Bush knew that Saddam didn't have WMD

[nlm]

This is the problem when you depend solely on intelligence provided by dissidents, since we did not have anyone in the country at the time providing intelligence directly to us. 

There were weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq which Bush pulled out prior to launching the invasion. The whole idea that "we didn't have the intelligence because we didn't have anybody in the country" is such BS.

[nlm]

According to this article, Tenet told the President that the Iraqi Foreign Minister said they didn't have WMD. He didn't believe the Foreign Minister. I wouldn't have believed the Foreign Minister.

Not a smoking gun.

This is yet another piece of evidence, added to numerous other pieces, that show that the existance of WMD's in meaningful quantities was very much a topic of debate. When that is added to the fact that Bush pulled the weapons inspectors out of Iraq after they had pretty much concluded that there were not meaningful quantities of WMD's the conclusion that the war was sold to the American people falsely is a fairly easy one.

This isn't about what Bush knew or didn't know as fact - it is about what he presented to the American people as fact to create a justification for the invasion of Iraq.

This also has nothing to do with what we should now do in Iraq. It has everything to with how the run up to any wars in the future should be addressed and what sort of accountability should be assigned to those that did provide the case to the American people for the war in Iraq.

[nlm]

According to this article, Tenet told the President that the Iraqi Foreign Minister said they didn't have WMD. He didn't believe the Foreign Minister. I wouldn't have believed the Foreign Minister.

Not a smoking gun.

This is yet another piece of evidence, added to numerous other pieces, that show that the existance of WMD's in meaningful quantities was very much a topic of debate. When that is added to the fact that Bush pulled the weapons inspectors out of Iraq after they had pretty much concluded that there were not meaningful quantities of WMD's the conclusion that the war was sold to the American people falsely is a fairly easy one.

This isn't about what Bush knew or didn't know as fact - it is about what he presented to the American people as fact to create a justification for the invasion of Iraq.

This also has nothing to do with what we should now do in Iraq. It has everything to with how the run up to any wars in the future should be addressed and what sort of accountability should be assigned to those that did provide the case to the American people for the war in Iraq.

"Very much a topic of debate". It does not prove- if it's true- that the Bush administration knew for certain there were no WMDs and went to war anyway.

Read what I wrote. Here - I'll copy it again for you.

This is yet another piece of evidence, added to numerous other pieces, that show that the existance of WMD's in meaningful quantities was very much a topic of debate. When that is added to the fact that Bush pulled the weapons inspectors out of Iraq after they had pretty much concluded that there were not meaningful quantities of WMD's the conclusion that the war was sold to the American people falsely is a fairly easy one.

This isn't about what Bush knew or didn't know as fact - it is about what he presented to the American people as fact to create a justification for the invasion of Iraq.

This also has nothing to do with what we should now do in Iraq. It has everything to with how the run up to any wars in the future should be addressed and what sort of accountability should be assigned to those that did provide the case to the American people for the war in Iraq.

[nlm]

I read what you wrote. Bush may not have believed the weapons inspectors.

It still would have been right to remove Saddam Hussein.

You are missing the point of what I wrote at minimum.

It has been proven that what was told to the American people about Iraq by the Bush administration and what was known by the Bush administration were two completely different things. This is a lesson about what should be done in the future when we march to war.

Regardless of if you believe we should or should not have removed Saddam regardless of the existance of WMD's (and that is a different debate) it does not justify the Bush administration presenting questionable information to the American people as fact in order to stir their fears and march them to war.

[nlm]

I read what you wrote. Bush may not have believed the weapons inspectors.

It still would have been right to remove Saddam Hussein.

You are missing the point of what I wrote at minimum.

It has been proven that what was told to the American people about Iraq by the Bush administration and what was known by the Bush administration were two completely different things. This is a lesson about what should be done in the future when we march to war.

Regardless of if you believe we should or should not have removed Saddam regardless of the existance of WMD's (and that is a different debate) it does not justify the Bush administration presenting questionable information to the American people as fact in order to stir their fears and march them to war.

I'll agree with that. But you still haven't proved that people in the Bush administration knew for  certain there were no WMDs.

No, and I don't think that can be done. Nor am I even trying to prove that they knew something in an absolute fashion, in fact I'm doing the exact opposite - I'm showing that they absolutely didn't know for sure that there were WMD's. The historical record of their statements show that they presented the existance of WMD's in Iraq as a fact when their was considerable debate inside the executive branch about that very topic and our own weapon inspectors were indicating that there were no WMD's present in meaningful quantities. That is all that is required to show that the case that was made for war to the American people was falsely constructed. And again - when you add that to the fact that Bush ordered the removal of the weapon inspectors at a time when it has been shown that there was considerable debate about the existance of WMD's in meaningful quantities - it makes the case against Bush all the more damning.

[nlm]

This is the problem when you depend solely on intelligence provided by dissidents, since we did not have anyone in the country at the time providing intelligence directly to us. 

There were weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq which Bush pulled out prior to launching the invasion. The whole idea that "we didn't have the intelligence because we didn't have anybody in the country" is such BS.

I'm talking about imbedded intelligence, such as CIA, not weapons inspectors.  Remember, our inspectors were being shuffled around and denied access to many areas prior to the second phase of the war, so that alone provided belief behind the "he must be hiding them" claim which most of the Western nations governments believed.

