why was it we went to war?

[Docta]

Comments Revive Doubts Over Iraq Weapons

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

BRUSSELS, Belgium - European critics of the Iraq (news - web sites) war expressed shock Friday at published remarks by a senior U.S. official seen as playing down the importance of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as a reason for going to war.

In an interview in the next issue of Vanity Fair magazine, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz cited bureaucratic reasons for focusing on Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s alleged arsenal.

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in a Pentagon (news - web sites) transcript of the interview.

Vanity Fair provided a slightly different version in the article: "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

In the interview, Wolfowitz cited one outcome of the war that was "almost unnoticed ? but it's huge": it removed the need to maintain American forces in Saudi Arabia as long as Saddam was in power. Vanity Fair interpreted Wolfowitz to say that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia was one major reason for going to war, rather than just an outcome.

Those troops were sent to Saudi Arabia to protect the desert kingdom against Saddam, whose forces invaded Kuwait in 1991, but their presence in the country that houses Islam's holiest sites enraged Islamic fundamentalists, including Osama bin Laden (news - web sites).

Within two weeks of the fall of Baghdad, the United States announced it was removing most of its 5,000 troops from Saudi Arabia and would set up its main regional command center in Qatar.

"Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government," he said. "It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaida. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things."

As the United States sought to build international support for the war, it did not publicly spell out as a goal the withdrawal of its troops from Saudi Arabia. Instead, the Bush administration focused on Saddam's failure to dismantle chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

Wolfowitz was asked about the Vanity Fair interview during a news conference in Singapore on Friday and referred reporters to the Pentagon transcript.

He said the United States had three concerns about Iraq before the war: weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and the abuse of Iraqi citizens by Saddam's regime.

"All three of those have been there, they've always been part of the rationale, and I think it's been very clear," he said.

Nevertheless, the focus of the debate over the need for war centered on Saddam's weapons, and the failure of U.S. forces to locate extensive stocks has raised doubts in a skeptical Europe whether Iraq represented a global security threat.

Wolfowitz's comments followed a statement by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who suggested this week that Saddam might have destroyed his banned weapons before the war began.

On Friday, the commander of U.S. Marines in Iraq said he was surprised that extensive searches have failed to discover any of the chemical weapons that U.S. intelligence had indicated were supplied to front line Iraqi forces at the outset of the war.

"Believe me, it's not for lack of trying," Lt. Gen. James Conway told reporters. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."

The remarks by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld revived the controversy over the war as President Bush (news - web sites) left for a European tour in which he hopes to put aside the bitterness over the war, which threatened the trans-Atlantic partnership.

In Denmark, whose government supported the war, opposition parties demanded to know whether Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen misled the public about the extent of Saddam's weapons threat.

"It was not what the Danish prime minister said when he advocated support for the war," Jeppe Kofod, the Social Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, said in response to Wolfowitz's comments. "Those who went to war now have a big problem explaining it."

Former Danish Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen said he was shocked by Wolfowitz's claim. "It leaves the world with one question: What should we believe?" he told The Associated Press.

In Germany, where the war was widely unpopular, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeiting newspaper said the comments about Iraqi weapons showed that America is losing the battle for credibility.

"The charge of deception is inescapable," the newspaper said Friday.

In London, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who quit as leader of the House of Commons to protest the war, said he doubted Iraq had any such weapons.

"The war was sold on the basis of what was described as a pre-emptive strike, 'Hit Saddam before he hits us,' " Cook told British Broadcasting Corp. "It is now quite clear that Saddam did not have anything with which to hit us in the first place."

During a visit to Poland, British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) said Friday he has "absolutely no doubt" that concrete evidence will be found of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

"Have a little patience," Blair told reporters.

[RichmondVA]

Don't worry-- we'll find weapons of mass destruction eventually. . . one way or another.

[Docta]

our people are putting them there as we speak eh? 8-)

[monkey neck]

This is exactly what those on my side of the fence were afraid of. However, most of us stand by the argument of the pre-emptive strike principle. If he didn't have any weapons, I'm positive he would have. The evidence is certainly there about his weapons programs (chemical, bio, and nuclear).

