Redstate

That is all.  :)

It may seem like a minor point in the scheme of things now, but you are omitting the Rodong missile production capacity, which North Korea backed out of sending to Iraq through Syria (pocketing the cash) once they realized it probably wasn't such a good idea.

for Senator Levin, and in fact for all of the Dems in Congress who voted to allow the President to use force as necessary:

If the President lied, cooked-the-books, this means that you bought the argument. So how long have you been gullible fools and why should we entrust you with making our laws.

...does any thinking person believe that if Saddam had remained in power and the UN had continued to exercise its "oversight" he would not have spent the last three years pursuing a nuclear weapon?   How fine a distinction do we want to make here between intent/capability and actual possession here?

We don't need to make a fine distinction at all.  There is a gross distinction between intent and either capability or possession of nuclear weapons.  Saddam may have had the first, he most certainly did not have the second or the third.

If you're going to blame it all on faulty intel/analysis, which was clearly abundant, shouldn't the person in charge take the blame?  By that I mean Medal of Freedom recipient George Tenet?  When did we start conferring the nation's highest civilian honor on men so incompetent in the role entrusted to them that they not only provided the "evidence" justifying the invasion of a country with no nuclear capabilities, but failed to detect the attainment of nuclear capabilities by at least two others until after they detonated weapons?  Tenet should not only NOT have received a medal he should be stripped of his citizenship and set adrift in the Pacific with no water.  That the administration saw fit to give him a medal for his service causes me to think uncharitably about their objectivity in considering the Iraq WMD evidence provided them by the CIA, and also to think that the nomination of Harriet Miers was just the continuation of a pattern set long ago.

we blame him for the 1991 war, ceasefire violations until 2003, incl the 1995 NUKE program the UN discovered that was w/i 6 mos of operational capacity.

Yes, we BLAME our enemies.

See, opopst 9011 we had top take him oput based opn opast copnduct and opresent intent.

See the post 911 war res. Not the iraq war congress res.

The 1st 911 war res declares war on all nations that harbour, aid and abet terrorists.

get it

And, seeing as you can store enough anthrax to kill all of Washington DC in a 5lb bag (as Clinton SecDef William Cohen demonstrated during the last Administration), it's not feasible to assert that the CIA, or any intelligence agency for that matter, could have said that Hussein for certain had no bio/chem agents or capability.

I know that, here, you're just speaking of nukes.  But the threat Hussein posed was much more than that.  

But, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a comprehensive "Here's what we Senate Dems would have done" answer.

They don't need to give an answer.  They don't need to risk being pinned down by saying something specific.

All they need to do is blow smoke, create confusion, and create the impression that Bush somehow someway screwed up.  

How much anthrax has been discovered?

You may think nobody should pay for these mistakes.  I disagree.  

Should it be the president?

I don't know.

Should it be Tenet?

Yes, definitely!  At least in large part.

Thanks for the bump, Leon--and now I notice that in the repeated question it shuld be "on" Iraq not "in" Iraq--can you change that for my peace of mind?  I don't seem to be able to edit.

Kowalski:  Right back at you.  And you're right about the North Korea/Rodong missle thing--yet another reason this whole witch hunt is nuts.  The alternative????

I guess, Dissention, that I would say the President is the "buck stops" location--and that he should say that while mistakes were made they stand by the decision for the reasons under discussion here.  Tenet: as history tells us, the CIA chief enjoys some serious teflon.  And as culpable as he may have been, he served at the pleasure of the President--and I don't think the President's ultimate decsion was wrong, no matter how faulty Tenet was.

And Smagar, I actually think the dems should collectively say "thank you" for having the luxury of being able to engage in such arcane debates without the threat of Saddam looming over them, but I'm not going to turn blue waiting for that, either.

I voted for Rocky.

Given what has been revealed regarding the nuclear activities of Iran, he would have had no choice but to quickly restart his moth-balled but still viable nuclear program. He did not have such a weapon in March, 2003.  But he would have had a strong incentive to get one by November, 2005.

Given what has been revealed regarding the nuclear activities of N. Korea.  It's obvious in many ways our response to this very real threat has been muted or hampered due to being intangled in Iraq/Afganistan.  We simply can't crediably project the threat of force against N. Korea when we're looking so thinly stretched already.  Rumsfield may claim otherwise, but what else would you expect out of him?

I think our inability to apply the pressure needed to N. Korea has imboldened Iran to take it's current course.  So, it's entirely possible that if we never went to Iraq, that we'd also not be talking about a N. Korea w/ nuclear weapons or Iran pursuing such weapons.  And thus Saddam wouldn't have that as a reason to try to restart his programs while still under the watchful eye of the rest of the world.  

N. Korea is a very real threat and far more dangerous then Iraq would have been by now or likely anytime in the next decade.

Fact is you might be right, but I could just as easily be right, trying to guess the impact of a change of this size (not going to Iraq) is far too complex, it's such a large event that it very literally - changes everything.

Even pre-Iraq, have we had a realistic option to "project force" against N. Korea? My impression was that even without nuclear arms, any resumption of hostilities would result in them ravaging considerable parts of the Korean peninsula before attrition ground them to pieces.

How exactly should we 'make Tenet pay?'

Personally, I agree that Tenet shouldn't have been given any medals, but it is the President's prerogative and it was for slightly more than the WMD stuff, it was for Afghanistan, 9/11, and more.

Be that as it may, it is unconstitutional to pass a bill of attainder.  We cannot revoke anyone's citizenship if they are native-born.  So your remedies are insufficient.

But what exactly should we flog him for?  He was wrong, but so was everyone else in the world.  France, England, Russia, Spain, Australia, Israel, and probably even Saddam himself.  They all thought he had WMD, they all thought it was a slam dunk.

Intelligence outside of a Tom Clancy novel or West Wing episode (or perhaps I should be more pc and say Commander in Chief episode) is very rarely an episode of black and white.  It's mutable shades of grey.  Did all the intelligence suggest that Hussein had WMD and was trying to build, buy, or steal more?  Absolutely.

The CIA had it from all sorts of different sources, some reliable, some shady, others in varying degrees.  But they were all, apparently, wrong.

While it's horribly lamentable that such is the case, it is still true that Hussein was trying to build back up his capacity, he was still trying to destablize the region, he was still sending checks to suicide bomber families, he was still oppressing his people and threatening the US with his very existence.

So Tenet got it wrong, as did everyone else, let's not pretend, however, that we went to war because he said so.  He presented the information he had and Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, the Republicans in Congress, the Democrats in Congress, the British, the Australians, the Spanish (before they capitulated), they all thought it was worthy.

Very small and very important, for people who know:  not everything that Tenet knew, and knows, will be known for a long, long time.  And the President doesn't award the Medal of Freedom for nothing.

We are not now more hamstrung with regard to North Korea than we were before we were "intangled" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

North Korea has had the ability to project power into the heart of the populace of South Korea for decades. Any threat of force against North Korea is either empty, or the result of a nuclear strike on the United States, and therefore in a very different world than the one in which we now live.

Well it seems that your non-partisan hat missed your head completely.

You totally disregard or totally minimized Ahmed Chalabis role in supplying false information. And to how many groups used this information. (CIA, FBI,CNN,MSNBC, FOX)   Not to mention the useage of Curveball.

