at the time I thought it was an astute tactical move to force the compliance to happen. Nevertheless, the reason twelve (or eight) years of inspections didn't turn up anything is because he didn't have anything. I agree though that non-verification is not vindication. Inspections would have had to continue for the indefinite future just like other WMD inspections which happen in other parts of the world. Inspections are not a perfect solution but then there are no perfect solutions. In my opinion they were (and continue to be) one of the best tools in the toolbox of verification. More importantly, inspections are by far one the least expensive options available while war is the most expensive option. So, I don't buy the "what good would five or ten years" argument. I think you have the wrong goal in mind. Inspections are an ongoing process; they don't really end. It's like saying: "I just fixed my car so I shouldn't need to fix it again."

Not to go too far afield but... Why did folks give so much credence to nebulous intelligence sources and not to weapons inspectors? In other words, why were folks so willing to "buy" the expertise of those intelligence sources and all but ignore the expertise of the weapons inspectors? It seems to me that the weapons inspectors were the experts in this matter and not people like Curve Ball.

First, from Titus:

C'mon Titus....you're better than that. You're going all Dick Cheney on me now...

The no-fly zones had nothing to do with the UN. The United States and Britain created and enforced the no-fly zones. Furthermore, after flying 40,000 sorties in the no-fly zone, ZERO planes were ever shot down. You actually call that a threat?

But after chewing on this topic for a little while, I have to ask the question: Is Bush guilty of a crime? If his "legal" justification for invading Iraq was to enforce UN resolutions that we come to find out, were fulfilled completely by Saddam, doesn't that mean WE went against the resolutions? Otherwise, any UN resolution becomes moot. What's the point of getting someone to comply with UN resolutions if the opposing party can still act on it regardless of the compliance?

Remember, Saddam did provide a 12,000 page report to show compliance that we now know to be conclusive if not all that accurate. But the bottom line is, Saddam complied with the UN resolutions and provided the documentation.

This last report seems to show the UN resolutions worked. But we invaded regardless of whether Saddam complied or not.

Saddam did not comply. There were several banned items found by Mr. Blix and company that were not in the declaration, including those mobile trailers (dual purpose vehicles even if they were benign) the unmanned drone plane, the Al Samoud II missiles...

Had there been no evidence that Saddam was hiding things like this, I think the outcome may have been different. Perhaps not better (given what we now know of Saddam's true ambitions) but certainly different.

Saddam never "came clean" and that remains the circumstantial evidence that ultimately lead to his downfall.

Inspectors were never going to accomplish their mission, since the mission was not to go looking for weapons. It has taken the current team a year and a half of unfettered access to come to the conclusion that Saddam had nothing. How long would it have taken us to be sure that he had nothing if we continued to find half-truths and deceptions?

The fact remains that Saddam never gave up his quest for WMDs. He had socked away money to fund these programs when the sanctions were lifted. And, according to Duelfer, the "sanctions were eroding".

Because weapons inspectors only work if there is complete and total compliance. But, unfortuately there is no way to be certain of that compliance with the inspectors alone. Saddam isn't going to greet them and say, "Look! Here is the super-secret bio weapons lab...but wait, there's more down in the basement over in area X". Weapons and weapons programs can be moved, and there was evidence that Saddam was not complying.

The sites themselves were relayed to the inspectors from intel. This included testimony from Iraqi government and scientist defectors. Everyone thought he was hiding weapons, and it seems even most everyone who worked for him but defected thought this as well (unless they were lying to instigate an invasion, which is certainly a possibility).

I remember complaining to my father right before the impending invasion at the time. Mr P was on alert status for several months out there, so I moved back to the states to be with family. My father, I must explain, is starting to get a little off in the head. We agreed that Iraq probably didn't pose a threat, and disagreed with the invasion, but I asked him why he thought Saddam was giving the inspectors such a hassle. He frowned and stated, "Have you ever dealt closely with a large bureaucratic government agency? Saddam has my sympathy". Two years later the rantings of a senile old man sound strangely sane.

How was the mission not to go looking for weapons Amlord? I would think that is pretty clearly what they were doing since they were "weapons inspectors". It is like Logophage said, you can't ever completely fix your car, you are always going to be taking it in to change the oil, get new brakes, change the tires, etc.

