September 28, 2003

I think we should send this link to Graham, Kennedy, Kerry and a few others including some media outlets. It seems they have slept since then and forgotten what they said. Time to remind them.

What a shame to waste so much time cutting and pasting. Democrats/republicans, corporate whores the lot of em, all prepared to lie for their own ends.

Still, your concerns about the evils of Saddam Hussein are no doubt genuine, and we await with bated breath your call for politicians - Democrat and Republican - who supported him at the height of his atrocities to be charged as accomplices in his crimes.

Senator Riegle provided a (publicly accessible) list of the U.S. companies that provided Saddam with toxic goodies like anthrax, botulinum, etc. so we are very keen to see you pursue them too.

Looking to the future, when can we expect your critical wrath to focus on U.S. support for the evil Communist dictatorship in China? Or,

Pakistan?
Uzbekistan?
Qatar?
U.A.E.?

and all the other dictatorships enjoying U.S. largesse?

A_V - There was nothing special about Saddam getting those samples from the American Type Culture Collection. They were (albeit unwisely) available to all US trading partners for legitimate research purposes. More importantly, the expertise to manufacture biological weapons did not come from the US, nor did his great stocks of chemical weaponry come from here. US made weapons of all types were an insignificant part of Saddam's arsenal, which mostly came from France, Russia and China.

Why do I have a different take on this? Why did you fail to post Colin Powell's comments from February 2001, that Saddam Hussein "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." ? Why aren't I surprised to see Horsefeathers miss such glaring evidence that none of our leaders understood what was going on, that the inspectors were our best hope to find out the truth, prior to war? Why is Horsefeathers still trying to justify the war on the basis of WMDs? The country was sold the war as if it were a laxative being sold at 6:30 PM.

Why does Horsefeathers go to such great lengths to ignore truth? Reality is painful, but continuing delusions is worse.

I think this list originated here:

http://www.jrwhipple.com/war/wmd.html

Each quote is sourced, many to congressional or State Dept. transcripts. The sources are important and should be linked to bolster credibility.

Weird... it's like no Republicans ever said anything equally bogus about Hussein, ever.

Remind me: which party actually decided to take drastic action based on the 'information' here, conquer Iraq and throw billions we don't have down a rathole?

Oh yeah..

Reid: I never heard that claim that "US made weapons of all types were an insignificant part of Saddam's arsenal," though I do know that France, Russia, China and Czechoslovakia were major arms dealers to Iraq. I'd be interested in finding a credible sourse to back up the claim that US weapons, specifically chemical, were an insignificant part of Sadaam's arsenal. Thanks!

Fact: The inspections were never going to work. Saddam was humilating the U.N.
Fact: as the distingushed Mr. Burns of ther New York Times has said recently:
"This war was justified on moral grounds alone. If they don't find ONE WMD this war was worth it."
Why is that so hard for the Bush Haters to understand?
The reason so many Dems made those comments about Saddam is because they're true! And the facts will bear that out.
Whe one calls Iraq a rathole i get the impression that someone is a racist. You know, only white folk can have democracy. They don't Deserve to be delivered from the worst dictator on the planet who was Daddy Warbucks for Hamas.
No, we'll support ANYONE or ANYTHING as long as it harms Bush.
Anything.
Mark my words.
Next, they'll be rooting for the Mullahs of Iran and Kim Jung

To those who wonder why no Republican quotes: We are bombarded with them constantly already. I think the point here is not that Democrats are wrong and Republicans are right, but that both saw a threat when they were on watch. Many of the same folks who are so critical today were saying the very same things Bush, et al, have said.

As for US weapons being a small part of Iraq's arsenal, an international report this spring shows clearly where the arms came from.

Graph
and
Numbers

The US supplied about 1% of Iraqs weapons, by dollars, in 1973-1990. Russia, China, and France supplied a combined 82%.

Fact: Doug Hardee couldn't tell the difference between a fact and an opinion if his life depended on it.

If inspections weren't going to work, why has David Kay been so successful at ferreting out the billions and billions of stockpiled VX?

Burns' opinion could well be correct, but that was not the reason for war which the Bush administration repeated over and over.

Why can't Bush idolators understand that we don't hate Bush so much as we love our country? Why are they pushing a cult of personality, insisting that we love Bush at the same time? Why don't they see that Bush is not the only one who is indicted: there is Rice, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz...

How can the Bush idolators be so stupid as to ignore the evidence which is right in front of their eyes?

interesting that you fail to note colin powell's comments in 2/2001. also interesting that you don't mention rumsfeld's frequent warnings not to leak classified info and yet fail to mention that the cia now wants an investigation into possible white house involvement in the naming of a cia agent who was involved in stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

do you really care about america's security, or are you just interested in your side being in power?

Kevin - Colin Powell's comments were made pre-9-11, when the risk / benefit analysis flipped. After 9-11 demonstrated that terrorists had the will and capability to eliminate thousands of lives at a stroke, it was no longer good enough just to say it was unlikely that Saddam had an active WMD program. It then became morally incumbent to assure that he did not. That is the only conclusion to which any American with both an iota of sense and a love for their country could come.

Milwauken: Here is an article that names names. It specifically calls out German firm Karl Kolb and the French firm Protec as providing chemical weapons infrastructure to Iraq. In particular, there is this quote: "In fact, just before the Gulf War, Germany was selling complete, ready-to-operate poison gas plants to Iraq and Libya at the same time. "

Kevin Lyda: The question you ask is the one you should ask of your side - which is the point of this list of quotes.

Lemme 'splain for those of you complaining - these quotes are significant because many of the same people now saying "Bush lied" about WMDs believed without a shadow of a doubt that Saddam had them - when Clinton was President.

Now that they are out of power, they have to contradict their previous statements and beliefs so they can have something with which to attack Bush.

If we don't find WMDs or the capability to make them, Bush will be embarassed, but so should these people, because they saw the same intellegence reports all through the 1990s, thought Saddam had WMD, and supported Clinton's efforts to limit them.

And so what if what Clinton did was limited (and, by the way, ineffective)? If he had done more, you can be sure these same people now complaining about Bush's war would have supported Clinton's Iraq war.

Lyda,

You write "do you really care about america's security, or are you just interested in your side being in power?" I think that question is the whole point of the original post. It has nothing to do with Donald Rumsfeld or any of the left's other demons. It is simple, verifiable evidence that leaders on the left agreed with the president's stated justifications until they sensed a political opening where they could attack the president for "lying" when IN FACT all he did was use the same sorts of language, saying the same things, that they had previously said themselves.

Who actually cares for our security rather than their own power, indeed.

Frank: Your David Kay argument is a straw man.

1. The consensus coming from the media's advance viewings of his report is that while there were extensive Iraqi WMD programs (though momentarily dormant until US attention was elsewhere), little, if any, actual WMD were on hand. Unfortunately, Kay has not found significant WMD, merely precursors. Certainly not the billions and billions of (gallons, drums, grams, molecules, Carl Sagan dolls? ) of Vx that you assert.