And here I was under the impression that most western nations felt that the evidence was lacking to justify war - and it turned out they were correct in their desire to slow things down.

You can use semantics all you want - but the base line truth is that the bulk of the American people thought that we were invading Iraq because Saddam was tied to 9/11 and had WMD's that were a clear and present danger to them. They thought that because that is the case that was made to them - it was a false case, and over the years since the invasion a great amount of evidence has been uncovered (and continues to be uncovered) showing that the Bush administration knew there were gapping holes in the case they were making.

There is little to no doubt that the Bush administration used 9/11 and WMD's to stoke the fears of the American people - that they cherry picked information to do so - that they ignorned information that should have given them pause (like most other western nations) - that they oversold the case for war knowingly.

[nlm]

That might be, but it doesn't change the fact that the article provided is incorrect.

There isn't any "might be" about it - it is.

the base line of the article is quite correct, though I'm sure you could argue the semantics of some of it.

______________________________________________________________________

While one Iraqi source told the CIA that there were no WMD, information that was true but distorted to prove the opposite, another Iraqi source was a fabricator whose lies were eagerly embraced. "The real tragedy is that they had a good source that they misused," said one of the former CIA officers. "The fact is there was nothing there, no threat. But Bush wanted to hear what he wanted to hear."

______________________________________________________________________

When given conflicting reports - Bush went with what he wanted to hear as opposed to investigating further, and that is about as great a failure of leadership as any President could ever muster.

[nlm]

The problem here is the number of people downplaying the quantities of WMDs was so slim, that they were going to be discounted automatically.  So, say out of 100 people, only 3 had doubts, the vast majority opinion was going to win out.  And for the 3 to actually be correct after the fact doesn't mean the information used was cherry picked.  It meant that the majority opinion and data at the time appeared to be accurate, and action was needed.  There is no semantics involved.  It is the logical threat assessment process for any given issue.

All that these wild guess numbers you throw out tell me is that Bush didn't treat the topic of sending our soldiers to war seriously enough. War isn't a guessing game - if a President sends our young people off to die he better damn well be right about why he is doing so. Bush was not; and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that he was told that many times and that he NEVER verified that what he want to believe was true was in fact true. That is an absolute failure of the Commander and Chief to send our soldiers to die for something other than what they are being told - absolute failure.

[nlm]

ummm, ok.

Damn skippy. Unless you want to argue that sending our soldiers to die on wild guesses is a good thing, that enflaming an entire region of the world based on wild guesses is a good thing - then you bet it's OK.

[nlm]

Regardless of the moved WMD issue or not taking out Saddam was a step in the right direction towards putting a halt to Iran.

I disagree.

Having an entity hostile to Iran (like Saddam) on their western boarder while we manipulated events in Afghanistan on their eastern boarder would seem to put Iran in a worse position and the United States in a better position than having our military over stressed in both Afghanistan and Iraq while Iran consolidates Shia interests inside of Iraq and watches us stumble around in Afghanistan without enough troops.

[nlm]

This is somewhat disturbing, but one must also realize that Saddam Hussein himself was a weapon of mass destruction and had to be removed from power and diplomacy just was not going to do the trick.

Saddam Hussein was a WMD? What does that mean? That's got to be the lamest excuse for no weapons I've ever heard.

Yes, he killed hundreds if not thousands of his own citizens just for not agreeing with him.

Therefore, the best solution to that problem would be to obviously launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq fifteen years (after the fact) under false pretenses and without any thought to exit strategy or even the consequences. And then fuck up the post-war occupation in almost every way possible (that matters).

Truly the pinnacle of foreign policy thought, you are.

I would have said it nicer (because I'm such a swell guy - or maybe not) - but yeah, you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

The idea that we are the worlds policemen has been fairly well debunked by the number of oppresive governments that we ignore. Anybody that thinks what Saddam did in Halabja in 1988 had anything to do with our recent screwball foreign policy moves just isn't thinking.

Here's an intersting piece on the Halabja slaughter and the many unknowns that surround it (which were treated as unknowns when Saddam was our friend, but the story morphed into a factual account - based on what Iran put forth, which nobody ever bothers to note anymore - when it was decided, by the decider, that Saddam had to go down).

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1779.htm

[nlm]

You do realise, nlm, that earlier you were essentially proposing doing what the Reagan administration did vis Saddam's Iraq and now you're essentially condemning it.

Saddam did a lot of other things apart from Halabja, BTW.

Why do I get the feeling we're going round in circles?

Refresh my memory - how was I essentially proposing what Reagan did with Saddam and how am I now condemning it. You have had a difficult time not reading additional things into my words prior to this - it occurs to me that the same thing may be happening here.

[nlm]

Well, you're certainly suggesting the former:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you condemn the Saddam regime or not?

Yes - I believe that a hostile entity on the eastern boarder of Iran is a good thing. Factually - Saddam provided that. Does that mean I support the more grotesque elements of the Saddam rule - no, that does not mean that. It means he served a purpose that aided the United States.

We are not the worlds police force. We are not responsible for all that occurs in this world. As our relationship with China and Saudi Arabia shows - we don't have to agree with their domestic agendas to be able to work with another nation. Thus, not liking another nations domestic agenda (or even condemning it) has little to do with our foreign policy - and even less to do with how we use our military.