The analysis on Saddam's motivation to end sanctions so he could acquire WMD is very interesting, but that aside the fact remains that the Bush administration is not prescient and therefore didn't know that back in 2002/2003. To an objective party it should have appeared that Saddam was at least attempting to comply with the snactions against him and therefore he wasn't worth the time, effort and lives required to escalate the conflict.

Now if this report had been available in 2002/2003 and the Bush administration knew that Saddam was trying to end sanctions to acquire WMD and they presented it in that manner then their case might have been a little better. But the correct solution there wouldn't have been to go to war, it would have been more sanctions since they were clearly working.

This all plays in to my second question of - how was this the best use of our resources to fight the war on terror? The world is filled with criminals and evil men, but we simply do not have the resources to tackle all of them at once. Given the information the Bush administration had at the time (from the weapons inspectors) this should have never escalated to an invasion if we had a rational president in office. Instead we should have continued sanctions, continued inspections and focused on any number of other things including the capture of Osama Bin Laden, the destruction of Al Qaeda and real state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran, Syria and even Saudi Arabia.

3. Will this report further damage the credibility of the Bush administration and effect the election?

And to get back to one of the questions, I think this will have a negative impact on Bush in the election. This thing is plastered all over the news right now, everyone is fully aware of the disaster that Iraq is and now we have something loud and clear saying that not only did Iraq have no WMD, they haven't had any since 1991.

Now granted that is only slightly more damning than the information we have had for months. But the thing that will make this fatal for Bush and Cheny is that they keep insisting that Iraq was a vital component in the war on terror and no one in the administration has even come close to admitting that we have made mistakes.

Most of the GOP faithful won't see that, but I think that it will resonate loudly not only with those on the fence, but with those who have perhaps never voted before. The one factor no one has really considered is that we are seeing record numbers of new voters being registered this year.

1. If this report were available to the Bush administration in 2002/2003 would going into Iraq have been the right decision? Why or why not?

A similar report could have potentially been available to the Bush administration if they would have allowed the weapons inspectors the necessary amount of time needed to do their jobs. It is also possible that because Saddam Hussain was not cooperative in the inspection process, this information could only come to light after the invasion which allowed a greater freedom of movement for inspectors.

I'm not about to say that the removal of Saddam Hussain from power was wrong, but I will certainly say that the methodology was wrong, and this report supports that assertion. We used a U.N. resolution as our justification, but we didn't do it with the blessing of the U.N., and now it turns out that for the most part our public justification was incorrect. Had this been waged differently, we may be in better standing with the world community.

2. The evidence presented in this report lays out exactly what the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein was, given that information was Iraq the best use of our resources in the war on terror? Why or why not? Should other situations have taken priority? If so which ones?

At this particular time, I feel that Iraq was not the best use of our resources. We should have been focusing our resources on Afghanistan and domestic security.

3. Will this report further damage the credibility of the Bush administration and effect the election?

I sincerely doubt it, but I'm feeling rather cynical.

4. If you supported our action in Iraq, does this report change your mind?


I have been on the fence since the very beginning, and I remain there today. I don't think the methodology was correct, because I believe that it is of utmost importance to maintain our credibility in the international community, but I don't necessarily think that the removal of Saddam Hussain was wrong with or without weapons of mass destruction.

Edited to fix quotes.

In the end, this is actually a legal question that boils down to:

1. Did Bush lie to Congress or omit information they needed to decide to go to war?

2. If so, would the truth have caused Congress not to support the war?



Based on the evidence we have on the first two, I think the impeachment process needs to begin. To get to the bottom of the matter. Because it's not a matter of splitting hairs and fine points here. The question is: is there enough evidence that George Bush committed the impeachable offense of lying to Congress about the situation in Iraq to begin impeachment proceedings?

I have to disagree here. I think it's unrealistic to expect complete and total compliance in any nation where WMD tech is being suppressed by the UN. If this were a requirement, then how were weapons inspectors so successful in detecting North Korea's WMD programs? Weapons inspectors are very good at their jobs and can gather evidence even after a site has had supposedly scraped clean of signs. Like I've said before, weapons inspections are not perfect, yet they are a really good and inexpensive way to enforce compliance with policy.