Where in your dliberations was the information that Mr Blitz was supplying right up to the start of the conflict? In the can't be trusted pile? What did Mr. rumsfield call it? Boots on the ground, Mr. Blitz was boots on the ground.

Saddam was a dictator but so what he was not crazy. He did not launch chemical weapons in to israle. He knew Israle could and would launch nuclear weapons back. The MAD docturin was in effect.  Not to mention that a 6000 mile range missile would do little to effect the USA.  Where is the viable nuclear program in Iraq? (Kay reported: "To date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.")

At best Saddam needed such weapons to deter attacks from other countries including the USA. After the beating Iraq took in 1991 he was not in a position to attack much of anyone. That's not just a little statement to lose that much military power. Saddam still not the big monster that he is inflated to be. Don't forget that he had to get permission to fly a helicopter from one end of his country to the other from a US military official. Now that's powerless.

(The ground offensive of Operation DESERT STORM began on 24 February 1991 as all-out attacks against the Iraqi forces commenced. One hundred hours later, President Bush ordered a cease-fire. According the estimated published immediately after the war by US Central Command, the Iraqis lost 3,700 of 4,280 tanks, 2,400 of their 2,880 armored personnel carriers and 2,600 of their 3,100 artillery pieces. Between 60,000 and 70,000 Iraqi prisoners were taken and 42 Iraqi divisions were rendered combat ineffective.)

Then you jump to issues that do not concern the safety or security of the US.

Qadhafi,s program was not in the best of shape and he got something more valuable than a non working system, removal of sanctions.

(Differing characterizations of the state of Libya's program had fueled the dispute. The IAEA has said Libya was nowhere near producing a nuclear weapon, while Washington and London contended Tripoli was further along than the agency realized.)

Also dismissed is the information that Bush was intent on attacking Iraq  just days after 9/11 with no connection or eviednce. Wile frequently dissmissed it does give reason to pause.

You bring up 9/11, another example of an intelligence failure on his watch.  Yes, FBI failed in that one too but Tenet sure has a long string of prominent failures leading up to his MOF.

I disagree with your assessment of everyone believing Saddam had WMD, and "they all thought it was a slam dunk."  But I think everyone's convictions are pretty much set in stone regarding the justifications for war, so I don't see much point in rehashing it again.

Was Saddam a bad guy?  Of course.  Should he be tried and executed?  Of course.

Would people have supported the invasion just to get rid of Saddam?  Possibly.  I might have been one of them.  But so much of the case for war was made on the assumption of WMD, particularly the possibility of nuclear weapons, and on "possible ties to al Qaeda" that have turned out to be overstated or tenuous at best that I just can't merrily say:  "Oh well, Saddam was a bad guy anyway.  What difference does it make why we went to war, at least we got rid of him!"

We're talking about war here.  Invading another country.  Look what it took to bring us into one of the most justified wars in history, WWII.  When did we become a country that invades based on rumors and gathers concrete evidence afterwards?

Now I'm not saying we should pull out of Iraq, though I'm not convinced that we can ever do enough to head off a Civil War there.  But I would like to see us be far more reticent to invade another country in the future without concrete evidence that they pose a real threat to us.

Let's look at these statements on Iraq and WMD by Democrats and Clinton Administration officials ... Note that these are people who have or have had access to intelligence reports since the Gulf War. They include at least one General, two Presidents, a Secretary of Defense and Legislators who are or have been members of the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees of the two Houses of Congress.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now, a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

William J. Clinton, February 17, 1998

Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.
Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability.
Robert Byrd, October 2002

There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat ... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001
Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.
Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

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, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons ... I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.
Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.
Tom Daschle in 1998

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.
John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Bob Graham, December 2002

The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.
John Kerry, October 9, 2002

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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.
John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

In other words, were these people lying through their teeth? Note that these are people with security clearances who have been receiving information/intelligence (exactly what the President receives) for years prior to Bush's entrance into the White House.

Make no mistake, the Clinton Administration concluded that Iraq possessed WMDs from the very same intelligence the Bush Administration used to reach the exact same conclusion. Democrat Senators and Representatives sitting on and off the Congressional Intelligence committees since before Bush's inauguration in 2001, also reached the same conclusion. As did French, British, German, Russian and Israeli Intelligence. How is it that all these people came to the same conclusion given the same information and yet only one set of people is being accused of lying by people like you?

Did the Bush Administration manipulate American (British, French, German, etc.) intelligence from 1993 to 2000? Or did everybody suddenly come to the conclusion that Iraq possessed no WMD on the 21st of January 2001, just as Governor Bush of Texas took the oath of office?

Your entire post is based on hindsight (what we know now instead of what we knew then) and therefore reeks of opportunism and mendacity.

This comment should be a diary in its own right.

But so much of the case for war was made on the assumption of WMD, particularly the possibility of nuclear weapons, and on "possible ties to al Qaeda" that have turned out to be overstated or tenuous at best that I just can't merrily say:  "Oh well, Saddam was a bad guy anyway.  What difference does it make why we went to war, at least we got rid of him!"

That's why it is so important that we remain cognizant of the fact that everyone and I do mean everyone believed Saddam Hussein still retained weapons of mass destruction and was actively working to get more as well as a nuclear weapon in his hands.

Intelligence work is not science and a 100% certainly is often impossible. A lot of conclusions are achieved by educated guesses and extrapolations and agreed to by consensus. So when you take into consideration that it was not just the Intelligence agencies of the United States, but the Intelligence agencies of the entire Western world that independently reached the same conclusions since before 21 January 2001, to reach the conclusion that the Bush Administration lied borders on the stupid.

Bluestaters everywhere usually try to dismiss the fact that many Democrats, from Bill Clinton, his White House staff to Democrat members of the Congressional Intelligence Committees also believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, from all the way back in the 1990s, by pointing out that Clinton never went to war on Iraq (Desert Fox notwithstanding).

But then again, 9/11 didn't happen when Clinton was President, did it?

Imagine you're Bush, just a few months after 9/11;

First, I don't think I accused Bush of lying.  I did accuse him of rewarding incompetence.

"...the fact that everyone and I do mean everyone believed Saddam Hussein still retained weapons of mass destruction..."

The UN weapons inspectors on the ground at least did not believe Saddam had WMD.  So it wasn't everyone.  

"Without using hindsight or alluding to what you know now, what would you have done?"

I would have fired Tenet.  I would not have honored him with a medal.

containment was clearly working.  Saddam was neutered except in his own mind.  Sad, sad, argument.

I believe the Inspectors in Iraq (Blix and Co.) still claimed to be unsure because Saddam was still not fully co-operating with them. I think you'll see that in the last report to the Security Council in 2003 i.e.

For example, the thousands of liters of VX, tons of botox, etc. that Saddam declared himself to possess in the 1990s were nowhere in the records Iraq submitted to the UN in the run-up to the war in late 2002/early 2003.

Remember also that Blix himself revealed that he was not particularly interested in whether or not Saddam retained any weapons of mass destruction, he felt that his primary mission was to prevent a war.

Since Carl isn't a member of this blog, I'll try to answer instead.

In  the beginning of 2003, the US was fresh from taking  down Afghanistan (the graveyard of communism).  It had taken us a couple of months and around a dozen casualties.  The US military was perceived to be the most powerful military force on earth. We were unstoppable.  Osama was a loser hiding in a cave. Every enemy in the world was afraid of us.  Our allies were all behind us.  