2. If indeed Kay has found the billions and billions of Vx filled Carl Sagan dolls (still speculating on your units), how does this support your implied assertion that inspections would've worked? Post-war, the Hussein regime can no longer directly frustrate the inspection program (indirectly is another matter). The inspection program of David Kay is in a very priviliged position compared to the Blix/ElBaradei UNMOVIC program. It is unreasonable to assume that Blix could have easily repeated Kay's successes. Not that Kay is a strictly better inspector (i am open to debate on this point), Kay just has true unfettered access, something the UN unsuccessfully requested for 12 years.

On a side issue, WMD was not the sole reason the US went to war with Iraq. There were many many reasons cited by the Bush administration, the sheer length of which caused the anti-war side to claim that the Bush camp was obfuscating the issue by citing numerous causus bella. As a useful reminder, here's the ones I remember off the top of my head:

WMD
Violation of UN Security Council Resolutions
Violation of Cease Fire Agreements
Attempted Assassination of a Former US President (this one got Bush in trouble, as he when he said "Tried to kill my daddy")
As a more humane solution than the sanctions regime
To remove an evil regime (remember the grief the Bush admin took for the Axis of Evil?)
To eliminate a state sponsor of terror (PLO, Ansar el Islam, numerous links to al Queda)
Spread the liberal democracy meme
To provide a way to extricate ourselves from Saudi Arabia (no Hussein = no need to be on the Arabian peninsula)
To give the Arabs a third way to of viewing feasible goverenments (thuggocracy, theocracy, liberal democracy) - this is a long term solution to the war on Islamic terror
To create an new opportunity in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (no more support from Hussein for the PLO/Hamas suicide bombers)
As a warning shot to other terror sponsoring regimes (Libya's been shaping up their act and so has Syria)
And yes oil. Not in the corporatist raptor sense that the no-blood-for-oil anti-war protestors asserted, but more so in the Frank Herbert's Dune "the oil must flow" sense. The US doesn't really care who pumps/owns the oil as long as the supply is stable. Hussein was a serious source of instability in the middle east and to the middle east oil supply.

There is a substantial difference between the possibility, or even the probability that Hussein had WMD, and the ability to inflict damage on the US. Why NOT let the UN inspectors do their jobs?
Clearly the administration felt that, despite the UN inspectors actually having some training in how to look and what to look for, they would not be as successful as poorly educated , economically challenged US soldiers who enlisted cause they couldn't get work in the US, who had no language skills in the Middle East and were totally unable to communicate with the locals.Yup, that must be it.

Jody, I was being ironinc when I pointed to Kay's investigations: he has found none of the materials Bush warned us about in the 2003 State of the Union address. My point is, that expecting the UN inspectors to do better than Kay has done shows that hawks desired war, not resolution.

As for the reasons the Bush administration cited for war, the non-WMD reasons only seemed to matter because they were combined with WMD. This is what Bush said in Cincinnati last October. As if to imply, that were it not for WMDs, Iraq would not be a target.

If you read the Judis and Ackerman article, you'll see we were basically sold a bill of goods. Key footnotes were ignored. This White House wanted war with Iraq long before 9/11 (PBS Frontline reported that candidate Bush was visited in Texas by a committee which convinced him of the need), and on 9/11 Rumsfeld made an explicit note to dig up everything possible on an Iraqi connection.

Democracy is one thing, but when Russia and China used war to pave the way for Communism, we strongly objected.

By the way, it's not just Democrats who are complaining, and it's not just about the White House. The House Intelligence committee has written a letter to Tenet at the CIA...

Doesn't everyone feel good about last year's Strategic Defense Policy vision statement? Were it issued today it would be laughed away!

Frank: replying in no particular order

The point of the war hawks which I repeated is with Hussein in place and his continued obstinancy, the UN Inspections could not work. Hussein was given several "last" chances and he took none of them. Faced with the reality that the Inspectors would not be granted unfettered access, the calculus had to change.

On peeps visiting Bush during campaign: So being contacted by a committee that recognized ahead of time the potential dangers of the Middle East/Hussein/Terror is a bad thing? I think it's a good thing. And perhaps if their council had been followed, 9/11 may have been averted.

Recall that prior to 9/11, Iraq and foreign policy in general was way on the back burner for the Bush admin (not even recalling the name of Prevez Musharraf during the campaign). If war with Iraq was a primary Bush goal from before he took office, where was the "drumbeat" for war before 9/11? I remember a lot of stuff on tax cuts and Teddy Kennedy's education bill. But not too much on Iraq (or OBL either).

War with Iraq before 9/11 - elements within the Bush admin and within the Clinton admin advocated war with Iraq (it was a serious consideration during the Clinton bombing). The Iraq situation didn't change so it is only reasonable that there remained communities that advocated strong actions against Iraq.

Rumsfeld requesting possible links between Iraq and 9/11 on 9/11- that doesn't seem to you like a reasonable and for that matter intelligent thing to do? To draw an analogy for the sake of simplicity, if a crime is committed, do the police not investigate all potential suspects? Iraq had long been engaging in sabre rattling towards the US and praised the 9/11 attacks. Due diligence requires that the US explore possible links between 9/11 and Iraq as Iraq was clearly a suspect. Personally, I hoped that the administration also looked long and hard at the Saudis, FARC, ISI, Syria, Iran, and Lybia as they were suspects at the time.

Conjoining two arguments:
As you said, the WMD argument was indeed a force multiplier as was installing a democracy in Iraq. I, however, was sold on the basis on the long term capability of Iraq to support significant terrorist activities. Others may have indeed been swayed on the basis of the Blair claim of WMD deployable in 45 minutes, but I was not one of those as I was more concerned about when our attentiveness had waned.

Still on the rhetorical force multiplier, but now on democracy, it is not the goal of the US to invade to install democracies (the state department has caught lots of grief for continuously propping up "Our Bastards" around the world). However, when we do invade, we have repeatedly set up democracies (Germany and Japan come to mind). The case for invasion is made on other grounds (I think I listed a few), and this case is then supplemented by the argument: "After we invade, we'll install a liberal democracy and liberal democracies are generally well-behaved so this country won't be a problem again in the future."

Footnotes: I assume you're referring to the state dept caveats? Perfect unanimity is a rare thing on any foreign intelligence position. Even witnesses to crimes, which are a lot easier to observe, all take identical positions.

To the larger point:
Were there intelligence mistakes? Yes. Foreign intelligence is not an exact science. It is foolish to think otherwise and foolish to expect action only when presented with perfect knowledge. History is littered with intelligence failures.

Does the WMD force multiplier appear to be flawed (or more accuratley dated and primarily based on 1998 intelligence when the inspectors were ejected from Iraq)? Yes.