I think we can all understand that Saddam didn't want to comply. Who would? For the moment ignore Saddam's desire to have WMD, he wouldn't want to comply just because something is being forced down his throat. However, compliance was preferable to invasion. This is at least part of the reason why just months before the invasion of Iraq, Blix was reporting good progress with inspections.


I won't disagree here. I thought he may have had WMD at the time. My opinion would have changed though if the weapons inspections had continued and reported no evidence of WMD. I hold actual data in much higher regard than my "gut feelings". If the data contravenes my initial guess, then that's fine; I'll change my position. It's the data which matters.


I suppose senility and wisdom are not mutually exclusive.

1. If this report were available to the Bush administration in 2002/2003 would going into Iraq have been the right decision? Why or why not?

It would have been either suppressed or circumvented. Every one knew that there were several inspections made prior to the war and that Hans Blix was only three months from completing his UN inspection.

It has become painfully obvious that GW Bush went to war in Iraq because he wanted to. He bent the evidence to suit his desires, ignored voices of reason from all over the planet, used France and the UN as diversions to agitate the US population and ignored the real threat that is global terrorism.


2. The evidence presented in this report lays out exactly what the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein was, given that information was Iraq the best use of our resources in the war on terror? Why or why not? Should other situations have taken priority? If so which ones?

Its hard to say, because I still don't know what the true motivation for this war was. I simply can't believe that against all principle, the USA fought a pre-emptive war against a dictator because he might at some point have once again have WMD's. I keep looking for ulterior motives but its becoming increasingly difficult to find any reasonable motive for GW Bush's actions.

Reading the report it becomes abundently clear that Saddam Hussein was never interested in attacking the USA. His prime fear was Iran.. that same nation which is currently moving in on Iraq even as we type... Its galling to think that today, Ghaddafi has been given a free pass and yet we all know that Libya sponsered terrorism. Iran and North Korea are still busy building their nuclear and chemical arsenals... and we don't even have a global consensus to fight terrorism any more.

How much did the war cost? 100 billion? more? Its impossible for me to easily conceive of what have been built with that amount of money.

There are some days when I blink and wonder if 11 Sept was just a figment of my imagination.


3. Will this report further damage the credibility of the Bush administration and effect the election?

What credibility?


4. If you supported our action in Iraq, does this report change your mind?

No... my mind was made up on the basis of what Tony Blair told the British house of commons... and it was changed when I realised he'd lied and was using pomp and circumstance to pretend otherwise.

I never believed a word GW Bush or his government said. The day Powell went before the UN I watched in amazement at the so called 'evidence', and I was uneasy even then. I couldn't fit the two opposites in my head... I realise now that I was wrong to trust Tony Blair. I should have realised that he was a liar when I discovered he was a devout christian. (That is to say, because he had obscured this fact apparently in order to be more appealing to the British population)

I supported the war in Iraq because I was told that Saddam Hussein had weapons that could be deployed against western targets (including Israel) within 45 minutes and that there was a clear link between Saddam Hussein and various terrorist groups.

I was lied to and thousands of people died because of those lies.

Mrs. P you say "things would have been different with more information", but they (President,Cheney,others) did have other information and didn't use it because it didn't suit their purposes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/internat...ed=3&oref=login



I know it is a little long winded, but the whole article which was in NEW York Times last Sunday was 15 pages, and very informative.

In essence Bush and Cheney went with the advice of one person(Joe,not his real name) against the the educated and history proven advice of The Energy Department which was very informed in this area.

I can really have sympathy with someone that is given one sided advice and no other advice and it is wrong. But to have one agency which is better situtaed to give a more educated answer and to put that aside and go with one persons(Joe) advice. That is not even using good logic common sense.

Or could the real answer be that The Energy Department answer wasn't the answer that fit in their plans for Iraq.

I'm sorry, but any individual or company that picks their poison, then deserves the full credit of success or failure.

In other words there are no excuses if you stray from real answers to answers that serve you own goal.

This article has really opened my eyes. Everyone should read it, before making up their minds concerning the WMDS.

Thanks for staying with me this long.

Hans Blix was certain there were no WMDs but he too had no hard proof except his word. German, France, Great Britain and the US all had intelligents supporting the idea that Saddam Had WMD. The UN passed the 1441 demanding Saddam to comply. He did not.