He did have a nuclear weapons program. To me, that's freakin' scary having that man sitting on an arsenal of nukes. In my mind, the strike was justified. Of course, that's debatable. I hope we do eventually find something. If they do find something, the conspiracy theorists will come out of the woodwork saying we planted it.

[beezlebob]

I am glad someone took the time to document this...Was it overstated? You be the judge...

http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000172.html

[BigSugar]

First, let's be real....like i'm going to trust Vanity Fair and their "hard hitting" expose journalists for accurate political reporting. I'm sure the Pentagon has recordings of the interview and their transcript is correct...versus the "notes" of the reporter who likely also has many bridal gown articles to their credit.

second, does anyone really question that he had these weapons? do you remember the stockpiles of chem/bio suits and the gas masks his troops carried. maybe it was subterfuge on his part. maybe he didn't deploy them and had them shipped to iran or syria or they're buried in the desert somewhere...you'd really have to be naive and gullible to the extreme to believe that Saddam was some innocent patsy with no connection to these weapons, their production and deployment.

and so what if an unstated goal of the war was to get the US out of Saudi to placate the arab worlds concerns. or are we only allowed to have one goal in this kind of situation? can't we multi-task??

further, considering how easy it is to trace chem/bio weapons back to their country and often their plant of manufacture, i doubt highly the US will be "planting" these items in Iraq....it's way to easy to test them and trace them back to the US if they do....

Saddam is gone. the US is off Saudi soil (sand?). for the first time in generations, Israel and the Palestinians are meeting to discuss the creation of a Palestinian country in the Middle East. the prospects for an extreme lessening of arab hostility to the west and Israel is finally within the grasp. Bitch if you will, but that's pretty god damn fine work by an administration who you so despise.

[Kwyjibo]

What sug said.

[yoshomon]

"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."
- Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003

"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."
- Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003


"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
- Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

[Docta]

the point sug is that this administration used at best a lie or at worst an exagerration to get support for war! we were completely duped. yes, you and many on the right would have supported this obliteration of a country even without the wmd. but the fact is, this was the only way bush could convince a majority that this was a good thing and now we are finding out the truth. wolfowitz has been pushing for this war for a decade and he used the fear created by 911 and a willing president to do so. we made it sound as if these weapons would be found on every corner street like a newsstand, but we find nothing.

"Believe me, it's not for lack of trying," Lt. Gen. James Conway told reporters. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."

[BigSugar]

wait?? are you saying you bought into the WMD argument prior to the war?? i don't remember you ever being "duped", or for that matter anyone of the "anti-war" types being "duped" by the administration into supporting the war.

frankly, we're dealing with a very crafty, very crazy, very vengeful man in Saddam Hussein. 12 years of UN inspections couldn't get it done, and i never ever believed that we'd just walk into Baghdad and find piles of anthrax sitting out at the corner market for sale.....they are buried deep, hidden well, or have been shipped out of country. i've always believed that Hussein would never be dumb enough to deploy and use them. they're much more valuable selling them to terrorists and countries like Iran and Syria and India and Pakistan.

and yes, i would have supported a war removing Hussein from power without so much as a mention of WMD. In fact, i was a little pissed that we didn't go in in November when it was initially planned. It gave the snake more time to CYA. I just hope we find him soon, or his body. and with luck, he'll be sucking Bin Laden's leprosy ridden cock when we do.....

[RichmondVA]

Except we didn't quit kill or capture Hussein, did we?

And if he does have weapons of destruction that he simply buried in the desert, then he or anyone can go and dig them up, right?

And if someone from the mideast had weapons of mass destruction they could seize power again right quick.

So out of the three objectives: destroying WMD, killing or capturing Hussein, and establishing democratic rule in Iraq, so far it looks like we are 0-fer.

As for planting some weapons, I don't think we'll need to because it turns out Americans don't care. We forgot all about that crap and we're just happy we whupped ass.