But does the larger case for war still hold? Yes.

acurtis, how much training does it take to be so condescending?

You're saying all our US soldiers are societal misfits who are too stupid to get real work, so they join the Army?

Pot, meet kettle. Maybe you should get out and meet some professional soldiers sometime. Or you could just continue to use your prejudice. Why not just call them nigger, while you're at it?

That's how you sound to me, anyway.

Hans Blix had some interesting things to say on Saddam's WMD as well:

---

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
January 27, 2003
Addressing the UN Security Council
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6

---

"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
January 27, 2003
Addressing the UN Security Council
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6

---

"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ... we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
January 27, 2003
Addressing the UN Security Council
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6

---

"I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
January 27, 2003
Addressing the UN Security Council
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6

To Frank and others,
"Why does Horsefeathers go to such great lengths to ignore truth? Reality is painful, but continuing delusions is worse."

Horsefeathers is quoting real statements made by various Democrats. These same guys are now accusing Bush of lying for expressing similar opinions.

So the topic here is "the opinions" - then vs. now and why they are lies when voiced by Bush but not lies when voiced by these Democrats.

Now, how is Frank's above questions/statement relevant to Horsefeather's post?

In my opinion it is not relevant. It doesn't address Hosefeather's point. It is the purest BS designed to shift the topic. But perhaps Frank thinks that this makes him a great polemicist.

President Clinton on Saddam's WMD, and the link to terrorists:

 
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, February 17, 1998

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Clinton's policy of "regime change" in Iraq, since 1998:
 

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton):

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

105th Congress, 2nd Session, September 29, 1998

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm

Some relevant context:
 

"We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and biological weapons."

 
Islamic terrorist group "Al Qaeda" spokesman, June 2002

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP38802

Nicely said, Jody.

Frank, it's important to recognize the difference between an action's being justified and the justifications that happen to be given for it, as well as the difference between going to war to install a communist dictatorship and going to war to liberate people. You said,

"we were basically sold a bill of goods. Key footnotes were ignored. This White House wanted war with Iraq long before 9/11"

"when Russia and China used war to pave the way for Communism, we strongly objected."

These are red herrings, Frank. In addition, Saddam has not been found. But you can't seriously maintain that he never existed.

American companies made a lot of money trading with Germany after WWII. Maybe U.S. oil companies will make big bucks after we clean up the Middle East. It's irrelevant. Indulging in the search for selfish motives behind others' principles of action does nothing to debunk those principles.

I hope R Twelve will tell us a cheaper way to prevent terrorists from eliminating an American city.

Reply to Jody:

I hear your argument that with Saddam Hussein in place, inspections would not work, but I disagree with it. Blix acknowledged that Hussein was not as forthcoming as he could have been, yet felt they should continue. So far David Kay has apparently come up with very little, in spite of having free reign. What is your standard for 'failure'? If the UN inspections failed, then certainly Kay's have, too. I'm confused by your argument, because it assumes that the weapons are there. Might they not be? MIght there only have been an organization which could produce them?

Of course there's nothing wrong with an agendaed group meeting with a candidate; all I am pointing out is that Bush et all were pre-disposed to war. I feel that in the context of this predisposition, the evidence was not properly weighed. (I am considering every one of your points very carefully, and hope that you will show me similar consideration by reading the Judis and Ackerman article to see how the evidence was weighed. Please read it before replying further in this thread, it's important to the level of the discussion.)

You are correct that there was no loud drumbeat for war prior to 9/11, but its absence is not evidence that there were no interests in war. As for Rumsfeld's notes on 9/11 re Iraq, are there notes indicating he was really interested in all the usual suspects? I have not heard about similar notes regarding other countries, and none of the hijackers came from Iraq.

Regarding the force multiplier, as you put it (I don't see WMDs having been used as a multiplier, so much as a required condition), you're not alone in your reasons, but I don't think you represent the plurality of American opinion. Remember, a high percentage of Americans thought that Iraq was connected to 9/11; your reasoning is supported by the POTUS frequent warnings that Iraq would threaten us with terror, but please also remember that Tenet wrote a memo suggesting that the terror threat would likely be stronger in retaliation to any invasion on our part (i.e., little threat prior to this).

RE installing democracies, I'm not sure if you mean in your mind it's not the US's goal, or if, in your opinion the US is not pursuing this. I'll have to dig it up, but I thought there was a 10 year old doc outlining the value of installing a democracy in the Arab world, from Wolfowitz' thik tank? Called something like New American Century? Ring a bell?

Re larger case for the war: I'm not arguing about the larger case, I'm all for freedom and the toppling of tyrants. What I'm not for is the way the war was campaigned for with the American people. The emphasis of the argument was WMDs and the threat to the US, both in the State of the Union and in Cincinnati. The press conference the week prior to the invasion also reiterated it (IIRC "September 11" was mentioned at least 6 times).

I repeat: I am glad Hussein is no longer a threat, and I look forward to his apprehension. But as a patriot, I want the public to be better informed.

Jim, I most certainly recognize the difference between reasons for an action and stated reasons. I just happen to think they should be the same. If the reasons are hidden, our voice (as the holders of sovereignty, who have delegated it to our government) is less meaningful. The underpinnings of our democracy are threatened. I love our country too much to be quiet while it happens. Don't you love America, too?

Frank
If you truly want the public to be better informed, try some verifiable Facts not a page full of rhetoric.
Judis/Ackerman, why don't you try reading it with out your predisposition to ignore the total lack of verifiable facts in the article. If your posts are an exercise in verbosity, you win, if you want us to learn something, Show Me the Facts.

Frank says: "a high percentage of Americans thought that Iraq was connected to 9/11". That's "a high percentage of Americans think that Iraq was likely connected to 9/11" Frank. That is what the poll asked and, that is how 70% of Americans responded. They have not been proven wrong by any stretch of the imagination. When top administration officials say there is "no credible evidence of links" between Saddam and 9-11, they are NOT saying there is "credible evidence of no links".

Only a fool would discount the likelihood of Saddam's involvement, when he had the motive, means and opportunity to strike at us. Especially given the numerous accounts of suspicious meetings between his operatives and representatives of Al Qaeda. The stakes were way too high to have stuck our heads in the sand and avoided considering the existence and ramifications of these links.

Logicop, did you read Judis & Ackerman's article? Why do you say it's full of suppositions? It sound like they did a lot of legwork to me.

Reid, I think that "no credible evidence of links" means that the accounts of suspicious meetings are not credible evidence. Explain to me what part of our common language I'm not understanding? And, if in spite of those accounts (as well as opportunity, motivation, etc.), the current White House position is that there is no credible evidence, are you saying that the White House is full of fools?

My earlier comment about Iraq's weapons imports had a bad link. Here's the correct link for the numbers:

Numbers

And here's the link to the graph again:

Graph

I apologize for any confusion.

Frank, are you for real? Okey, dokey, let's parse the phrases.