The real question has nothing to due with Bush and the war on terrorism, but why did Saddam fight the UN inspectors and lie about having WMDs, and try to trick the world?

The answer was not made clear until this report as stated in the opening of this thread. Saddam did it to fake out Iran. Saddam, under fear of attack from Iran, created the image of WMD.

So why was Saddam not afraid of the US and the UN? Clinton.

Clinton prepared America for war.
(Source) Clinton felt as Bush felt that life with Saddam was by far worst then any war.

Clinton declared war.


Clinton backs down.
him."(Source)

Clinton backs down beacuse on Novemeber 14, Iraq had allowed the UNSCOM to inspect Iraq. By Decemeber 9, Saddam was back to his old tricks.

Former President Bill Clinton, on July 22, 2003, said, " . . . [I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons [in Iraq]." (Source)

We were all so sure. And Saddam was sure we would never attack. But 9/11 changed the face of this country. Unlike the Clinton years, we now can no longer back away from our fight.

WMDs or no WMDs the threat was clear to all. Even Kerry.

This rhetoric about Clinton is getting really tired. People are constantly saying, "well Clinton did this so that makes it ok" or "see Clinton said this, so that makes it right". Did it ever occur to anyone that people might have disagreed with Clinton too, especially historically?

Talking about Clinton has absolutely zero relevance to this thread unless it can somehow be tied into the questions for debate.

The Bush Administration was in power in 2002 and the questions specifically deal with whether the information contained in this report justify our actions.

1. History is important to solving the problems of the future.
2. The post is tied to debate question 2 and tied to Moif post.
3. One quote form Clinton is dated July 22, 2003.
4. One quote form Kerry is dated October 9, 2002.
5. The facts that the previous administrations stance on Iraq ties to the current administration is relevant to this thread.
6. If they had to do it all over again, both Kerry and Bush would have done it.
7. Question one is irrelevant because both Kerry and Bush said that knowing what they know now, they both would have went into Iraq.
8. Instead debating the relevance of valid points made in the thread, we should focus on the points being made in the thread.

yehoshua



But how exactly do you prove an absence of WMD's to an audience who refuses to believe?

After such a long and thorough investigation, Blix was qualified to make the sort of statements that should have been listened to. His 'opinion' was worth more than the 'intelligence' various governments claimed to posses.

His opinion, however was ignored.


As for Clinton, well, he did many things that with hind sight we can say were a mistake. At the time however, the attention of the world was on other matters, Bosnia, Israel &tc

I don't hold Clinton's mistakes against him. They were honest mistakes. And in truth, he took his lead on the matter from Bush snr who was the original President that let Saddam off the hook.

I keep wondering what the legal point was that made Saddam Hussein a legitimate target... Did 11 Sept have some legal significance that I don't know about?

If Iraq was invaded because Saddam Hussein didn't tell the truth convincingly enough (for he most certainly told the truth we know now) then why were we shown 'evidence' at the UN by Powell? Why did Blair fill us with tales of WMD's that could be launched in 45 minutes?

We had Blix and Ritter and a whole host of other pro peace organizations telling us there were no WMD's, and then we had the debacle at the UN of the US and the UK trying to get a second resolution... what was it all for if 1441 was an ample legal foundation for the war?

If it was really just because of 1441, then why didn't the US and the UK believe Saddam Hussein when he was telling the truth?

Today, we're told that the world is a safer place because Saddam Hussein has been arrested.




Is it?

There was no clean to come to. On the one hand, Saddam was considered a megalomaniacal dictator who would use whatever deceit he could to get his way. On the hand, he was being asked to just "tell the truth". Well, he was telling the truth: he had no WMD. Clearly, this was (and is) insufficient. But, it is disingenuous to call for Saddam to come clean when nothing he could have said or done would have been convincing. As for the drones, missiles and trailers (oh my...) they were in the gray area and you know it, Amlord. It was up to the UN to determine if they were proscribed or not. Certainly, the missiles were and that's why they were scrapped. It is absolutely reasonable for Saddam to try to get away with just as much as he could: it's all part of the game.


Why were inspections never going to accomplish their mission? Simply making blanket statements such as this without justification seems like wishful thinking to me. Inspections have worked in other places. Inspections did not take Saddam's word for it. They actually verify on the ground with experts in the field.


