[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'm sorry I missed this earlier. You are focusing on 2002. I was focusing on the Clinton Administration and his quotes when he was in office. It's not like he felt Saddam was sufficiently tame to yank our military out back then when he could have. Before Bush was in office, the Dems felt he was a credible threat, and that he had WMDs. What changed once Bush got into office was 9/11, pure and simple. As I said, it changed everything. Yes, I believe Bush stays out of Iraq if 9/11 doesn't happen. But again, I can't prove a negative.

It's also not as if Clinton felt he was enough of a credible threat to invade the country, either.

After 1998, there remained the suspicion that he had WMDs, just that. This continued, clearly, through 2001, as evidenced by the quotes from Bush Administration officials below.

Again, if you're suggesting that we're justified in attacking any country whom we suspect has WMDs, then we're going to be really, really busy.

Anyway, what's more relevant, the situation in 1998 or the situation in 2002? How about 2001, for that matter?

MR. RUSSERT: Saddam Hussein, your old friend, his government had this to say: "The American cowboy is rearing the fruits of crime against humanity." If we determine that Saddam Hussein is also harboring terrorists, and there's a track record there, would we have any reluctance of going after Saddam Hussein?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have evidence that he's harboring terrorists?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is--in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No.

-September 16, 2001

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

-Colin Powell, February 24, 2001

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

-Condi Rice, July 29, 2001

So, 9/11 changed everything. What's more likely:

A) A bunch of guys, mostly from Saudi Arabia, crash planes into the Pentagon and the WTC and *poof* Iraq suddenly has the WMD and delivery capabilities the U.S. Government (and everyone else) felt certain it didn't have only a few months previously.

B) Shocked by 9/11, and annoyed by Hussein's comments, Bush (and others) decide to do whatever it takes to teach the tinpot dictator a lesson.

The answer is left as an exercise for the reader.