But IF we had to plant them, I have no doubt Bush would. If the group that does the planting is also the same group that does the testing and tracking then who's to know? And it's not that I think Bush is evil. ANY president would do the same thing (and have done similar things in past wars) to justify an unpopular war. I just think some of our past leaders would be smart enough not to get into that predicament in the first place.

[Docta]

Originally posted by BigSugar
wait?? are you saying you bought into the WMD argument prior to the war?? i don't remember you ever being "duped", or for that matter anyone of the "anti-war" types being "duped" by the administration into supporting the war.

i was not sure if they did or not, i was not convinced completely no. even if there were more evidence, i am not sure i would have supported this war. i am speaking of the masses of americans who DID buy into this argument. people who i asked why they supported this war, THIS was the reason, my mother, my sister in law, those who don't dig into these matters and wholeheartedly trust our president because he is the good guy cowboy.

i still think another president could have better convinced the us population and the rest of the world that this was a "good" thing to do, handled the whole thing better, and not by using the wmd argument. in my mind this may have still happened if mccain OR gore had been in office but there would have been much more support for the action.

[Duemellon]

Do you remember the times when those of us against the war said "He has no weapons" and every news report, photo-op, or "possible dump site" was thrown into our faces and waggled while they said "I told you so!"?

Well I do.

If it wasn't just about WoMDs for us, yet you threw that in our faces to dismiss the entirety of our argument, then isn't turnabout fair play?

However, I'm not REALLY trying to do that with this post. I really hoped that the bulk of the populace didn't react with the violent knee-jerk to the WoMD term and clamor for Sadam's head. I'd like to think they all carefully weighed Sadam's high-level meetings with Osama, the 15 out of 19 hijaakers from Iraq, and his dispersion of WoMDs to terrorists for use against us as their motivation.

Oh yeah, there are some people we're freeing to, but we'll have to kill them first.

0-fer, i like that point, 0-fer. heh.12 years of UN inspections couldn't get it done, and i never ever believed that we'd just walk into Baghdad and find piles of anthrax sitting out at the corner market for sale.....they are buried deep, hidden well, or have been shipped out of country. they're on mobile labs, and in the security buildings that were highlighted in Powell's address to the UN, as well as in trucks headed for Saudi for redistribution to cells. No, we'll never find them, those Al Soued rocket-heads we found were teh evidence we needed to know they had them. Thanks Blix.

[yoshomon]

bush, "iraq and its wmd's are a threat to this country and the world. we MUST attack iraq now to be safe"

bush, "we are doing this for the Iraqi people."

bush, "ok, we can't find the weapons, and they may not be there. when we said that we knew they were there and that we knew where they were... well you know we may have been kidding around."

bush, "well I know that its still chaos in Afghanistan and that we didn't get Osama or al quaeda (or even the taliban!) all the way... and now its chaos in Iraq and most people are without food or water AND we didn't get Suddam..."


conclusion:
America has troops stationed in over 60 countries. If that isn't an empire, I don't know what is.

[DudeMan]

Oh no, we haven't found any WMD. Guess we need to go ahead and re-install Saddam or another brutal dictator over the Iraqis. Sorry guys, but that window where you thought you were being liberated is now being closed on your fingers because we made a horrible, horrible mistake in liberating you from your oppression. May want to go ahead and pre-dig a bunch more of those mass graves that were found, because when Saddam returns, it's payback time for all of those billboards and statues you tore down.

[RichmondVA]

Guess we need to go ahead and re-install Saddam or another brutal dictator over the Iraqis.

Yeah, nice red herring. Noone here has advocated reinstalling Saddam Hussein as a dictator, but if it makes you feel better to argue against a straw man, be my guest.

The question is: what are we doing to ensure that the next leader isn't just as bad, or godforbid Saddam again? So far I'm not liking what I'm seeing, but I'll let it play out before I make my judgment.

I wasn't "duped" into thinking Hussein had WMD or didn't. The average US citizen has no way of knowing the truth. I decided to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. I was lukewarm supporter of the war, but I was cynical. And still am. Like I said, I've been pretty unimpressed so far.