I will agree that Saddam never gave up his quest for WMD, but so what? If he couldn't build them, then what does it matter what's going on inside his head? He was clearly not the imminent threat he was made out to be.

1. If this report were available to the Bush administration in 2002/2003 would going into Iraq have been the right decision? Why or why not?

Yes. The report validates that Hussein was indeed trying to get WMD.

2. The evidence presented in this report lays out exactly what the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein was, given that information was Iraq the best use of our resources in the war on terror? Why or why not? Should other situations have taken priority? If so which ones?

I haven't read the details, so will have to answer from the excerpts I've seen. These indicate that Saddam was definitely trying to pursue WMD. I don't think anyone can make a case that Saddam with nuclear weapons is an acceptable situation. Sanctions were not feasible to maintain due to their negative impact on the WoT. Therefore, since conflict seemed inevitable and no other method existed to resolve the problem, attacking then when we had the opening still seems like the right course of action.

I am curious (but don't have time right now to read through the report in depth): does it truly "lay out exactly what the 'threat'" posed by Saddam was, or does it focus solely on his current WMD capabilities? Those are two vastly different discussions.

3. Will this report further damage the credibility of the Bush administration and effect the election?

No, I don't think so. If anything, it validates that Hussein was indeed pursuing WMD. Bush has already said, even before this report, that if he knew then what he knew now, he would still invade. I don't see anything in this report that would change that.

4. If you supported our action in Iraq, does this report change your mind?

I haven't read all of it, but the excerpts I've seen do nothing but validate the action. I never thought WMD were the main reason to begin with...Saddam was the real problem, and this report indicates why he was a threat.

That is a hard task, and Blix was unsuccessful. Unsuccessful in telling German, France, Great Britian, and US Intelligents that what they see, they did not see.

But according to 1441 here is how Blix was to do it,

In order for blix to prove Saddam had no WMDs, he had to prove that all the weapons in the hands of Saddam had been destroyed. He had failed to do this.



Blix opinion was ignored because of his lack of inspection. Saddam was playing his old game of 'trick the inspector.' Denying inspectors access to locations, including palaces, government facilities, etc. The world intelligence did not trust his inspection because they thought in the wake of 1441 Blix was being toyed with.

Why did Saddam toy with Blix? To trick Iran into thing Iraq had WMDs. Why? To avoid being attacked by Iran.



Pro peace organizations would say Hitler is threat.

Legal foundation for war:




How could someone believe Saddam Hussein?

He did not comply with the resolution or the inspectors. He basically toyed with them.

Could you clarify this Hobbes, I'm not sure what you mean here. How were sanctions having a negative impact on the WoT? It seems like an important question considering we use them extensively around the globe and against some other nations we consider to be part of the WoT like Iran.

So all we need now is for a country or person to want to obtain something, and that gives us reason to invade? I still don't understand why we invade Iraq, who didn't have WMD's, but was trying to get some, whereas we don't invade or take any action of the same magnitude when it comes to countries like N. Korea, who do have Nukes. These actions just doesn't seem very congruent to me.

yehoshua, please read my previous post. On 7 March 2003, Hans Blix declared rather unequivocally to the UN Security Council that inspectors were able to go where they wanted to go. Also, what evidence do you have to back up the claim that the world intelligence did not "trust his inspection"? This is the first time I've ever run across such a claim.

Certainly. First, I will state that I am not a supporter of sanctions--they have long, glorious, ineffective history, particularly against corrupt dictators. For the Iraqi sanctions, they were cited specifically by UBL and by many, many others in the Arab world as examples of the treatment Arabs could expect from the U.S. Therefore, they were adding to the negative perception of the U.S. among Arabs, thereby increasing many of the factors that terrorists use to obtain recruits and financing. In fact, Saddam was using them to his advantage, setting himself up as someone who would stand up to the U.S., while at the same time blaming the conditions they were creating in Iraq on the U.S. as well.



It's really pretty simple, DA. Iraq was a comglomeration of many factors--WMD being only a small part of the package. Three factors which specifically separate Iraq and N. Korea are Iraq's geopolitical location (oil and hotbed of terrorism), liklihood of achieving a diplomatic solution, and ease of achieving a military victory. No other country/leader comes close to achieving the totality of factors which led to the invasion. So, the formula being applied is very congruent--Iraq just happens to be the only one that meets so many of the criteria.