"no credible evidence of links"

The word "no" in this sentence is being used as an adjective modifying the noun "evidence". There is no evidence.

"credible evidence of no links"

In this case, "no" is a modifier of the noun "links". There are (hypothetically speaking only) no links, as proven by the evidence.

The first sentence is factual. The second one is not. There may be a direct link between Saddam and 9-11. We simply do not have the evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to those predisposed to disbelieve it. Kind of like, OJ Simpson may have killed his wife, but we do not have the evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to those predisposed to disbelieve it. Clear now?

Frank:
“Might there only have been an organization which could produce them?”:

In point 1 of my straw man response I said that the media consensus was that “while there were extensive Iraqi WMD programs (though momentarily dormant until US attention was elsewhere), little, if any, actual WMD were on hand.”

I guess I should emphasize that this is my position as well.

“standard for 'failure'”:
Having not used the world ‘failure’ outside of the context of intelligence failures, I am uncertain as to why you put the failure in quotes, unless you intend to preemptively belittle any standard I might give.

I infer from your comments that your definition of failure of an investigative program is the failure to find what you’re looking for. However, I feel this is an incorrect definition of a true investigative program (inspections regime).

Since I’ve now been asked for a definition and asserted that another definition is incorrect, I guess I ought to give one:

Failure of an investigative program - the failure to find answers, whether or not the result is favorable to those running the investigation. If at the end of an investigation, the subject questions cannot be convincingly answered, then the program is a failure.

By this criterion, the Blix regime would indeed be a failure as it was unable to answer the critical questions at the time if a) do WMD currently exist in Iraq and b) what is the status of Iraq’s WMD programs. The Kay regime is thus, from reading the tea leaves, a success as it appears to have answered these questions as a) no significant WMD and b) extensive programs which were dormant and waiting for the world to look the other way to restart. It will be to the credit of the Bush administration if the report is published and states these points.

I reiterate the failure, to continue to use Frank’s word, of the Blix regime was not necessarily the fault of Blix or the UN inspectors. Their failure was due to the intransigence of Hussein.

Judis and Ackerman article: I read tnr. I read this article when it came out. If you’re insistent that I respond on a point-by-point basis, that’ll take days – it’s a long essay and my primary difficulty is the way in which the facts of situation are viewed – a presupposition of mal-intent by the Bush admin (by the way, I think the different ways which the people view the facts of the Iraqi war are the primary source of separation among otherwise reasonably intelligent people).

Rather, I’ll respond to what I feel is the money paragraph of the Judis/Ackerman article which I repeat below: (Frank, feel free to correct me if you think there was some other short blurb that succinctly summarized their thesis) Note numbers are mine, for the purpose of organizing my response.

“1 Yet there was no consensus within the American intelligence community that Saddam represented such a grave and imminent threat. 2 Rather, interviews with current and former intelligence officials and other experts reveal that the Bush administration culled from U.S. intelligence those assessments that supported its position and omitted those that did not. 3 The administration ignored, and even suppressed, disagreement within the intelligence agencies and pressured the CIA to reaffirm its preferred version of the Iraqi threat. 4 Similarly, it stonewalled, and sought to discredit, international weapons inspectors when their findings threatened to undermine the case for war.” – Judis/Ackerman tnr June 2003

1. This point I previously covered. It is unreasonable to expect perfect agreement on matters of foreign intelligence.

2. Well in their public statements, the Bush admin was making a case for war, not performing an academic investigation. When the prosecution is making a case against a defendant, they do not argue for the defense in court. Similarly, while making its case to the world, it was not the Bush admin’s responsibility to argue for Hussein.

3. I’ve seen very little evidence to support that there was pressure on the intelligence community to bulwark the Bush position. I’ve interpreted it as pressure to complete an investigation to give answers. Certainly it was a tense time.

The worst thing that admin, from my view, that Judis and Ackerman come up with is not reigning in the CIA when it ran roughshod over other unspecified agencies (presumably the State Dept). Even though Judis and Ackerman ackowledge that the CIA supports the chemical and biological assertions, they focus extensively on the weakness of the nuclear argument, but that was secondary to the chemical and biological arguments.

The SOTU, which I feel is the most public and formal pronouncement of the Bush position and as such I feel is most valid for critique, spent six paragraphs on bio and chem and two on nuclear. So Judis and Ackerman focused on the weakest part of the case in an attempt to discredit the larger case. To the Bush admin’s credit, they have admitted that it was a mistake to include the Nigerian link – not that the intelligence was necessarily incorrect as the Brits still stand by it, but that it didn’t rise to the level of intelligence agreement (this does not mean unamity) demanded of a SOTU.

An analogous case which I wish to cite is the OJ Simpson case. It was a mistake by Clark and Darden to allow OJ to try on those gloves. While that was a bad idea, their larger case was sound and it is unfortunate that the jury seized on the minor point “If the glove does not fit, you must acquit” while ignoring the more important blood and DNA evidence.

4. Their section on this point is almost entirely based on the Nigerian incident with one paragraph describing disagreements between Blix and the admin. Nothing in the Judis report supports that the admin “sought to discredit” the inspectors, unless you think that publicly disagreeing is discrediting. The closest thing to a discrediting campaign did come from members of the right wing media and that was only the discrediting of Scott Ritter, the former Inspections Head who curiously flip-flopped his position. I am unaware of, and Judis provides no evidence of, any attempt to discredit the inspectors. If anyone can provide proof to the contrary (note: I do not consider public disagreement an attempt to discredit), I would be more than happy to reconsider my position.

The only possible support for stonewalling assertion is the temporary withholding of some US intelligence on where to look for speculated caches of weapons. Note that this was eventually given by the admin anyways.

Judis considered on a whole – a lot of disconnected facts which purport to show a campaign of deceit, but after a serious examination fail to do so.

pre-disposed to war: This is an unfalsifiable statement. Only Bush knows his predisposition. From my analysis of events before 9/11 this does not seem to be the case. After 9/11 I would agree with you that Bush was predisposed to war, but the reason why 9/11 is such a pivotal event is that it changed (almost) everyone’s outlook on the world, especially Bush's.

Other suspects: Alas I somehow don’t have access to those notes on who they initially speculated might be involved (and I think it would be a serious breach of national security if I did). However, I figure initial emphasis was not placed on all the usual suspects as the government, while very large, does not have infinite resources, so prioritization had to occur.

Towards there not be Iraqis on the plane: are you then asserting that the Saudi government planned 9/11? Just because a group of people of a certain nationalities are involved in an attack, does not mean that the nation itself was involved in the attack. Similarly, the lack of a particular nationality does not preclude that nation from involvement. Consider for instance the many CIA operations around the world during the cold war. 9/11 gives every appearance of significant training and logistics, the kind that a government is best situated to provide. Iraq had the facilities, motive, and set up (Salman Pak) to provide this. S.A. had the facilities, but neither the motive nor set up so they would be a lower priority suspect.