As for those of you who say you favor invading Iraq with or without WMD, I believe you completely. When I didn't believe you was before-- when you were spouting all that bs about how Hussein had stopped because of his WMDs.

[shivui]

Originally posted by monkey neck
He did have a nuclear weapons program. To me, that's freakin' scary having that man sitting on an arsenal of nukes.
i feel that way about the US. we'll get away with it no matter what. we're THE superpower.

if it's not one thing, it's another. obviously, this war wasn't too terribly popular. i didn't support, but people more devoted than i will be tearing apart info constantly until they find something to criticize. this is just one of, i'm sure, a possible many more.

if what bigsug says is true and the middle east is heading for more happier days, then i'm gonna put on my naive forgetful hat and hope for a bright future.

[Duemellon]

if what bigsug says is true and the middle east is heading for more happier days, we will bring order to chaos, peacefully or violently, with consent or through force, and with our own righteous blessing.

Those who oppose the introduction of civility to the rest of the world are backwards-thinking ungreatful selfish bastards. When the dust settles, and the US is responsible for settling the world into peace through introduction of popular-government, we will have established a new era in humankind.

Thanks to the brave and righteous men and women who risked and lost their lives for order.

YAY Crusaders!

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
Yeah, nice red herring. Noone here has advocated reinstalling Saddam Hussein as a dictator, but if it makes you feel better to argue against a straw man, be my guest.

The question is: what are we doing to ensure that the next leader isn't just as bad, or godforbid Saddam again? So far I'm not liking what I'm seeing, but I'll let it play out before I make my judgment.

I wasn't "duped" into thinking Hussein had WMD or didn't. The average US citizen has no way of knowing the truth. I decided to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. I was lukewarm supporter of the war, but I was cynical. And still am. Like I said, I've been pretty unimpressed so far.

As for those of you who say you favor invading Iraq with or without WMD, I believe you completely. When I didn't believe you was before-- when you were spouting all that bs about how Hussein had stopped because of his WMDs.
The point I was making was that we and Iraq are much better off without Saddam, and it is a good thing that we went in, even thought we have not found any WMD yet.

Pre-war, I was interested in three things, 1, the transformative effects of democracy and freedom in an arabic country, 2, WMD, and 3, the liberation of an oppressed people. Too early to tell on #1 of course, although the positive movement on this Roadmap for Peace is certainly a positive sign. On #2, the problem with WMD is that the threat of them enabled a brutal dictator the ability to keep his reign of fear alive, and that they could get into the hands of bad guys and used against us. The first one of those is no longer a problem since Saddam is out of power, but we need to find out where the hell the WMD are (destroyed, buried/hidden, or sent somewhere). Hopefully we'll either find them or we'll find that he destroyed them, because the worst thing would be if Saddam had sold or given them away to bad guys. But, from his former programs, his mobile labs, his keeping scientists together, etc., does anyone really doubt Saddam was fully cabable of having or producing WMD quickly? I understand the skepticism about what you hear from your government, which is healthy, but it shouldn't overwhelm logic and common sense.

And for #3, it's very clear that the Iraqis are now and will be much better off than they were under Saddam. I wish we could just wave a magic wand and turn the country over to democracy in Iraq. But, it's become clear that the institutions of democracy must first be installed. Rule of law, checks and balances, a free enterprise system, rights and laws protecting all of the minorities, moderate & sensible leaders who develop, etc. Much more important to incubate those institutions for the long run rather than turn an instable country over to the unknown & unprovens in the short run.

[beezlebob]

Originally posted by monkey neck

He did have a nuclear weapons program. To me, that's freakin' scary having that man sitting on an arsenal of nukes.

It's freaking scary to me that the world's only super power with the largest aresenal of WMD is being run by a bunch of right wing Christians who are looking forward to some sort of biblical armegeddon to come save us all. Remember that the Bushies never ruled out using nuclear weapons in the Iraq war.

[monkey neck]

Originally posted by beezlebob
Remember that the Bushies never ruled out using nuclear weapons in the Iraq war.