As long as our forces were not pinned down in combat operations, they were a threat to North Korea, Iran and Iraq.  We were in a position much like Britain in the last half of the 19th century.  They imposed a Pax Britannica by rarely firing a shot. We could have done the same. We could attack anywhere in the world and win quickly.  

We now know that Sadam had made no progress towards having nukes. The 911 commission said that he had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. As a secular Sunni, they hated him as much as they hate the Saudi royal family. His rants were annoying but he was no danger to us.

George Bush I left Sadam in power for a reason.  As long as he was in power, the Saudis needed us to protect them.  They adjusted oil production to keep prices stable for our benefit.  This helped keep Iraqs oil revenues down as well.

Sadam also made the Iranians nervous.  He was always a risk to do something unpredictable and as a neighbor, they were the ones most at risk.  

If the US was provoked to action against Iraq, they could count on Sadem to take advantage of the situation.  Between a US army in Turkey and Sadem in Iraq, they were effectively blocked.

In short, had we not gone into Iraq, we would be looking at peace and prosperity rather than a war that according to Dick Cheney may take another ten years, costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

... containment was clearly working

Sure, you have the confidence to say that now, after Saddam had been toppled. I wonder what you were saying before then?

No matter though, I know what the Democrats were saying before the war. And here's a hint, they were not saying containment was "working" ...

There were saying things like this;

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability.

Robert Byrd, October 2002

"The target was there, the op was late."

(from memory, so pardon me if I have the exact words wrong, but it gets the sentiment)

Three months dickering with the UN, and our allies in GB who were trying to maintain peace with their lovable neighbors the French and the Germans was more than enough time for Saddam to smuggle the weapons else where. Be they, anthrax in 5 pound bags or nukes that go in the end of medium range missles.

Saddam had to be taken out BEFORE he got working weapons, not after, which was the whole POINT of GWB's speech to the US.

And the links to terrorist organization are there to see if you haven't already made up your mind that Saddam wouldn't have worked with terrorists because of a religious disagreement.

 There are quite a few logical fallacies in your comment, along with several historical distortions - the British actually fired quite a few shots in maintaining their Empire, for example. But let me propose an alternate scenario.

 Let's assume that the American government really was interested in esablishing a long-term and just peace throughout the Middle East. Now the main flashpoint in the region is the still unresolved question of Palestinian statehood, although the Israelis have taken a step in that direction by withdrawing from Gaza. Do you think they would have done so had Saddam had still been in power? Better, what would  have prevented a Palestinian state from inviting Saddam from establishing a military relationship with this new state, perhaps by installing bases there?

 The road to peace in the Middle East always meant going through Baghdad. T.E. Lawrence, who knew more about Arabs than any Westerner of the 20th century, wrote about it as early as 1920. Like many then, some people just have trouble reading maps, geographical or political.

 Of course, if it really was all about the oil, as Bush I and Clinton apparently thought, as do you, it seems, there's little else to say.  

Agree with your comment and will elaborate a bit by adding that we were completely caught off guard by the advancement of the previous nuke program.  Who was willing to swear that we knew everything this time?

BTW, gamecock, that keyboard of yours is going to drive me insane.  I believe you may have a gremlin in there, and you know how I am with grammar/spelling/etc.   :)

to get a new computer at home. It's not the keyboard. That was the NEW keyboard. I'm at the office now. So until I get a new home computer, I'll restrict my comments to when I am at the office.

god bless madam webster

Will the boss let you post on RS from work?

I'm a lawyer. I ran my own firm for 12 years. I am now pres/ceo of a corp I own 100% of, and am VP and counsel of two corps that I own a minority interst in. I also do some outside legal work on an ad hoc basis. And I am the legal editor of an Atlanta area legal orgam weekly and write 4-10 columns per month.

Then, I go home and lie down.

god bless

comments are specious at best.  They were making these comments based on the information provided to them.  If you think that they were looking at the same intelligence the White House saw...well, let's just say there's this bridge I'd like to sell you.

So what is your contention?  Were WMD the only resaon for the invasion of Iraq?..Do you think the groundswell of support at the time was based on that one thing?  Is shooting at coalition aircraft your idea of being "nuetered"?

Try remembering everything.

They were making these comments based on the information provided to them.

I see you're rather ignorant of the role the Congressional Intelligence Committees play in the nation's security. Here's a hint; they are no way near as feeble as you obviously think they are. It is quite frankly, illegal as heck for the CIA and others to hide information from the Intelligence Committees.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now, a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

William J. Clinton, February 17, 1998

As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

Note that these are statements from before Bush's first inauguration. Or do you think the Bush Administration provided the information to Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi? In 1998?

Keep the bridge. Chances are that you believe you can actually sell it ...

He bombed whatever facilities they had to smithereens (which you likely know is the context of Pelosi's comments)...oh wait...you're right...we had a blow job to worry about...he was just wagging the dog.

It was not necessary to depose a dictator that posed no immediate threat to the US.  And we learned this weekend that any evidence that he was a threat was based on a "probable fabricator".

since the primary purpose of going to war has turned out to be bogus we are up to what...20-25 reasons for going to war?

Americans supported the war because they believed Bush when he said Saddam was connected to Al Queda and was working on nuclear weapons.  

Find me 51% of Americans who would send our soldiers to die so the Iraqi people would be free...please...I want to see who they are.

That means they are all billable hours, too.  Huh?  :-)

Seriously, I recently quit my job and started a small business.  I like being the boss, but I miss a steady check and wish I had more customers.  Things build up kinda slowly.  At least I can post on RS while I'm waiting.

Thanks, I'm glad you think you can speak for why the American people supported the war.  Your one  heck of a guru.  Many people, elected and not, made decisions based upon a pattern of behavior, events that actually took place, and projected actions based on all above.

Do me a favor, base your comments on what you think, and can support.

And by the way, nice way to frame an issue.  Keep throwing the deaths of American soldiers against the wall.  Your views and comments continue to become meaningless.

Secretary Powell: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

So containment, using this arms control sanctions regime, I think has been reasonably successful. We have not been able to get the inspectors back in, though, to verify that, and we have not been able to get the inspectors in to pull up anything that might be left there. So we have to continue to view this regime with the greatest suspicion, attribute to them the most negative motives, which is quite well-deserved with this particular regime, and roll the sanctions over, and roll them over in a way where the arms control sanctions really go after their intended targets -- weapons of mass destruction -- and not go after civilian goods or civilian commodities that we really shouldn't be going after, just let that go to the Iraqi people. That wasn't the purpose of the oil-for-food program. And by reconfiguring them in that way, I think we can gain support for this regime once again.

Political leaders of both parties had stated numerous times, and unequivocally, that Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMDs. They had been saying this for years. It was the best intelligence anyone had.

The despicable cretins who come around now to say that this was all "Bush's lies" are among the lowest forms of life I have ever encountered. Their agenda is beneath contempt.

without the support of the majority of Americans?

I actually quit high school (so did Thomas Sowell!), worked in a cotton mill for 2 years but went back to college on a GED and aced it in a zealous mission to make sure I could work for me. I love the freedom. But along with it comes the stress that may cut years off!