Being in the plurality: My belief in the strength of my position does not lie in the numbers of Americans who agree with me, only in the logic and observations that lead to them. (this is also why I’m always keen to have other observations and to have errors in my logic pointed out.)

Installing democracies: It is both. In my mind, it is not the primary goal of the US nor is the US actively pursuing the overthrowal of dictatorships to install democracies. But if it happens as a side effect, all the better.

The New American Century “document” that you refer to is from 1996 and was a collection of notes from a number of presentations of speakers at a Washington think tank meeting. This is commonly mis-stated as the neo-con platform and the list of attendees are commonly misattributed as subscribers to the philosophies of the speakers.
1. These people are paid to speculate what-if and speculate they did.
2. I’ve been to PETA rallies, but believe you me, this does not mean I stand behind the majority of their points of view.
3.The whole brouhaha over the New American Century document plays out a lot like a latter day “Elders of Zion” to me, which makes me real questionable about its use to bludgeon neo-cons (note this argument is an example of an attempt to discredit, not merely disagree).

Mentioning 9/11: This was needed to justify why a pre-imminent attack was needed. Post 9/11, the stakes are much higher and the calculus of preemptive strikes accordingly changes. To quote the SOTU where 9/11 was indeed cited in context with Iraq but not to link 9/11 to Iraq:

“Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”

Clearly this is justifying a preemptive attack, not linking Iraq to 9/11 for which we still only have suspicions not actionable proof.

Informing the public: I think that is something everyone wants.

WMD's are there somewhere, we just havent found them. The Treason Lobby on the Left would have us believe that Saddam destroyed his stockpile without telling anyone. Oh, and Bush lied.
Regardless, the overarching point of the war was one Bush couldnt make for political reasons: we have to clean out the Middle East snake pit.
We now have a fist in Iran and Syria's faces and the Saudis no longer have the oil card to play on us. Saddam doesn't prop up the Palestinians and provide refuge to terrorists like Abu Nidal. Also, no more Salman Pak type training camps in Iraq where muslims can learn the latest techiniques in slashing stewardess throats. And the big bonus is Al Qaeda is streaming into our killbox inside Iraq's borders.
WMD's? I hope we locate them if only to ensure the traitorous Democrats get their comeuppance.

Jody:

///Well in their public statements, the Bush admin was making a case for war, not performing an academic investigation. When the prosecution is making a case against a defendant, they do not argue for the defense in court. Similarly, while making its case to the world, it was not the Bush admin’s responsibility to argue for Hussein.///

Way to blurt out the truth. The Bush admin was making a case for war and to that end selectively using intelligence, rather than examining all the evidence. Nobody is suggesting the US govt. should argue for Hussein. They should however use all the information available, not cherry pick, and should not mislead people. Using your prosecutor defense analogy, the case for the defense was clear and unanimous. The UN did not support this war, and their oppostion has been justified by recent Bush administration admissions that their reasons were bogus.

///To the Bush admin’s credit, they have admitted that it was a mistake to include the Nigerian link – not that the intelligence was necessarily incorrect as the Brits still stand by it, but that it didn’t rise to the level of intelligence agreement (this does not mean unamity) demanded of a SOTU.///
The Niger documentation was clearly fake. It took the IAEA mere hours to establish this fact. Yet this reached the President's desk and was incorporated into the SOTU. At best, this is incompetence. At worst, duplicity. I think the latter. British and US intelligence was tailored to present a case for war. The current Hutton report shows how the British public were misled by semantic adjustment and the juggling of 'facts'.

You detail GWBs SOTU comments and say
///Clearly this is justifying a preemptive attack, not linking Iraq to 9/11 for which we still only have suspicions not actionable proof. ///
Careful wording, but an obvious allusion designed to influence a frightened nation. GWB mentions Iraq and then prompts the US public to imagine a subsequent attack organised and funded by Saddam. The only stronger wording of this statement would involve saying there was a direct link. GWB knew this not to be the case, but a majority of US citizens believing that to be true would be politically useful.
The United States does not have a mandate for preemptive attack of foreign states without clear and unequivocal evidence of a threat to itself. There was no such evidence with respect to WMDs or the link to 9/11.

GWB says: 'Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy'
That is so damn true its a truism. An actual strategy, such as that adopted by the US pre-1990, would be to rely Saddams insanity and lack of restraint, indeed even to supply him with arms and WMDs. But then my enemy's enemy is my friend. Except the Iranian regime was also supplied with arms by the US on GHWB's watch. About which he subsequently lied. Not so much the moral high ground, more a moral ditch.

Informing the public you say. Was that was Colin Powell did with the farcical presentation to the UN?
This thread began with a list of Democratic lies about WMDs. How can highlighting such statements defend the current administration? This isn't a party issue. If people make false or misleading statements they should be brought to account. It did for Clinton and should do some of the misinformd and/or deceitful claimants listed. The Bush administration has propagated deceptions to justify an immoral war in which thousands have died. This is why the majority of people in other nations decry the actions of the US in Iraq.

Jim said:
///American companies made a lot of money trading with Germany after WWII. Maybe U.S. oil companies will make big bucks after we clean up the Middle East. It's irrelevant. Indulging in the search for selfish motives behind others' principles of action does nothing to debunk those principles.///

After and during WWII, mate. GWB's grandfather was involved in several companies providing Nazi war materiel which were seized under the Trading With The Enemy Act in 1942. What were the principles of action guiding Prescott Bush's activities while Europe was under the cosh and Britain being bombed nightly? Of course whether US companies make millions from cleaning up Iraq is relevant. The place has been pounded by US and UK munitions for 12 years. That's a lot of infrastructure to clean up. Expecting US taxpayers to pour billions of dollars into a few handpicked US firms coffers may be a scam too far. Expecting Iraqi oil to pay for the cleanup is despicable. The UN certainly won't chip in, and rightly so. This isn't their war, or even America's war. It was fought by the GWB administration

Oh, and Jody:
///To give the Arabs a third way to of viewing feasible goverenments (thuggocracy, theocracy, liberal democracy)///

Which of those terms would apply the US? Include Florida in your answer.

Re: Connections between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda, check out this link: http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Also, it is interesting to note that Con Coughlin, in his book "Saddam: King of Terror", reveals that the Iraqi military went on high alert just prior to 911... an extraordinary coincidence, or evidence of guilty foreknowledge?

Dirk:
In general, you’re doing exactly the same thing that I accused Frank and Judis of doing – focusing on an ancillary point in an argument to try to discredit a larger argument. The larger argument for war still holds, Niger (my earlier Nigeria was incorrect) uranium or not.