As to the topic specifically, consider the following from the report:



These finding go to show both why Saddam remained a threat (desire and intent to pursue WMD) and why sanctions were not really going to be effective long term (even discounting their negative impact on the WoT).

Cool, let me the first to inform you. After Blix spoke to council on that March 7th, Powell was given time by the President of the UN to again make a case. Powell asked the question: "Has the Iraqi regime made the fundamental, strategic and political decision to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions and to rid itself of all of its weapons of mass destruction, all of the infrastructure for the development of weapons of mass destruction?"

And answered as as follows:


Powell makes many good points addressing the issue of Iraq's failure to disarm, I suggest you read it.

It was not Powell's first speech that sold me, it was the inspectors report and Powell's response that makes it clear that Saddam was not helping his cause, and I said why? Even if he had no weapons, why is he playing games? Well the recent report shows why. He was afraid of an attack from Iran.

Powell is the same guy who went to the UN claiming that WMD in Iraq was a fact, correct? I think I'll give alot more credence to Blix rather than Powell when it comes to this. So far, Blix has not been shown to have been "misinformed" about the situation in Iraq. Powell on the other hand... I know he's Secretary of State and all but he was clearly incorrect about WMD in Iraq. Blix on the other hand was clearly correct. I'll go with the person who not only has more credibility in the regard but who is also an expert in this field. Also, you haven't shown me how the world intelligence distrusted the inspections. Please do.

yehoshua, it is a violation of the rules to tell another poster that they are unqualified to hold and state their expressed opinion. I would not disrespect you enough to say you are unqualified to express your opinion.

I will say however, that I found your analysis of President Clinton's record in dealing with Iraq to be both shallow and extremely subjective. At the crux of your argument seems to be that Clinton failed to adequately deal with Saddam Hussein so George W. Bush was virtually compeled to act.

It's a compelling contention, I'll give you that yehoshua. However, it is also specious and a fallacious distraction from the failed strategy that is Bush's Iraq policy.

You talk about the points in this thread, here are a few for you.

Bill Clinton isn't the President of the United States. George W. Bush is.

Bill Clinton didn't invade Iraq based on "woulda/coulda/shoulda" nightmare scenarios dreamed up by neo-conservative chickenhawks. George W. Bush did despite evidence to the contrary. Bill Clinton ignored the imperialistic fantasies of the Project for the New American Century. George W. Bush not only implemented their schemes, he selected some of the authors (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Elliot Abrams, L. Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz) to key roles in his administration.

Bill Clinton didn't send over 1000 American soldiers to their death and create almost 8000 wounded troops. George W. Bush did.

Bill Clinton wasn't the POTUS coming off a month-long vacation after just eight months on the job prior to September 11, 2001. George W. Bush was.

Bill Clinton didn't stand on the deck of a aircraft carrier in Top Gun gear and say "Mission Accomplished" then or "Bring 'em on" later. George W. Bush did.

Bill Clinton wasn't the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces who declined to attend a single funeral of a fallen soldier returning home to be buried. George W. Bush is the possessor of that dubious distinction.

Bill Clinton isn't the president who's blown over $200 billion of U.S. taxpayer dollars on a foreign misadventure. George W. Bush is.

Bill Clinton isn't the president who took us to war on a lie, made the nation a pariah among the world or is whipping up anti-Western Islamic fundamentalists into a blood frenzy. George W. Bush accomplished all that.

I don't understand how the same posters who months ago asserted with such certainty that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq and both the President and their faith in his leadership would be vindicated can now say, "Well, the report makes clear that Saddam intended to get WMD's and use them against us." What is "intended" is far less dangerous than what is actually done.

Go to war on a hunch? Kill a lot of Iraqis because "Saddam was a bad man?" Hit them before they hit us? It's kindergarten logic but that doesn't even make sense in kindergarten. How is that a credible way for a superpower to conduct itself?

But the way that Dick Cheney, George Bush and some of the posters in this thread (I ranked the preceeding in their order of importance) can turn black into white, up into down, wrong into right and failure into success, I'm starting to think maybe it's my own fault for trying to apply reason and logic in a scenario starving for it.