I actually never was billable hours lawyer. I was a trial lawyer for years for crime, injury, divorce, med malp and prod liability. I charged flat fees for all but the PI cases, which were contingency fees. I go burnt out though by chasing grandmas on soc sec check day to pay accused crack dealer's fees; dealing with sorry wives and husbands whose whole lives were wrapped up in revenge w/o regard to the children and sore necks people thought were worth millions.

Good luck with the business.

Thoughtless, ill-aimed one line comments.

Just saying.

support any evidence that this war would have the support of Americans if it had been based on 'spreading freedom'?  Your deflection of the point the last time is noted.

since some need help extrapolating is:

The name calling commences.  

When you can't answer the criticism...marginalize the critic.

Would I? Doesn't matter what I would do.  You and others are trying to make points and debate an event looking at one or two issues surrounding the problem.  At the time of the begining of the war, there were many things leading elected leaders, and the American public to believe that was the best course of action. Period. Even if no WMD's were found, the belief by many on both sides was that this was the best thing to do.

Now, you and others want to blaze the torch of "no wmd".  Fine.  Many other people see that is only part of the larger reason for getting SH out of power.

I just figured it couldn't have anything to do with the merits of the prior comment, as the prior comment made a substantive point only to get a Neener in reply.

Ah, well. Nick should know better than to wrestle with pigs by now.

I deal in reality and fact. Coulda and woulda I leave to others.  Thanks.

Nice WMD bob-and-weave. Care to comment on the suggestion that the WH exaggerated the degree to which Iraq and al-Qaeda were involved, as well as Iraq's nuclear capabilities?

Thanks...this is a useful tool to learn and express.  I can't see anything useful from Critical.  

Cheers

Now, if you have links to that effect, we're all ears.

the name calling continues!  The 'substantive' part of the previous comment was redress from upthread.  The 'best intelligence' we had didn't take us to war until Bush started touting the nuclear threat and Al Queda connection...which was not true.

In  the beginning of 2003, the US was fresh from taking  down Afghanistan (the graveyard of communism).  It had taken us a couple of months and around a dozen casualties.  The US military was perceived to be the most powerful military force on earth. We were unstoppable.  Osama was a loser hiding in a cave. Every enemy in the world was afraid of us.  Our allies were all behind us.  

As long as our forces were not pinned down in combat operations, they were a threat to North Korea, Iran and Iraq.  We were in a position much like Britain in the last half of the 19th century.  They imposed a Pax Britannica by rarely firing a shot. We could have done the same. We could attack anywhere in the world and win quickly.

Why, it would have been Utopia!!1!

Tell me - where do you think all the Jihadists would have gone had we not invaded Iraq?

I'll give you a hint - they all would have congregated in Pakistan, on the border with Afghanistan.

There is every reason to believe that, had we not entered Iraq, all of the Jihadist energies would have gone into the one single front: Afghanistan. IOW, it's likely that fighting in Afghanistan would be much worse, had we not gone into Iraq.

And there's no telling what might have happened to the Pakistani government had this scenario played out.

Bottom line: it's to our advantage to make the Jihadists fight a two-front war.

And we'd gain almost no benefit from not invading Iraq to make the Euors happy (now: in fire-engine red!!).

we have Cheney saying it was "pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."

Which we know was far from concerned.  Of course, don't ask Cheney about it.  They already tried on CNBC in the Washington Post:

June 17, 2004. Vice President Cheney talking to CNBC's Gloria Borger.

Borger: "Well, let's go to MohamedAtta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, 'pretty well confirmed.' "

Cheney: "No, I never said that."

Borger: "Okay."

Cheney: "Never said that."

Nope...Cheney's not a liar.

should we have "contained" them?

Would it have been OK to pre-empt them before 911 based on past behavior?

Saddam did have contacts with al qaida and other terrorists. He OPENLY harboured one of the 1993 WTC bombing conspirators that escaped the US. He paid suicide bomber families on TV.

The post-911 GWOT congressional resolution declared war on any country that aids terrorists.

Saddam was was on the terror sponsor list for 10 years.

Clinton tied Saddam to UBL HIMSELF for the Sudan bombing and gave great speches and evidence of their contacts many of which are recounted in the 911 and bipartisan senate commissions, and

IN MANY PUBLISHED BOOKS BEFORE 911.

The BIG LIE  on MSM is liberal fantasy land.

I do admit that Bush has not defended the against the lies enough, even in the 2004 campaign, but maybe he's wiser than me

because HE WON ANYWAY

I guess because he knows that his voters and most Americans haven't forgotten Saddam's behavior for 10 years, 911 and the fact that he was openly defying us post 911, when we could no longer afford to send a paper tiger message of weakness to would be islam-facists.

Now, the whole world knows we will kill our enemies before they kill us.

Maybe we are even past the point where public statements by leftist appeasers embolden the enemy very much, as it gives us all the more opportunities to denounce same and debunk same and give our enemies fresh new evidences of our determination outlast them.

You sure got me on that one.

And that's not the most hotly disputed piece of intel in the universe or anything. Good call on that one.

Are you saying that the elected officals were duped?...is it your contention that Repubs and Dems, all were misled by the White House?

The vice-president is not the White House?  You know I'm talking about the White House as administrative offices/policy makers and not residence, right?

What's this, "despicable cretins" is a "name?" How is that not an accurate characterization of people who would twist facts into a pretzel in order to further their political agenda? Is that not despicable? Are such people not cretins? Would you have preferred the more politically-correct "mental defectives?"

You could read the WaPo links, and ThinkProgress has ever-so-helpfully put together a list that I'm sure you'll enjoy. Might also look up Niger, aluminum tubes, and mushroom cloud...

Perhaps it would be helpful if you clarified up front just what exactly you think I said the WH said that the WH didn't say, to avoid confusion later.

between the perception that Iraq had WMD (wrong, but common) and the perception that Iraq had active involvement with al-Qaeda and was a nuclear threat (wrong, and less common).

what's been twisted?

by Nick.

no offense, but this doesn't mean I necessarily agree with your POV either.

my POV?

what POV is...what do you think my POV is?

But, you mentioned "exagerated"  the degree in regards to both of those.

Sounds like you think our officals wern't able to make the case on their own.

I can tell you that as a non elected person, just a news /politcal junkie, even I could see a true reason for removing SH.  Can you not?

Not looking or a fight, just wondering if you , on your own, can put together events that did happen, making a case that SH had to be dealt with.  I think with out the White House,many people were able to.

as ending the tyranny of Saddam, I think there would have been more support from the left (although perhaps less from the right). Dunno that war was necessary, mind you, just that one could make a principled liberal case for intervention.  

Find me 51% of Americans who would send our soldiers to die so the Iraqi people would be free...please...I want to see who they are.

I think a lot of Americans want the Iraqi people to be free despite the cost, and I don't think it's good to mix criticism of the selling and execution of the war with isolationist rhetoric.

You used the term "bogus" to describe the "primary purpose of going to war." Bogus implies deceit or fraud. To claim now that all these statements by officials of both parties, in the White House and in Congress, going back years, were "deceitful" or "fraudulent" is either twisted, or grotesquely paranoid.

To say that our intelligence agencies were "mistaken" may be accurate. But to claim intent to deceive on the part of all these officials who relied on them is just nuts. To narrow the list of officials who said these things to Bush Administration figures is itself bogus, and despicable.

and easier to respond to now that you've come off your dismissive highhorse.