Side point: You appear to look to others for validation of your position. Don’t feel bad, many do. I however, do not (see my previous rambling post). Without introducing new observations, or demonstrating a flaw in my logic, I’m not inclined to be swayed. (I’ve already offered several lines of reasoning which would, if they hold up, constitute a flaw) You’ve actually only rehashed old material – from today and my posts no less – and introduced a straw man. Also if I may generalize for a moment, based on your tone and argument style, I think you should be made aware that just desperately wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true.

Bush the bad prosecutor - They did use all of their information available to make their decision. Perhaps beating a metaphor to death - much as a prosecutor reviews evidence before charging a crime, prosecutors (Bush et al) reviewed all the available information and based on this made the decision to prosecute (pursue an aggressive stance towards Iraq). After the decision is made, it is their responsibility to convince the jury (American people) of the rightness of their charge. During this phase nuanced positions only serve to confuse the jury. Nuance does not play well in public. Case in point, the continuing brouhaha over the Niger uranium.

You state that the case for the defense is clear and unanimous. The unanimity is clearly false and a logical impossibility as the US and its superfriends are members of the UN and were in obvious opposition. The clearness of the defense, I do not see. Without an actual argument, I can neither agree nor disagree with you on its clarity. Should a defense be mounted, I imagine that it would have to address the following accusations:
Hussein violated the cease fire agreements of Gulf War I.
Hussein had extensive programs to create WMD.
Hussein previously had extensive stockpiles of WMD and refused to account for them.
Hussein repeatedly frustrated the efforts of the UN inspectors through deception and through out right denial of access.
Hussein had significant terrorist connections.
Hussein had shown a previous willingness to use WMD.

Show where any one of these assertions are false, and the Bush case falls apart (I am disregarding the humanitarian and long term strategic reasons for war as they can only be ancillary reasons for invading).

Continuing on this subject, my recollection of the UN is that the “guilt” of Hussein was agreed on by all (resolution 1441) indeed 1441 passed unanimously (your criterion, not mine). It was only in the sentencing phase (war) that some members (France, Germany, Russia) of the UN went soft. The UN agreed on the guilt, but were uneasy with the “death penalty”.
On a side point: if the US believes that vital US interests are at stake, why should the US have to convince everyone that it is correct? My own straw man, but I think illustrative of the hypocrisy of this reasoning: Did we need UN approval for Bosnia? For Haiti? For Panama? For Somalia? Did the French need UN approval for the Ivory Coast (they only got it after the fact, like we’re asking now)?

Bush claims bogus:
Other than the Niger claim, when has the Bush team been shown wrong (not merely claimed) wrong. Today Powell and Rice were reasserting that the reasons that the US went to war were sound. That doesn’t sound like they were saying that the reasons were bogus. You can respond to this by any by responding to any of the accusations I previously laid out.

More Niger:
Britain says that the Niger document was not the only source for the claim that Hussein sought uranium from there. The Hutton investigation has not yet found a problem with this claim. Also recall that while that document is agreed upon to be flawed, the only actually conceded point is that the quality (not accuracy – that is still in dispute) of Niger intelligence was not appropriate for a SOTU.

Yet more Niger: The document was indeed mishandled primarily through poor communications between the intelligence branches. I have hopes that the integrated Homeland defense department will go a long ways towards solving this problem. It should be noted that Homeland defense is not even expecting their various communities networks to be fully integrated until December 2004 (from statements of UnderSec of IT at COVITS)

Hutton report: You have the report? An advance copy? I didn't think it was released yet. You are one hell of a scoop reporter. Your statements of semantic adjustment and juggling assertion must be borne out by a quote from .

For those who want to be up to date on this (I've seen no official report yet, but maybe I'm missing something) go to
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk

Bush misleading Iraq-9/11 link in SOTU:
If you want to openly misrepresent a statement to make your case, so be it. At best you're claiming that the position is too nuanced for the public to comprehend which is, in my opinion, logically opposed to your larger claims.

Towards your larger point that the Bush team misled the public is not even borne out by the article which many cite as evidence that it did (For those unfamiliar, read http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32862-2003Sep5¬Found=true) Therein the following points are salient: In august, 69% think that it is likely or somewhat likely that Iraq was involved in 9/11 down from 78% immediately after 9/11. If the Bush propaganda team were really behind this perception, you would think that the percentages would’ve grown, particularly as Iraq was considered after Afghanistan. Second, though out the piece, it is stated that the Bush position was and continues to be that there is no strong evidence which shows that Iraq played a direct role in 9/11. In general, the Bush admin has been taking a NUANCED position on this particular line and is being criticized for it. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Arming very bad men: I previously addressed this. They’re our bastards and in the real world you have to sometimes go with the lesser of evils. By the way, this too is a straw man as it does not address the cause for war.

Democratic lies: Are you dense? The point of the original post was that the Democrats were engaging in political point scoring not that they were lying. When they were in power, they had the same concerns which were cited by the Republicans now that they’re in power.

Side note: If politicians were “brought to account” for misleading statements, there would be no one in government, particularly when the apparent standard for a misleading statement is to merely be mistaken.

Defending Jim: Dirk you’re engaging EXACTLY in the behavior that said was irrelevant. And as a side note this is a massive short term money losing proposition for the US. Long term remains to be seen.

If you want to make a relevant argument on Jim’s post, explain how motives weaken the actual facts. To play your game in the real way that you intended, cite France and Germany’s history of benefiting from the Hussein regime (arms, administering the oil-for-palaces program) as these are examples of where motives appear to impugn actions. For fun also include the debts that Hussein owed to Russia who overtly said that if the debts were guaranteed they were in, otherwise they were out.

Florida:
1. I was citing all of the forms of Arab government. If you can identify one Arab government that is not a thuggocracy or theocracy, please do so (to save me and you a little time, Turkey is not Arab).
2. To make your point relevant to my argument, please show me how Florida is majority Arab.

Towards your implied point on Florida that Bush stole the election and thus Florida is not a democracy:
Gore lost an extremely close election. Gore contested. Gore insisted on only counting the votes of heavily democratic counties and applying differing standards to vote counts between votes for Bush and Gore. The Florida SC said ok. The US Supreme court said no. The right decision, but for the wrong reasons (14th amendment) (right reason would’ve been courts don’t have the power to change the rules of an election after the election has occurred. FSC had proposed new recount rules.). That ended it.

It is also interesting to recall that the irregularities which were protested in this election occurred in Democrat counties, i.e. ones where the Democrat machine was responsible for the election procedures. This is not a coincidence. Not that the Dems were either masochistic or presciently trying to give the Democratic Underground loony food for years to come. Rather, there are irregularities in every election. No matter who’s in charge. Its just that the election is not so close or so important that it matters. The reason why Gore protested these counties is that these counties were the ones with the greatest percentage of registered Democrats. Whenever you have a recount, votes go up. Logically, counting on the majority of votes in these counties to be for Gore, Gore requested votes to be recounted in these counties. While votes would go up for both candidates, as these were heavily Democrat counties, Gore would get a larger percentage of the votes.

