[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

We thought he had WMDs, the Clintons thought he had WMDs,

Why does it always come back to the Clintons? Look, the list of people who, in 2002, are on record as saying "Saddam has WMDs" is long, no one's going to deny that. But what else were they going to say? What evidence did they have to go on?

Answer: The evidence the Bush Administration was giving (notably via Colin Powell) in support of invading Iraq. Evidence that was later found to be:

• Heavily slanted in CIA reports that were largely authored by the "Office of Special Plans" set up by Dick Cheney in the Pentagon.
• Almost entirely based on the word of a single source, i.e. "Curve Ball", who was later found to be completely unreliable.
• Difficult even to pass the "sniff test" of Powell, who exploded when reading the first draft of his speech for the U.N.
• Contradicted by at least one major U.S. intelligence agency (the State Department's INR)

It does your argument no credit to say "well, the Clintons/Al Gore/random democrats agreed with Bush in 2002." At the time, these people were doing, ironically, what the Republicans have vilified them ever since circa 2004 for not doing, i.e. standing by their President in a time of crisis. And you wish to use this to support an argument about a decision that has since been shown to have been based on incorrect or fabricated evidence and seriously biased conclusions? Please rethink this.

the main objectors were those making money off him and so were voting their own personal gain

In his last briefing before the Security Council in 2003, Hans Blix reported that the Iraqis had cooperated to the point where his team had managed to review all the sites previously identified in the 90s. They were now at the stage in their investigation where, based on their last reports from 1998, which showed near-complete disarmament, they could postulate what Iraq could have developed in the interim and determine which areas (based on their knowledge and US/UK intelligence) to re-examine.

Blix specifically recommended this further investigation would only take on the order of a few months after which, assuming continuing Iraqi cooperation, he'd be able to make a comprehensive report on Iraq's current WMD state.

If you're a security council member state in 2003, do you a) embark on what could be a very messy war and occupation or b) wait a few more months for Blix to finish his report or Saddam to do something overt like throw the inspectors out again (which would allow you to do (a) with greater legitimacy)? All but 2 member states chose the latter. You can argue that they did it for financial gain, but it sounds more like common sense to me.

And even if they did do it for financial gain, the various reports that have since come out indicate that US-based companies and individuals benefited from the program at least as much as those from other countries. Further, there's considerable evidence that the US may have ignored activities that benefited key allies Jordan & Turkey during this time.

Using Oil-for-Food as an explanation for Russia & France's votes on the security council is a red herring. A disinclination to go into a messy war too hastily seems, on the evidence, considerably more likely.

FWIW, I think this is a fundamental dividing line in American politics today. To me, 9/11 did change everything, including how we view threats that have nothing to do with terrorism.

If only this were true! A statement like this suggests the implementation of a coherent and tough-minded foreign policy, especially as it relates to threats. We have no coherent policy. We sell F-16s to Pakistan, a known leaker of nuclear secrets (and probable leaker of nuclear technology and materials). We pull troops from an unfinished war in Afghanistan to start another war in Iraq, and end up with neither war doing well in 2007. We implement unprecented monitoring capabilities of dubious effectiveness for our own citizens.

9/11 meant we no longer take chances, period, as we were being attacked on our own soil.

9/11 meant the American public was frightened into giving their elected officials carte blanche to pursue all efforts necessary to secure the homeland. Countless subsequent reports and investigations, not to mention the majority of current public opinion, show that this trust was seriously misplaced.

As I must remind you, only last month, a new National Intelligence Estimate, compiled by the nation's intelligence agencies, concluded that we are now less safe than we were before 9/11.

We are not taking less chances, we are taking more.


Edit: I don't mean to single you out, Greg, but it's comments like those you make that really make me despair. I know you're intelligent and possess a good stock of common sense, so why can't you see that the path we've been on has been so wrong, both in intent and execution? And I know your opinion is shared by millions of Americans. It honestly and completely saddens me. I want the country and its citizens to be safe as much as you do, but this is not the way to do it. We can't let fear lead us down the road to irrational knee-jerk half-measures, but that's all the last 6 years has gotten us.