I think the primary reason given to drum up support for the war was not the nebulous WMD issue, but the 'grave and growing' nuclear threat and the al Queada connection.  To whit, those were both bogus charges.  You can throw around old WMD quotes, but they do not address the administrations manipulation of language and data to play on peoples' greatest fears.

Would someone please confront these Democrats with this wonderfully inconvenient fact?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

that such an argument would have increased support from liberals...me included.  My point, though is that most Americans would not have gone along.  I think there is a strong isolationist current in the country.

The WH did exaggerate, based on the available evidence and the CIA/DIA/ISIS interpretation of the data, both the degree to which Iraq and al-Qaeda were actively involved and the threat of Iraq obtaining nuclear capability.

As I mentioned above, I think there are certainly principled cases that could be (and were) made to remove Saddam. That doesn't change these particular bits of overselling by the WH. Nor does it alter Nick having responded to a convenient strawman rather than the point raised, which is the reason I felt compelled to intrude on the thread.

I wish we were doing more about Darfur.

One other thought...if your thesis is correct and there would be support for 'freedom' I don't think there would be such an increase in the number of people claiming the war is 'not worth it'.  That is the prevailing selling point right now...if the message were ringing true one would think polls would reflect more support.

I tend to take Presidential speeches as pretty determinative, because only news junkies pay attention to what lower level folks say.

And what you cite isn't Bush exaggerating anything, just passing on intel that we now know was wrong.

Verbs are everything. Even transitive ones.

No intrusion, as far as I'm concerned.

I just think that while the WH may have oversold this or that, the act of removal is far beyond justified.  

It's hard to fathom that people think our elected reps were led astray.

gotta run...cheers    

That's not exactly newsworthy, is it. Sorry.

But the vice president is not the president. It may also astound you to learn that the President is the only barometer for the pronouncements of the White House. I'll lend some stretch to official spokesmen, of whom the Vice President is not, Constitutionally, one.

Did you read any of the links? They had in hand assessments from the CIA, DIA, ISIS, etc that the evidence presented as fact was questionable at best. The most charitable interpretation is that they consistently chose to emphasize the worse-case scenario. Exaggerate doesn't mean lie, it means overstate.

I disagree that only news junkies pay attention to what folks like Cheney, Powell, and Rice say, but I don't see that has anything to do with whether or not they exaggerated.

Good point, people sometimes use "WH" as shorthand when they really should spell out exactly who they mean.

Lawyers...

Say, "orientate," and butcher the language in a thousand different ways, none of which are correct.

Nor is that use of "White House."

Your sudden concern for the language is endearing.

as has been now confirmed, CONFIRMED:

libi has now been entirely discredited.  the WHIG's main source for establishing an al-qeada - iraq connection, was fabricating stories and intentionally misleading the debriefers.

perpetuate this myth any further.

you mean by Carl Levin's talking points, yes.

If you by confirmed you mean something more substantial than one opinion of the many emanating from the DIA then no.

And please drop the moonbat talking points. This is a Republican board, we'll use our talking points when, and as frequently, as we wish especially when they have the added virtue of being true.

Tell you what, we can drop them when the Dems drop the nonsense that being wrong is the same as lying.

Don't blame me because I don't have time to police these boards for every failure of the language.

When addressing beams in eyes, it's best not to gouge yourself in the process.

that the only way the president delivers the administration 'message' is through official 'Presidential speeches'...if that is what you think, then you really are a silly head.

But the only way the White House delivers an official message is through the President or someone specifically deputized to speak on his behalf, like, oh, a spokesman or press secretary. Properly speaking, if every pronouncement of every elected and executive-appointed official is a Presidential pronouncement, then every White House has severe schizophrenia.

And they also had in hand intel that said the other things.

I'd much, much, much rather hear the worst case scenario than hear, "Well, look, we have some people saying it's probably not so bad, and some people saying it is probably so bad, so really, we're just gonna wait and see what happens. We'll get back to you the next time a major American city has a smoking crater sitting in its downtown. My fellow Americans: Good night."

That's what's artificial about this debate: You are pretending, somewhat dishonestly, that the intelligence community was uniformly saying, "Might be a problem, but probably not." Anyone -- and since we're now assuming non-news junkies watch everything that passes by, everyone -- knew there were questions and concerns and conflicts. Bush made a decision, that I fully expect you disagree with, to assume the worst and run with it. I cannot for the life of me fault him for that; and any statement that Bush said, "the threat is now imminent" is so patently dishonest as to merit an end to the conversation. (I'm just cutting that one off at the pass.)

I dunno how you manage to address the substance of my posts at all, what with all the "WH" and "judgement" stumbling blocks to comprehension that I throw up there. But I sure appreciate the help.

Err, is "dunno" allowed?

Can I start a sentence with a conjunction if I ask politely?

And given that you haven't actually made any substantive point on this thread to date, don't worry: We're not even past the motion to dismiss stage yet.

(1) Intelligence is obtained, interpreted

(2) More data and more interpretation leads to questions being raised about the reliability of the evidence: ISIS with the aluminum tubes, CIA with Niger, DIA with al-Libi, etc.

(3) WH sticks with (1) despite it being superceded by (2)

This isn't hard: check the dates, check the data. Google away! The aluminum tubes, how did they compare to rocket tubes purchased previously? How did they compare to gas centrifuges used by Iraq circa 1990? Niger, what was the status of the mines suggested as the source of the yellowcake? Al-Qaeda connections, what did the FBI say about Atta's whereabouts in 2001? How did the DIA assess al-Libi's statements?

It's not like we're doing this in a vacuum, either: we now know the status of these claims. The WH was told the evidence was weak and -- surprise -- it turns out the claims were wrong. Gee, who could possibly have guessed, with so many conflicting opinions being thrown around?

In science, I don't get to ignore the evidence I don't like and only use the bits that support my theory, or pretend there is a consensus when there is significant disagreement. That would be dishonest for me; for the WH, I'm only suggesting it was exaggeration. If they wanted to make a case that hey, we think the worst-case scenario is bad enough that even given these significant doubts, we should invade to be safe, that would have been one thing, but that's not at all the case that was made with respect to al-Qaeda connections or nuclear ambitions.

how cooking the books on Al Queda or WMD makes even the remotest degree of sense?

Let's dissect this: President, Vice President, Secretaries of State and Defense makes argument to Congress and the people that Saddam has WMD all the while knowing that:

a) this is an enormous lie;

b) the entire world will know it's a lie almost immediately after the end of the war;

c) lying to the Congress to go to war probably qualifies as an impeachable offense;

d) if not impeached the chances of blatantly lying to the American public to take the country to war and getting re-elected a year down the road are somewhat less than those of a snowball in hell.

Now you may think that GWB is not smart enough to come in out of the rain, but do you actually think that everyone in the administration is a complete and utter moron, including the quasi-Republican darling of the liberal establishment Colin Powell?

nuclear threat and the al Queada connection. To whit, those were both bogus charges

"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, 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."

In what way is that statement bogus?

I wanna play too!

We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. How did we learn that? What was the status of that intelligence at the time the President gave this speech?

Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. How did we learn that? What was the status of that intelligence at the time the President gave this speech?