Ultimately, Gore lost a very very close and fair election. Why can’t the Left take its own advice and moveon(.org)?

Dirk - you regurgitate the hoary calumny that the US supplied Saddam with WMD as if it were self evident. The US did NOT supply Saddam with any materials that were intended for such a purpose. Please see the discussion and links above in this thread (search for my name and you will find them).

or, rather, that were known to be intended...

Jody:

A word of support for you.

I imagine you are feeling like you are casting pearls before swine... as some people here... *COUGH* Dirk, Frank *COUGH*... wouldn't be convinced if we discovered 50 tons of weapons-ready anthrax with a map of Chicago embossed on each drum, and each personally autographed by Saddam Hussein.

Am I accusing them of dishonesty? You bet.

But all is not lost. I think I'll commit these comments to my archive of well-argued opinions for possible future use, should I have need to convince someone who isn't convinced that Bush bakes the blood of Iraqi babies into his daily bread.

Thank you.

Jody, if an argument is important to me, it will always be important to me, and your calling it "ancillary" is ineffective. In my view, it's really simple (why do conservatives want to make everything so complex?): While it was good to invade Iraq, the reasons we did it were not provided to the American people, and the reasons which were given, so far, have not proven to be accurate. Everything else which the hawks pile on is distraction, to me.

What I meant in my probe for a definition of failure is this: right or wrong, you have a predisposition to believe that inspections would not have worked. So far, the evidence (I'm not saying proof) from the UN inspectors was that they didn't find the tons of VX which was menitoned in the SOTU address. David Kay's reports seems not to have found any evidence either (again, I'm not saying proof). Is it possible that the stuff ain't there to be found? (I'm sure you've seen this morning's reports that the Pentagon is very dissatisfied with the intelligence it has been receiving from post-1998 Iraqi defectors.) If there are no WMDs to be found — ask yourself, truly — would you ever have been satisfied by UN inspectors who didn't find anything?

I acknowledge the argument that Iraq was not as forthcoming with its details of destruction as other countries have been in similar situations (and I remember Rice's op-ed piece in the NY Times which made this argument), but in fairness, if that was what the US expected, do you know if that was made explicit from the start? The Iraqis put a lot of information in their first batch, I wonder if they were ignorant. Remember, many in the US (Cheney, Rice) were openly skeptical about the efficacy of inspections from the start, and in similar situations many people don't do all they can to be open about their criteria, and don't raise all their objections at once, only in sequence after continual expressions of dissatisfaction. (I'm sure you've seen this in meetings, or dealing with clients: people rush to cynicism without getting into what it will take to make them withdraw their objections.)

Also Jody, I want to say I appreciate your taking the time in this dialog. Please disregard the comments of those who think you've been casting your pearls on swine.

Paul, before you start calling people the "Treason Lobby," you'd better be able to back up your words. I am not a public figure, and therefore it's easier to get a libel conviction. Whether or not you're right that we "had to clean out the Middle East snake pit," that is not what the American people were told. I still love America and its ideals enough to recognize that we lose something if the people don't participate in the democracy. Can you find any statements from the Founding Fathers that recommend war for hidden reasons?

Reid, you're not dealing with the inconsistency in your words which I meant. The inconsistency is this: Bush says "no credible evidence," you cite "accounts of meetings." Which should we disregard, the President because the accounts are credible, or the accounts because the President hais said there is no credible evidence? And, if we disregard the President, does this make him a fool as a result of your characterization that only a fool would discount Saddam Hussein's will, opportunity, etc.?

Frank - The meetings prove a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The President was referring to links between Saddam and 9-11. You can aid a group without necessarily being involved in all its activities.

Frank: I have to work today. I'll post a reply tonight. In brief, I think we agree on the facts, but differ on the interpretation.

This thread is interesting but points out a normal ploy of those who don't want to validate the original idea. The point is "no body lied" everyone from both parties had the same information and drew the same conclusions. Now after the fact they say something different.

Jim, unless I'm mistaken, the only Democrat in the original post who might have had access to all the intelligence is Bob Graham, due to his sitting on the Senate Intel Committee. (Am I wrong? I could be.) All the others either relied on public statements or classified information they'd been shared. Are you saying that the others had seen the full brief?

As for Graham, the latest quotation in that list was from December, 2002. I honestly don't know what the status of intelligence was that had been shared with him at that point... Based on the Judis & Ackerman article Graham should have known there were qualifications to the intelligence assessments at that point (but the qualifications were purged from the declassified version, so he may not have been able to talk about them). I followed a link in the comments to a CBS page that had Graham's original comments, but it seems as if the original article has been taken down, and I don't know what else (if anything) was said at the time.

The best defense for the Administration seems to be the position that the Iraqi defectors were puffing up their stories. The LA Times reported these suspicions weeks ago, and the NY Times reported it today. (Requires registration and may give you the cooties.)

Anyone have any thoughts on the Feb 2001 statement from Colin Powell which I linked above?

The timeline is important to remember when accusing politicians of hypocritically changing their positions.

The full transcript of Bob Graham's interview on CBS' "Face the Nation" (the source of the quote) is here. There do not appear to be any qualifiers or indications that there is a lack of consensus in the available information. (I wonder if he couldn't allude to that? Judis & Ackerman wrote that he had been frustrated that the declassified information had purged qualifying footnotes.)

Frank writes:

"Can you find any statements from the Founding Fathers that recommend war for hidden reasons?"
 

It's only a "secret" if you are not paying attention:

"The success of a free Iraq will be watched and noted throughout the region. Millions will see that freedom, equality, and material progress are possible at the heart of the Middle East. Leaders in the region will face the clearest evidence that free institutions and open societies are the only path to long-term national success and dignity. And a transformed Middle East would benefit the entire world, by undermining the ideologies that export violence to other lands."

President Bush
Addresses United Nations General Assembly
September 23, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030923-4.html
 

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal."

President Bush
Addresses United Nations General Assembly
September 12, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

Hans, a quote after the fact (September, 2003) doesn't help your argument. Bush's emphasis when talking to the American people prior to the invasion, has consistently been WMDs. Not just in the SOTU, but also in Cincinnati, where abuses were only threatening because they were being done by a regime that had WMDs. I think you'll find, Hans, that I have been doing my reading. Have you been doing yours? Taken out your Federalist papers and found anything suggesting it would be cool if the government went to war for secret reasons?

Okay Frank, I'l bite. What's the big conspiracy as you see it? What are these deep dark secret reasons you're referring to?

Bernard, it's no secret now; it's all the after-the-fact justification which came out while more and more people were asking where the WMDs were. "Aren't you glad we toppled this evil man?" and all that.

Frank - you are mistaken. Do you know who Sandy Berger is? Madeline Albright? OK, here's a tough one, William Jefferson Clinton???