I took that a couple of different ways. But, stated plain and simple, it was war. In war, all kinds of tactics are used. One of them is psychological. It was to say "hey, if you use yours, we'll use ours". But did I think we'd nuke Iraq? Of course not.

I think some of you are using the Bush/Hitler or even Bush/Saddam comparison again, here. We've responsibly held nuclear weapons for 60 years under plenty of republican leaders. We're NOT going to start a nuclear war. An Islamic fanatic would be more likely to push the button, in my opinion.

As I have stated in other threads, if we left Saddam alone to develop his weapons programs, he would have been much more of a menace to the Middle East and the world. Take Kuwait, for example: in 2006, he invades Kuwait again, the UN collects forces to get him out, but he says, "Hi, I have nukes. Whatcha gonna do now?". Not to mention the fact that he would be more than happy to sell his weapons to groups that would use them against us.

[Duemellon]

I take John's stuff, and his parents come to get it back. I tell his parents that I have a gun and that I will use it, "What'cha gonna do now?"

If there is no way for them to get a gun, or the law involved, I won. I can do as I please.

However, they have a gun, or someone bigger than me and them put together on their side. The fact that I have a gun successfully subjegates them, but they turn around and match or exceed my might, and say "If you use your gun, we'll kill you." Then what does the average person do?

Sadam is/was not a religious fanatic. He lives/lived for today, for power, and to enjoy his power. Why would've Sadam decided to end-it-all for himself and others by using nukes? It's not in a self-serving person's interests to do so. ie: MAD, but the AD isn't quite mutual.

We have responsibly held nukes for half a century but we were the only ones to have used them in war. We want to keep it that way. The self-serving want to keep it that way. Those genuinely concerned about everyone else want to keep it that way. Those people who believe this world is 'crap' or 'evil' or the playground for their religion, are the ones i fear. Not Sadam.

It is clear that the first cohesive entity (read: nation) to use nukes in a war will have set off a chain reaction of nukes that would destroy civilization as we know it in less than 4 hours. Well, unless it was us. We can do nukes without repecussion becuase, well, who would try to retaliate against the only superpower?

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by DudeMan

Pre-war, I was interested in three things, 1, the transformative effects of democracy and freedom in an arabic country, 2, WMD, and 3, the liberation of an oppressed people.

Fair enough. Where I disagree is that 1 and 3 go together. The people aren't true liberated until they are under a regime of their choosing.

Our troops are still being attacked, and order hasn't yet been restored. It seems like after the initial happiness at being liberated the sentiment is starting to run against the US. What we need now is diplomacy. And that's never been Bush's strong suit. He's is in a tough situation, mostly due to his poor handling of things over the last year.

Instead of tending to Iraq, Bush has to go out and repair relations with France and the UN. And frankly, he's not gonna do very well because he's a lousy diplomat and it's already pretty clear that we don't care what they think.

Instead of sending in supplies and people to establish stability, we're sending in 1300 weapons inspectors because we need to find those WMD's to save face.

Instead of rebuilding the country, we've got a mess with Halliburton.

The rebuilding of Iraq is not really exciting enough for news, so I have some faith that there is a much work being done that we aren't seeing. But those are significant barriers, and what we have to do now is what Bush is worst at.

[monkey neck]

So, you're saying Saddam was never a threat? I agree with the fact he's not exactly a religious fanatic, but that doesn't take away from the fact he's a power-hungry self-serving oppressive loose cannon nutball. Well, he worships himself and makes others do so, too. I take that back, he is a religious fanatic.

[postfeminist]

I heard this story on NPR yesterday--I believe it was Conroy (?) speaking and i just sat in my car once i was parked in the driveway for a minute, feeling sad, feeling unsure, wondering why i listen to the news when it only makes me so sad.

i just wonder why it's ok for us to go into countries and depose people we see as threats to our safety; i see bush as a threat to my safety, but when i speak so, i am called un-patriotic, communist, and a knee-jerk liberal.

[Duemellon]

i see bush as a threat to my safety, but when i speak so, i am called un-patriotic, communist, and a knee-jerk liberal. you are...

but you're also right. :PSo, you're saying Saddam was never a threat?the short answer: Yes.