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. Multiple choice: which country hostile to the US was most likely at the time to develop the capability to create a mushroom cloud? (a) Iraq (b) Iran (c) North Korea

Special bonus question: what statement did the CIA insist be cut from this speech because it wasn't reliable? Was a variant of that statement used in another speech later?

Cheney goes on Meet the Press to...what...have a nice Sunday chat?  The words of the vice president on a major public stage are completely independent of the administration?  

Whatever...

Brendan, are you insisting that the leadership of the country deliberately lied to us?

They outright lied. They stood right there in front of God and Ted Kennedy and lied --- knowing full well that the entire world would know it was a lie within a week after the victory. They are not only liars they are stupid.

Ya sure, you betcha Sven ...

Throw out your quote du jour to 'prove' your point...don't address a substantive rejoinder...then wield your spidey web power to toss somebody because you can?

Way.

Now, rising from the puddle in which you've immersed yourself, despite my suspicion that your inability to perceive fixed rules of English is related to your inability to perceive fixed rules of Catholicism, let me try it this way:

By your logic, whenever the Secretary or Cabinet level position of an administration speaks, it speaks for the administration. While a convenient literary device, and without ever denying that it all rests at the President's feet, it is disingenuous at best to pretend all of these powerful egos speak with a single voice, or indeed, that more than minimal efforts are made to keep everyone on message. It's useful, I suppose, if you want to demonize "the White House," but counterproductive when trying to live in this reality.

Unless you think that Bill Clinton firebombed the Branch Davidians, praised the North Koreans for a happy and productive society, compared global warming to the Night of Broken Glass, and suggested public education in the joys of masturbation -- and if you do, then I applaud your consistency, though certainly not your intellectual acumen -- then we need to speak more precisely when having this discussion.

No. I said they exaggerated.

If you would confine yourself to debating the issues actually raised instead of hacking at strawmen, this thread would be about 50 comments shorter.

So how'd you do on the test?

That is the goofiest thing I have read all night...thanks for the laugh

when were we discussing the rules of English or Catholicism?

and I was talking about the vice president...not a cabinet secretary.  I think the constitution says something about there being more significance to the vice president than the secretary of labor, but I could be wrong.

Can't you people stay on topic?

(1) Intelligence is obtained, interpreted

(2) More data and more interpretation leads to questions being raised about the reliability of the evidence: ISIS with the aluminum tubes, CIA with Niger, DIA with al-Libi, etc.

(3) WH sticks with (1) despite it being superceded by (2)

Yes, because we don't trust our intel services alone. CIA has been near useless since the fall of the Soviet Union, and was only slightly better from the Church Commission onward. But, as we're using Google as a club, I'm sure you can find which foreign intelligence services were saying curious things about tubes, uranium, and so on. Some of them even opposed invading Iraq.

Niger, what was the status of the mines suggested as the source of the yellowcake?

Niger is in Africa. Africa is not in Niger.

It's not like we're doing this in a vacuum, either: we now know the status of these claims. The WH was told the evidence was weak and -- surprise -- it turns out the claims were wrong. Gee, who could possibly have guessed, with so many conflicting opinions being thrown around?

As we're playing the hindsight game, how many CIA and NSC analyses graded the fall of the Soviet Union between 1990 and 1992, made in 1988 or 1989, at greater than 33%? Ooh! Wayback machine! How many intel products said that the Soviets would have thermonuclear weapons within five years of ours? When, relative to the invasion of Grenada, did CIA share its maps of Grenada with the Army and Marines? I could go on. Ad nauseam.

I am not, and have never been, a consumer of intelligence products. Those I know who have been -- proponents and opponents of the Iraq War -- will be the first to tell you that conflicting intelligence is not exactly the newest thing under the sun. Cruddy intel is not, and cannot be, a bar to executive action, with the smoking crater in Manhattan less than two years old. That some specific points were in debate neither changes the general thrust of everyone's thoughts on Iraq -- he either has (likely) or can easily make (certain) chemical and biological agents, and he has the capacity to ramp up to nukes (likely).

Sorry. This is the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking. I gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt on the aspirin factories, because second guessing every time the executive blows things up is a good way to end up with Jimmy Carter.

In science, I don't get to ignore the evidence I don't like and only use the bits that support my theory, or pretend there is a consensus when there is significant disagreement.

Now, admittedly, I'm pretty much the only non-scientist in my family, but if memory serves from my flirtation with the hard sciences, I do get to treat deviant data points as suspicious. If the general data trend lies in one direction, it may not be a great idea to simply accept the outliers as indicative of a different trend. Which is, post hoc, what you're demanding they do here.

I add, though this should be obvious, that intuiting human behavior with highly imperfect information is considerably trickier than determining the position and velocity of gas molecules in a constrained space under set energetic conditions.

If they wanted to make a case that hey, we think the worst-case scenario is bad enough that even given these significant doubts, we should invade to be safe, that would have been one thing, but that's not at all the case that was made with respect to al-Qaeda connections or nuclear ambitions.

Nice caveat at the end. You're still short. The President's speeches in the eighteen month rush to war are almost always hedged at some level with "this isn't imminent yet, but I can't wait until it's imminent -- the danger is too great."

You've decided that the Executive vests in the President and Vice President. Either you're mad, trolling, or have reading comprehension issues. I'm open to any of these.

But, as you have nothing substantive to add (or at least, substantive in this reality), I suspect we're done here.

gotcha statement to end the discussion?

Boy did you tell me.

I'm returning late to this party, but Thomas, isn't your last sentence the key to this debate?  That what Bush (and Cheney et al) saw in the intel was worth betting the farm--or rather the second term--over?  I think Rumsfeld said something along the lines of "that's not a gun we want to see smoking"--I know this is a cabinet level secretary speaking, but to my mind that's the point--that we couldn't--and haven't--let that gun go off.

And I still don't see the viable and preferable alternative scenario.

If you're not able to actually discuss any of the specifics, why bother replying? The closest you got was Niger is in Africa. Africa is not in Niger. -- the sort of flip statement that someone who hasn't read any background on the CIA reports, British intelligence reports, or uranium production capabilities of Somalia, DRC, etc would think makes profound sense.

I think it's sort of sad that all this massive outrage is in response to my well-sourced suggestion that the WH exaggerated the degree of active collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda and the nuclear threat posed by Iraq. I didn't say anyone lied, didn't suggest the WMD intelligence was spun, didn't say we shouldn't have invaded. You and Nick have accused me of saying things I clearly didn't say, suggested I was being dishonest, and consistently refused to engage in substantive discussion of any specific points.

I guess I should be directing the "why bother?" query to myself.

I think it's sort of sad that all this massive outrage is in response to my well-sourced suggestion that the WH exaggerated the degree of active collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda and the nuclear threat posed by Iraq. I didn't say anyone lied, didn't suggest the WMD intelligence was spun, didn't say we shouldn't have invaded. You and Nick have accused me of saying things I clearly didn't say, suggested I was being dishonest, and consistently refused to engage in substantive discussion of any specific points.

I think it's sort of sad that all this massive outrage is in response to Nick's and Thomas's well-reasoned suggestion that you're exaggerating the degree to which WMD-related intelligence was given as the reason for the war.  They didn't say you lied, didn't suggest you were spinning, and didn't say that you said we shouldn't invade.  You have accused them of saying things they clearly didn't say, suggested they are being dishonest, and consistently refuse to engaged in substantive discussion of any specific points.