Then again it could be I'm being overly-analytical. Sometimes there are simple answers to complex questions. Maybe we went to war with Iraq for three reasons and I'm paraphrasing here.

1. "Don't forget...Saddam tried to kill my Dad."---Dubya

2. "Let's bomb Iraq. There are no good targets in Afghanistan."---Rummy

3. If I kill Saddam Dad will like me better than Jeb---Shrub Jr.

Okay, so Dubya didn't say number three. He sure screwed up this war enough to believe it's possible he did.

Very well, you just asked for an example of "...what evidence do you have to back up the claim that the world intelligence did not "trust his inspection"?" I think Powell standing firmly against Blix.

Besides in that speech, Powell states,


Powell declared that this was about Saddam's unwillingness to comply with inspectors.

. Fair enough. What other evidence apart from Powell's discredited assertions do you have?


This speech may have the ring of Marc Anthony's requiem for Caesar, but the credibility stain remains. Moreover, it is in direct conflict with Blix's statements. Powell was wrong about WMD in Iraq. He was basing his antithesis to inspections upon his certainty that there were WMD in Iraq despite weapons inspections. Well, he was wrong. His entire thesis is thus logically fallacious.

Fair enough Hobbes, but that brings forth a rather large question. Do you think that the Iraqi sanctions were generating more recruits, financing and will power for terrorists than the current situation in Iraq? If we were better off with no sanctions but an occupied Iraq one would think that terorist ranks would be decreasing and terrorist incidents would be on the decline. Unfortunately the polar opposite is true.

In fact, invading Iraq has probably given OBL and Al Qaeda a better propaganda tool than the sanctions ever were. "The US will invade your country for specious reasons and drop bombs on your family because they can". I can almost hear that being said all over the streets of the arab world.

To suggest that Iraq was beneficial to the WoT you have to show that we gained more than we lost, or in fact that we gained anything.

Very well. Before we get into the world reaction, i think it is important to first address El Baradei's Presentation to the UN council, which as also provided on March 7, 2003.



He states that the inspectors did find that Iraq was trying to make WMDs. Furthermore, their findings include magnets



What El Baradei is showing is that Iraq may not have atomic weaponry, however Iraq is collecting materials with "possible intentions to resume its nuclear program." This is key to the documents released the other day.

Iraq wanted WMDs. Did they have them? No. Would they use them? Yes. Should we prevent Iraq from obtaining them? Yes. Hence the war.



That is the point. There were people in the world at the time that did not believe Blix did a through investigation. Blix himself describes this:

Blix himself feels that Iraq has not lived up to the full existent of Resolution 1441, by this deadline March 7, 2003, thus leaving the UN with one alternative. To act upon regime change. This is what the US did.

El Baradei was on shake ground with Iraq as well.

El Baradei did not trust Iraq.

The bottom line, Iraq failed to comply with UN Resolution 1441. World leaders did not trust Blix inspection, not because of Blix's incompetence to inspect, but because of Iraq's own incompetence to comply with the order.

Okay, the sum-is-greater-than-its-parts argument has always troubled me. Let's assume this principle is true. If that is so, then by removing one of the parts of the sum what happens to the whole? Is it diminished by the one part or by one part + the portion of the whole which is not part of any of the parts? Does 1+1+1 = 4? If so, the what does 1+1+1 - 1 = 4 - 1 equal? Or what happens when 1+1+1 = 4 - (1+1+1)? Where does the left over bit go?

Now, as for the justifications for Iraq, I think you're being a bit glib about the WMD thing. It was by far the most important justification for invading Iraq up until the point it started looking like Iraq might not have WMD. Recall that WMD was the justification for the imminent threat label. Powell sat in front of the UN claiming that WMD was fact. The major players in the US cabinet were aflurry with statements about WMD. It was part of Dubya's State of the Union address.

Are you reading the same speech I am? In the same report, we see:
and
and

El Baradei was explaining that these bits were not part of a nuclear weapons program. How you can read the speech and come to the opposite conclusion leaves me bewildered.


I'm with you on the first part. Follow you on the second part. Agree with the third part. But, the hence clause just does not follow. Iraq didn't have nukes and it had no program to build nukes, thus we should invade? It's just plain illogical.