The longer answer:
He wasn't going to stroll over here and cut open 55 gallon drums of serin, was he? He wasn't going to develop a nuke and summarily drop it on Isreal. He wasn't even going to fart in our general direction, or even our friends. He was going to use these threatened weapons against people he knew we would turn a blind eye to (he guessed wrong with Kuwait).

Of course, everyone should recognize, that even if he dropped a nuke on NKor, we'd be in there kickin his ass around because NUKES are BAAAAD and the world knows it.

The next nuclear war will be the last nuclear war...
one way or another.

And despite all the posturing in the world, only a nutcase would really be interested in destroying all life on the planet.

[monkey neck]

Originally posted by Duemellon
And despite all the posturing in the world, only a nutcase would really be interested in destroying all life on the planet.

... so you got my point.

[Duemellon]

no, i mean someone clinically certifiable.

Sadam isn't bent on "making a point" or "punishing the infidels" or even inspiring others to take his place.

Heh, he doesn't live by the thought "Even if they get rid of me, they'll be another Sadam right behind me."

He thinks "Damn, how am I gonna live through this one and retain my power?"

He is not a madman, or a lunatic.

[Danosaur]

I think we are missing the important point here. We can go round and round about how things have turned out for the better in Iraq, and the right can use that against the anti-war folks, but the real issue here is that George W. Bush is the President of the fuckin U.S. of A. and he has a responsibility to speak truthfully to the U.S. public. We aren't talking about lying about the fact that you got your dick sucked, we are talking about a lie that convinced the American public to sacrifice 150 some very young men and women to a cause that doesn't exist. What is most Ironic to me is that now that we have spread war over Afghanistan and Iraq, Saudi Arabia stands unharmed. I believe as president, Clinton should have been impeached for lying openly to the American public, but his lie pales in comparison to lying to the public in order to convince them to kill thousands of Iraqis in the name of WMD. I'm glad Iraq is free of Saddam, and you can thank Bush for that, but now he must pay for what he has done wrong and step down. Senior Bush did the same thing to gain support for the first Gulf War. Guess Dubya had a good teacher.

[yoshomon]

bush lied

people died

[shivui]

It's freaking scary to me that the world's only super power with the largest aresenal of WMD is being run by a bunch of right wing Christians who are looking forward to some sort of biblical armegeddon to come save us all. Remember that the Bushies never ruled out using nuclear weapons in the Iraq war.
funny
i just wonder why it's ok for us to go into countries and depose people we see as threats to our safety; i see bush as a threat to my safety, but when i speak so, i am called un-patriotic, communist, and a knee-jerk liberal.
agreed


i'm also wondering why people think they know who sadam was and what his intentions were. i guess you could decifer that from his actions, but those as well are probably slanted by the sources that document them. i don't know what sadam was capable of and i don't think most people give a hoot about the liberation of iraq. that's just a nice justification. i don't like war. let's bring the democracy back home.

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by shivui
i'm also wondering why people think they know who sadam was and what his intentions were.

well neither Kuwait nor Iran felt threatened by Iraq at all. In fact, the US was the only country claiming that Iraq was any kind of threat to anyone. Every global intelligence organization was laughing at us. Now it's coming out that our own intelligence groups are pretty ticked because the Bush admin missused the info they gave so badly.

[dcXhc]

The Rebuttal

'You Lied to Us'
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

WASHINGTON

Quick — what was the biggest intelligence misjudgment of Gulf War II?

It was the nearly unanimous opinion of the intelligence community, backed by the U.S. and British military, that the 50,000 elite soldiers of Saddam's well-trained, well-equipped Special Republican Guard would put up a fierce battle for Baghdad.

Our military plan was based on this cautious assessment. That presumption of a bloody, last-ditch defense was also the basis for objections to the war: in street fighting, opponents argued, coalition casualties would be horrific, and tens of thousands of civilians would be sacrificed.

Happily, our best assessment was mistaken. Saddam's supposed diehards cut and ran. Though Baghdad's power and water were cut off, civilians were spared and our losses were even fewer than in Gulf War I.

