notes that there was no WMD but its also interesting into why the intelligence failed as badly as it did (in as much as one accepts that it did fail).

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...ansmittal.html

Nobody argues with the fact that stockpiles were not found. But take a look at what else this report says. And the interim report by David Kay said similar things.


This from the report about Saddam:

"He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted."

"Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable."

With or without wmd stockpiles, Saddam needed to go. And the world is better off with his being out of power.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Your personal dislike for Saddam is your own fetish. There are equally bad thugs all over the earth many of which are close US allies. More are dying and the economic conditions are worse in Iraq now than in 03. Saddam had not supported any attack on the US in at least a decade by 03, had not reconstituted even a minimal WMD program and was not trying to in that year, had never given terrorist anything to attack the US and had long been an ally of ours. There is zero evidence he planned to attack the US or help anyone else attack the US.

Intervening in Iraq generated thousands of more terrorist and vastly increased support for terrorism in the Arab world. We went world wide from being the best liked and respected country on earth from being the most disliked one and not just in the Arab world. International surveys show that Russia is much better thought of world wide than we are these days. One senior diplomate described the US relations with the arab publics these days as "radioactive" its so bad we have turned to buying positive reports about us in the Arab press and disquising efforts we are behind because if we are publically identified with it that will generate outrage among the mass Arab public.

The bizare hysteria over Saddam of those on the right has no basis in his actual behavior vis a vis the US. And we are much less safe as result of the war than before, we have far more enemies. Still the point is, there was no WMD in 03.

still speculation, and again, that would be after the sanctions were lifted...which i hate to say it, i dont see as a problem. if the UN did decide to lift the sanctions and not reinstate them then they believe he's not as much of a global or even area threat than you assume he is.

thats why his country is in worse condition with more insurgency than ever before? and his neighboring countries such as syria iran n. korea afghanistan, how are they better off?

You have to understand the retroactive thinking of the right. When the reasons given for invasion turned out to be false, they were left out in the cold. They altered their memory to justify not only the invasion, but themselves because they supported the initial mood of warfare so steadfastly. The obvious is there were no WMD's or they would have been found. The UN's own inspection crew under Blix reported this and the US sidetracked the UN, calling them ineffective and a dinosaur. The right's devotion to the moral goodness of this war is bizarre. After all, they are usually the ones who identify themselves as Christians, moralists, anti-abortionists, etc.

__________________
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty" - Thomas Jefferson

The claim that there were stockpiles of wmd in Iraq did NOT come out of the brain of George W. Bush. I can post you quote after quote after quote of the Clinton administration and Democrats leaders saying the EXACT same thing. And BEFORE George W. Bush's administration every thought about leading the country!

I was personally present at the February 1998 Ohio State University Town Hall Meeting.....where these things were said:

"Madelyn Albright said. "Our problem and the world's problem is with Iraq's leaders. And today those leaders have a choice. They can allow U.N. inspections to proceed on the world's terms, or they can invite serious military strikes on ours."

William Cohen said: ""With respect to Saddam Hussein, we can deal with him now or our children and grandchildren will have to deal with the spread of chemical and biological weapons later. I think now is the time that we deal with it and not later."

Sandy Berger said, ""We want to resolve this peacefully," Berger said, "but there are some things worth fighting for. And those include fighting aggression, fighting people who threaten their neighbors, and fighting to make this world a safer and more secure place for my children and for
yours."

Madelyn Albright said, "When the Gulf War ended seven years ago, Iraq was required to destroy
such arms, and a special United Nations commission, called UNSCOM, was
created to verify that and to see that weapons would not be replaced.
Despite repeated Iraqi obstruction, UNSCOM has uncovered and destroyed
more of those deadly weapons than were demolished during the entire
Gulf War. But the evidence is strong that Iraq continues to hide
prohibited weapons and materials. There remains a critical gap between
the number of weapons we know Iraq produced and the amount we can
confirm were destroyed. There is only one way to learn the truth:
UNSCOM's inspectors must have free, unfettered and unconditional
access to people, documents and facilities in Iraq. That is what we're
demanding, and that demand has been echoed repeatedly by the UN
Security Council and by the world.


Unfortunately, Saddam continues to deny UNSCOM access to dozens of
suspect sites. He's also trying to discredit UNSCOM, and to change its
character so that it will no longer be independent, and its
inspections no longer credible. As President Clinton made clear in his
strong speech yesterday at the Pentagon, the United States will not
allow this to happen. Iraq must permit UN inspectors to do their jobs,
as the Security Council has directed. If this does not occur, we must
be, and we are, prepared to use military force."

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02...22006_tpo.html

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

In other words, you still believe in the moral goodness of the war. That is the point I was trying to make.

__________________
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty" - Thomas Jefferson

Clinton launching a major invasion of Iraq or taking the lead in advocating one in 03. I also missed his deliberately distortion of the data by Bush. Bush not the Democrats were advocates for the war they simply went along in his wake.

Just as importantly, they have the brains now to admit the war is a disaster, some of them anyhow, and to look for a way out. To admit serious mistakes have been made and try to repair them. Bush refuses to do either.

ok jp, but that is old news, and when UN inspectors were visiting Iraq right before the war there was not any evidence of the production of biological, nuclear, germ or chemical weapons. He was complying with the sanctions, and we went to war for groundless reasons.

granted it was a humanitarian benefit to remove Saddam from power, but at the cost Iraq and we are paying? it seems a little bit high in my opinion