You do have a cute "Free Mumia!" style tagline,  though.

And what happened after Clinton said this? ... He bombed whatever facilities they had to smithereens ...

Strangely enough, Clinton himself was clearly not quite as sure as you are that he was indeed successful in bombing "whatever facilities they had to smithereens ..."

When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president [George W. Bush] to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.
Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003

It was not necessary to depose a dictator that posed no immediate threat to the US.

You only know that because the US invaded and took his boot off the necks of the Iraqi people (remember them?). Prior to the war, your side was fretting that he would let loose with chemical weapons on American servicemen.

Furthermore, Bush did explicitly say that he was no longer willing to wait until anybody became an immediate  threat before acting to neutralize whoever it is. As I recall, every single Democrat in the House and Senate stood up and applauded when he said so.

And we learned this weekend that any evidence that he was a threat was based on a "probable fabricator".

I guess in your world, where you are obviously an Intelligence expert, every single analyst across every single Intelligence agency comes to the exact same conclusion. Some DIA analysts thought he was a "probable" fabricator. The CIA, on the other hand, thought he was credible.

In case you need a little edjumactin'; intelligence work is not science and a 100% certainly is often impossible. A lot of conclusions are achieved by educated guesses and extrapolations and agreed to by consensus. So when you take into consideration that it was not just the Intelligence agencies of the United States, but the Intelligence agencies of the entire Western world that independently reached the same consensus conclusions about Saddam since before 21 January 2001, to keep spouting off that Bush lied borders on the stupid.

Are you that stupid?

PS: Clinton was wagging the dog in some way ... but I do not recall any Republican screaming that Clinton was framing poor innocent Saddam Hussein, who actually had never ever ever had any weapons of mass destruction. Last I checked, no Republican stood up to accuse Clinton of lying when he called Saddam Hussein a threat.

The 'best intelligence' we had didn't take us to war until Bush started touting the nuclear threat and Al Queda connection ... which was not true.

So,I guess you are saying that the Bush Administration "manipulated" the Intelligence received by Madeline Albright? In 1998?

Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports [going back to 1998] 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, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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.
Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

As for the Al Qaeda connection ... This is from the 1998 indictment of Osama Bin Laden presented to the United States Southern District Court of New York.

... al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

It's amazing how the Bush Administration managed to give Janet Reno's Justice Department all that information on Al Qaeda's relationship with Saddam Hussein's government.

In 1998.

This is from the 1998 indictment of Osama Bin Laden presented to the United States Southern District Court of New York.

... al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

I guess the Bush Administration is guilty of exaggerating "the degree of active collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda" ...

In 1998.

you have completed the circle.  You began by wondering if I thought you were idiots...and now you are asking if I am stupid.

Setting up straw men just to knock them down and launching invectives might make you feel good, but it doesn't help change any minds.

Thanks for a very revealing interchange.

Are you done now? We used to spend a fair amount of time around here rebutting Democrat talking points. We have found since cutting back on it that the discussions here improved considerably in virtually every dimension. In addition, the sort of people we had hoped to attract started coming here in larger numbers; in fact dramatically larger numbers. So we have much less tolerance for this sort of thing than we used to.

Which is to say that if you continue to spout Democrat talking points and behave as though we have some duty to rebut them, we will probably toss you on The Pile just for being in the way. There's no offense meant by it; it's just that this is a Republican Community. We have a Party to build, issues to discuss, and elections to win. Entertaining interlopers is not really conducive to making progress in those endeavors. It was great fun for a while, but the market appears to be rewarding us handsomely for getting rid of it.

So consider this your notice that you have had your one turn in the barrel demanding rebuttal to Democrat talking points. Further activities in this direction will force us to show you the door. Fiddling with Democrats is not what our members come here for, and it's not what they want.

Looks like this went on for a while.  For what it's worth, I wouldn't call you stupid, more stubborn and pig headed.

Last thought...Brenn98's belief on exageration of facts might hold water, might not. I tend to see Martins point more, as intel is not always 100%.  My view is what does it matter?...Exagerated intel or not (about WMD)there was still a case for action.  To think that our Senators and Congressmen took some thing hook, line and sinker, and were misled is bunk.  Senate Intel Comm is made up of what?...Dems and Repubs?..I think so.  Talking about lies, and misleading the public is just plain crap.  The case was there regardless..and people who don't see it that way are opportunists, and politically motivated.

Thomas, ..I referred to myself as a new/political junkie only to say I try to stay current, and well read.  I don't have to depend on a Pres., Dem.or Rep. to make judgements and opinions.  Quite honestly, I think all 8 Presidents I've lived under have lied and exagerated at some point.  Hence, I didn't need to hear what GWB had to say about intel,wmd's, whatever. At that point, I didn't need to be sold.    

You came here all high and mighty pretending that nobody ever said anything about Iraq having or pursuing WMD except for the Bush Administration.

I pointed out that Democrats (including Intelligence Committee members) have said the exact same thing. Then you preposterously claimed that they were only operating on information given to them by the White House, unbeknownst to you that they have oversight power over the CIA and therefore can get information directly, without going through the White House.

I then helped you out by enlightening you of the statements made by Clinton Administration officials in the 1990s before Bush had even won the GOP nomination. You somehow tried to make it about oral sex in the Oval Office. And then you apparently claimed that everyone knew that Clinton had destroyed all of Iraq's WMD capability during Desert Storm. I then quoted Bill Clinton himself saying that he had no way of knowing if that was the case.

Then, of course, you decided to highlight the al-Libi stuff Levin kindly provided his friends at the New York Times effectively trying to imply, like the New York Times is doing, that dissenting opinions on Intelligence analysis is anything but common. DIA and CIA disagreed on al-Libi. Big deal. This happens all the time. There are 13-15 Intelligence agencies in the United States. Do you actually believe that their analysts usually come to the exact same conclusions?

You also tried to pretend that nobody ever thought Saddam wanted to get nuclear weapons or ever had anything to do with Al Qaeda until the Bush Administration came along. I provided you quotes from Democrats about Saddam and his nuclear ambitions and Osama Bin Laden's indictment which explicitly stated that Al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq had a much closer relationship. The kicker was that these were statements from before 01/21/2001. You chose to ignore them.

In other words, you are a mendacious little character ... and so I was never interested in changing your (already made up) mind. But as for the truly open-minded who are reading this exchange ...

Do you know when the agreement you're discussing was reached, and why, and what concrete "weapons development" projects it resulted in? And, just for kicks, which side Bin Laden offered military aid to a year later?

Wanna talk about Atta? al-Libi? al-Islam? The Bush administration provided specifics that were based on questionable evidence.

you didn't read any of the other comments on this thread, and yet you've managed to unwittingly capture the essence of the problem here.

I'm not talking about WMD-related intelligence, just specifically about active al-Qaeda collaboration and nuclear threat level. Nick's initial disingenuous conflation of the issues notwithstanding, there is a wee bit of a distinction there.

I also never discussed what the reason for the war was, or whether it was justified. Oops, not quite true: I said that there are certainly principled cases that could be (and were) made to remove Saddam. Gosh, and I also said I think a lot of Americans want the Iraqi people to be free despite the cost.

I'm glad you like my tagline.