What if our planners had believed Kurdish leaders who predicted that Saddam's super-loyalists would quickly collapse? We would have sent fewer combat troops and more engineers, civilian administrators and military police. But the C.I.A. and the Pentagon had no way of being certain that the information about the Republican Guard's poor morale and weak discipline provided by Kurds and Iraqi opposition leaders was accurate.

With thousands of lives at stake, optimism was not an option. Sensibly, we based our strategy on the greater likelihood of fierce resistance. That decision was as right when made as it was mistaken in retrospect.

Turn now to the charge heard ever more stridently that U.S. and British leaders, in their eagerness to overthrow Saddam and to turn the tide of terror in the Middle East, "hyped" the intelligence that Iraq possessed germ and poison-gas weapons.

"Hype" means "exaggerate." As used by those who were prepared to let Saddam remain in power, it is prelude to a harsh accusation: "You lied to us. You pretended to have evidence that you never had; you twisted dubious intelligence to suit your imperialistic ends, so we were morally right and you were morally wrong."

Never mind the mass graves now being unearthed of an estimated 300,000 victims, which together with the million deaths in his wars make Saddam the biggest mass murderer of Muslims in all history. Never mind his undisputed financing of suicide bombers and harboring of terrorists, from Al Qaeda's Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi to the veteran killer Abu Nidal (the only "suicide" with three bullets in his head, dispatched in Baghdad probably because he knew too much.)

And never mind our discovery of two mobile laboratories designed to produce biological and chemical agents capable of causing mass hysteria and death in any city in the world. Future discoveries will be dismissed as "dual use" or planted by us.

No; the opponents of this genocidal maniac's removal now accuse President Bush and Prime Minister Blair of a colossal hoax. Because Saddam didn't use germs or gas on our troops, they say, that proves Iraq never had them. If we cannot find them right away, they don't exist. They believe Saddam sacrificed tens of billions in oil revenues for no reason at all.

A strong majority of Americans believe he did have a dangerous program running, as he did before. Long before the C.I.A. dispatched agents to northern Iraq, Kurdish sources were quoted in this space about terrorist operations of Ansar al-Islam, whose 600 members included about 150 "Afghan Arabs" trained by Al Qaeda; after our belated bombing, some escaped to Iran.

As reassured Iraqi technicians and nurses come forward and as Baathist war criminals seek to save their skins, we will learn much more about Saddam's terrorist connections and his weaponry. It took seven years to catch the Olympic bombing suspect in North Carolina and 18 years to catch the Unabomber; the location of Saddam and Osama bin Laden won't remain a mystery forever.

In the meantime, as the crowd that bitterly resents America's mission to root out the sources of terror whips up its intelligence-hoax hype, remember the wise "mistake" we made in overestimating the fighting spirit of Saddam's uniformed bully-boys.

When weighing the murky evidence of an aggressive tyranny's weapons, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were obliged to take no chances. The burden on proof was on Saddam. By his contempt, he invited invasion; by its response, the coalition established the credibility of its resolve. There was no "intelligence hoax."

[Danosaur]

No; the opponents of this genocidal maniac's removal now accuse President Bush and Prime Minister Blair of a colossal hoax. Because Saddam didn't use germs or gas on our troops, they say, that proves Iraq never had them. If we cannot find them right away, they don't exist. They believe Saddam sacrificed tens of billions in oil revenues for no reason at all.

How much more hypocritical could the current administration be? This war had nothing to do with Genocide. We left the Shites to die by the thousands in Gulf I. What of North Korea? I would have loved for us to go into the war for those reasons but we didn't. We did not. We do this all the time in America; we hide our real intentions behind some veil of good will. I am not left or right, and I actually preferred Bush to Gore, but c'mon let's be realistic here.

[Duemellon]

This war had nothing to do with Genocide. We left the Shites to die by the thousands in Gulf I. What of North Korea? the GWII started as a continuation of the war on terror, it was morphed into the universally appealing hunt for WoMDs, and as it was ending, it became about freeing the Iraqi people.

We will only know what this war was about years from now, when our children and those outside of our society, are able to take a tougher look at the actions and represent the facts and compare them to the outcome they will experience first hand.

What I believe GWII to be about is most likely as wrong as anyone else's claim. We are in a state of limited information and developing consequences.

[Danosaur]

It will not take that long Due. We had some pretty significant information on GWI about five years after the fact. The information is pretty damning of the Sr. Bush administration as well.

[Duemellon]

Do you think we have a clearer prespective to what WW2 was about than those who fought in it? No, I don't mean on the human level, I mean on the global consequential level. Policies and practices, cold war, E/W Germ, demilitarized Japan, NKor, Vietnam, etc, etc.

We look back at WW2 not just as the "fight against evil" or "retribution for Pear Harbor" we actually see the result of the bomb, the change of the world from E/W Hemi, to a greater comprehension of the fluidity and interconnection between the hemis, and things like that.

One result of GW1 was GWII. That wasn't what we expected while we were liberating Kuwait.

Yeah, the 5yr marker will be telling, but a decade from now will be downright transparent (or completely obscured). Our children will see the effect the sole-supa-powa had on the world through this continuing demonstration of force.

[monkey neck]

Originally posted by Duemellon
He is not a madman, or a lunatic.

He sure as heck fooled me, then, Due. Just curious, who would you put in the madman/lunatic class.

[watusi]

Originally posted by monkey neck


He sure as heck fooled me, then, Due. Just curious, who would you put in the madman/lunatic class.


BigSug for one.....


:D :D

[BigSugar]

don't make me cut off your hands, murder your family and hang you by your testicles for weeks on end.....

Big Sug al Tikriti

[watusi]

Originally posted by BigSugar
and hang you by your testicles for weeks on end.....



too late,man, my ex-wife already took those.....

:D

[BigSugar]

her attorney got a third......eeeeewwwwwww!!!!!!! :D

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by BigSugar
hang you by your testicles for weeks on end.....

sure hope that's not what McCain was talking about when he mentioned 9 and 10 year old Iraqi boys this morning...

It was funny, he used answers about the boys to answer questions about wmds.

[Duemellon]

A madman/lunatic is someone who is clinically insane, not megalomaniacal.

Sadam, Hitler, PolPot, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, and Bush, are all aware of their surroundings, they make conscious decisions to intimidate, threaten, kill, and such. They have a goal of domination (most of the time the disguise it in a veil of "self-preservation" through acquisition).

They are not insane. They can hold continuous conversation and don't babble on or have delusions.

Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, BigSug, my cousin back from vietnam, and Martin Lawrence, those people are insane.

[watusi]

Originally posted by Duemellon


Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, BigSug, my cousin back from vietnam, and Martin Lawrence, those people are insane.


damn,sug, i wanna party wit yo' posse....a little guitar playin,a little stand-up,a little "lets-find-charlie", and some (no pun intended) killer goulash...

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by watusi
killer goulash...

oh boy...

[monkey neck]

Due, you are truly the king of hair-splitting. Hail to you.

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by watusi
damn,sug, i wanna party wit yo' posse....a little guitar playin,a little stand-up,a little "lets-find-charlie", and some (no pun intended) killer goulash...

chuck and i hugged and cried a lot when the Jeffster got killed in prison....then chuck bit my face....

but i gotta say due, tyson is totally pissed at you for leaving him off the list.....he's over at my house right now thinking of ways to get "ludicrous" on your whole family.....or maybe he said Ludacris.....either way, it's gonna be bad.... :)

my posse don't stink....

Dr. Strangelove

[yoshomon]

oh oh! we could have WOXY board gang wars!

bigsug's posse vs. due's posse!

don't know who to put my money on...

[monkey neck]

Sweet, I'm carving my shiv as we speak.

[Duemellon]

I dont think i have a gang.

There are leaders, and there are followers...
and then there's that weirdo off on his own doing his own thing. U'kno, that kid in the top right square in Seasame St. who's "not doing the same thing".