I didn't realize I had such power to 'force' anybody to write anything.  I haven't reviewed every word, but I just can't seem to find any instance where I 'demanded' anybody say anything. It seems to me that the "market" should take care of things instead of big brother having to threaten and (presumably) follow through with 'banning' people.

I'll repeat that this was very revealing.  RedStaters were more than happy to hurl insults, cherry-pick old quotes, and show a blatant disregard for any concern that the administration got it right instead of how they wanted it.

Enlightening.

Like Thomas, you are mixing up the timeline to make it appear everyone's opinion was equally valid. Which came first, the interrogation of al-Libi or the verification of his claims? What specific details did he provide that were convincing as to the authenticity of his claims? How does the CIA feel about his claims now, and why?

You also tried to pretend that nobody ever thought Saddam wanted to get nuclear weapons

Wanted? Starting to realize you can't make any sort of case for was a threat to obtain nuclear capability and decided to fallback to wanted?!

or ever had anything to do with Al Qaeda

Hey, another one! Which of these countries have "ever had anything to do" with al-Qaeda? Sudan, Pakistan, Somalia, Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Chechnya, etc...

explicitly stated that Al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq had a much closer relationship

See here for just how close that relationship was.

But as for the truly open-minded who are reading this exchange ...

I used to think there were some of those out there too.

It seems to me that the "market" should take care of things instead of big brother having to threaten and (presumably) follow through with 'banning' people.

It seems to me that you should start your own website and do things in the manner in which you please. Especially since you won't be posting here anymore. See the Life is Not Fair Principle™.

Enlightening.

And I hope that you carry this enlightenment with you forever, as a memento of your time here.

Toodles.

I'm not talking about WMD-related intelligence, just specifically about active al-Qaeda collaboration and nuclear threat level.

Odd.  I think most people would put nuclear weapons in the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" category, so I'm not sure how you reconcile talking about nuclear capability intelligence with your claim that you weren't talking about WMD intelligence.

I also never discussed what the reason for the war was, or whether it was justified.

Right.  Except for where you did.  (As you yourself point out.)

I take it you didn't read any of the other comments on this thread

I read them, but unfortunately I didn't have the secret decoder ring required to see that you what you said wasn't actually what you said, as your latest reply indicates.  

I do appreciate you making it clear that without such a device there's no point in addressing what you have to say, though.

I think most people would put nuclear weapons in the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" category, so I'm not sure how you reconcile talking about nuclear capability intelligence with your claim that you weren't talking about WMD intelligence.

I was discussing a sub-category, and only that sub-category, and WMD covers more than nukes. I don't appreciate being lumped in with "No WMD!" and "Bush lied!" caricatures. Also, I didn't discuss the role this intelligence played in the case for war, whether large or small.

Right.  Except for where you did.  (As you yourself point out.)

You misunderstood. I never discussed reasons for the war, as you said. I did discuss whether it was justified, even though you didn't bring it up, and I provided those quotes to illustrate that perhaps my position is a little more nuanced than you give me credit for.

I read them, but unfortunately I didn't have the secret decoder ring required to see that you what you said wasn't actually what you said, as your latest reply indicates.

All you (or anyone) has to do to get me to shut up is illustrate that in the specific cases I've mentioned the WH didn't exaggerate the degree of active collaboration between al-Qaeda or the nuclear threat posed by Iraq.

Good luck with that.

... lied to a Federal Grand Jury in obtaining this indictment?

PS: Questionable does not mean they lied or exaggerated. The Czechs still maintain that Atta was in Prague and al-Libi was considered credible by the CIA even if the DIA came to a different, if equivocal conclusion.

Intelligence is never a 100% and chances are, after 9/11, threats, no matter how obscure were taken a lot more seriously. After all, how believable was it on 09/10/2001 that planes were going to be used as bombs on American citizens

that means no, you don't.

P.S. I never said lied, and I don't know why you are implying it is synonymous with exaggerate. Presenting questionable evidence without qualification is overstating your case; ie, exaggeration.

I know what you meant. I'm sorry. But the rest of the comment stands =)

All you (or anyone) has to do to get me to shut up is illustrate that in the specific cases I've mentioned the WH didn't exaggerate the degree of active collaboration between al-Qaeda or the nuclear threat posed by Iraq.

So all we have to do is meet some arbitrary standard that you set, using only the interpretation of data and events which you allow, to contradict your deeply held beliefs on this subject which have thus far proven impervious to reasoning and evidence.  

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

On second thought, I think I'll just stick with highlighting the contradictory nonsense you insist on posting about things like non-WMD nukes.

Neither is displayed in your post.

It must be nice to have an entrenched opinion on something without even a cursory knowledge of the specifics.

How does the CIA feel about his claims now, and why?

Note the word in bold. I call a hindsight usage violation. The important thing is what they thought about it then. Here's another question; how and when was al-Libi's information verified? Before or after the invasion?

Wanted? Starting to realize you can't make any sort of case for was a threat to obtain nuclear capability and decided to fallback to wanted?!

To be perfectly honest, I actually just used the word without it having any hidden meaning.

But, okay. Did US intelligence agencies have this much confidence that Saddam was not working on reconstituting his nuclear weapons program prior to the invasion? Remember again, that Saddam had been left alone without much scrutiny since 1998.

Which of these countries have "ever had anything to do" with al-Qaeda? Sudan, Pakistan, Somalia, Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Chechnya, etc ...

Which of these countries have ever used WMD on its own people and those of other nations? Which of these nations was in violation of 17 UN resolutions? Which of these countries was totally under an autocratic tyrant with a pathological hatred of the United States?

I used to think there were some of those out there too.

Monday morning quarterbacking does tend to get folk off the fence.

I call a hindsight usage violation. The important thing is what they thought about it then. Here's another question; how and when was al-Libi's information verified? Before or after the invasion?

My point is that the CIA formed their initial conclusions prior to the DIA analysis, were unable to substantiate anything al-Libi said (perhaps since he didn't provide any specifics), and were forced to withdraw reports based on his claims after he recanted. The last point isn't central to my claim that the information was unreliable at the time, just saying that especially (but not only) in retrospect it's a bit difficult to claim the initial CIA stance was a strong case. In other words, suggesting without qualification that Iraq was training al-Qaeda was an exaggeration.  

Did US intelligence agencies have this much confidence that Saddam was not working on reconstituting his nuclear weapons program prior to the invasion?

I dunno, it's hard to prove a negative, but that's not what I was arguing. I gave some specific instances where evidence known to be unreliable or inconclusive was presented as strong; was overstated, exaggerated. Like I said above, if they wanted to make the case that despite the questionable intelligence we needed to invade to be sure, that would have been different.

Which of these countries have ever used WMD on its own people and those of other nations? Which of these nations was in violation of 17 UN resolutions? Which of these countries was totally under an autocratic tyrant with a pathological hatred of the United States?

Separate case that I never quarreled with.

Monday morning quarterbacking does tend to get folk off the fence.

I realize you have no particular reason to believe this, but I've argued elsewhere with some liberals that it's not fair to evaluate the WMD case based on outcome, that you obviously have to go from the intelligence available at the time. Also, Saddam went out of his way to obscure the issue. So, again, this isn't my argument.

Cheers.

To the extent that I've dragged my discussion with others here and imposed it on you, apologies. My main point was just that "wanted" and "ever had anything to do with" set the bar conveniently low.