Or, are you saying these were not on the original list? And, why would that matter? Everyone, even those with "inside knowledge" believed Saddam had an active WMD program.

Give it up, dude. You're wrong. You're wrong about the reasons we went to war, and you are wrong about the legitimacy of that war, you are wrong about the links to Al Qaeda... you're just plain wrong. You're like that knight in Monte Python with all his limbs cut off. What're you going to do, bleed on us? Enough is enough.

Reid, by the time we launched the invasion, the US was in a good position to doubt the intelligence it had received. (Read Judis & Ackerman and pay careful attention to all the footnotes in the reports which had been glided over.) The yellow cake story had been trashed, the aluminum tubes were for the purpose of conventional rockets, and the UN inspectors weren't finding anything. The Brits' dossier was famously dodgy by then. Wise men would have said, are we sure we want to go on with this? Hawks were saying it was then or never, because it took so much to get all the forces aligned. And every day, world opinion was going further and further against us. If WMDs had been the reason for the war, we wouldn't have gone in when we did, because the strength of our case on that front had been badly eroded. The US was then left with all the other reasons, none of which had been emphasized with the American people (humanitarian, anti-totalitarian, regional stability, etc.). If I recall correctly, Ari Fleischer quickly started referring to it as "the liberation of Iraq," de-emphasizing disarmament as a goal.

I'm not saying Bush didn't believe the yellow cake & aluminum tubes when he gave the SOTU address; I'm saying months passed between there and the invasion.

The Black Knight allusion was cute. But inaccurate. I'm not just plain wrong, and I have my facts straight.

"Hey, baby, you're on a subliminal trip to nowhere. You better get your act together, before you step in here with US!!" (Todd Rundgren)

Reid, by the time we launched the invasion, the US was in a good position to doubt the intelligence it had received.

I'm sure you were in a good position, having been properly primed with the latest A.N.S.W.E.R. bulletins, but meantime the rest of us in the real world...

The yellow cake story had been trashed, the aluminum tubes were for the purpose of conventional rockets, and the UN inspectors weren't finding anything.

Have you ever heard the term NBC? Nuclear-bological-chemical. The tubes and yellowcake were part of the nuclear leg of that triad... the smallest and weakest section of the argument.

And yet it is the ONLY one you are focusing on. Because you are engaging in ignoring the facts you don't like. Pitiful.

And the inspectors HAD found things... there were questions of banned SCUDs, UAV's that may have been modified to disperse agents, and hollowed-out cluster bomblets that were apparently designed for WMD dispersal.

Each of these were not a 'smoking gun' by themselves, but to call them 'nothing'? You are a brazen liar. A shameless liar. A useful fool.

You have your facts straight, all right. You know which ones to hype beyond what they will actually support (yellowcake and tubes were not the only things on the British dossier, by any means), and you know which ones you will simply pretend don't exist.

I hear Pravda's hiring. Though you might not meet their ethical standards.

Ryan, I wasn't getting any alerts from ANSWER. It was in the damned newspapers. If you looked down from your perch and did more than just crap on 'em, you could have learned, too.

Gee whiz, did I make you angry? Let's go back to the British dossier. If I recall correctly, the tubes weren't even in it, that was our own position, and the IAEA told us that they were for conventional rockets but the US ignored it. No, the famous British intelligence report of which Colin Powell spoke so positively was the one which was cribbed from a magazine.

I'm not ignoring anything, Ryan. If you're on heart medication, excitable boy, maybe you should check your disage before you come here. Your attacks on my ethics are uncalled for, and Ann Coulter would be surprised to learn that some conservatives are incapable of reasoned discourse, too.

Aww, are you angry that I take a lie of yours (that the inspectors found nothing), and tar the rest of your argument with it?

Can dish it out, but can't take it, I see.

And if you can't tell the difference between someone helpless before your self-evident brilliance, and someone lambasting you as a fool, then you... meet expecatations.

Ryan, I didn't mean the inspectors were finding literally nothing, but that they hadn't found anything which they felt merited war.

Know what, Ryan? I don't care what you think of me. This is a free country, I know disagreements exist, and I happen to be a tolerant person. G'night now.

Ah, so you were speaking metaphorically. Riiiight.

And if they felt that war was justified at the time of the SOTU, as you have already acknowledged, then they don't NEED to re-find a brand spanking new load of evidence that justified war in and of itself.

They just needed evidence that Saddam was continuing, and would continue, to defy the U.N. resolution which required him to disarm. Which they found.

Checkmate.

Frank, I quite understand (but reject) your argument that the stated reasons given for the war are not viable. But, please excuse me for belaboring the point, you said: "Take out your Federalist papers and find anything suggesting it would be cool if the government went to war for secret reasons." So, I ask you again. What are these secret reasons to which you allude?

All this proves is that busy speech writers and ghost writers email stock speeches back and forth for hard partying Washington politicians....

AND THAT GOES FOR everybody....ain't no Ciceros, Lincolns and Churchills in that crowd.....

Frank - Again I say, give it up. Your specious arguments have no merit. You may be able to fool yourself into believing all that blather but, the rest of us are not fooled. There are 20 verbatim quotes posted here that show that the Democratic leadership knew and agreed with the Bush assessment of Saddam's capabilites. Your denying it is like the man who is found in flagrante delicto by his wife and responds to her look of outraged disbelief with "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Ryan nails you when he says "You know which ones to hype ... and you know which ones you will simply pretend don't exist." But, this is standard fare from pseudo-intellectuals who are smitten by their own casuistry. You've been sucked into their thicket of sophistry. You need to get out of the trees and gaze upon the forest.

Where there is smoke, there is fire, laddie. Saddam was knee deep in terrorist plots against us and against our allies. Brazenly, I might add, counting on useful rationalizing fools to keep him invulnerable. With Saddam and his serpent's spawn in power for perpetuity, there was no hope of ever bringing peace to the region. Well, he overplayed his hand, because George W. Bush stood tall, cut through the crap, and did what had to be done. Someday, you will look back on this episode and wonder how you could have been so bllind.

The war has successfully incited the whole arab world against America. As long as there's this intense feeling of disgust against American's foreign policies, there will always be terrorism against america.

Gosh, Mike-thats awful.
I think the "whole Arab world" better check out that intense disgust thing and watch the incitement. I don't think it's likely to be too successful for them at all.

More likely they'll get some intense disgust right back at 'em. Probably from the Marines, the Navy, the Army, the Air Force.

Grumpy - no amounts of Marines, the Navy, the Army, the Air Force .. will diminish the intensifying anti-americanism around the world, or resolve the root cause of anti-americanism for that matter.

Bernard: I thought I answered you earlier (perhaps you didn't see it). The real reasons were the ones which were pulled out to defend the war after it was becoming clear that WMDs weren't being found (tyranny, humanity, etc.)

I believe these were the real reasons for the war because, by the time the invasion started, our WMD argument had already unraveled. The tubes were discounted, the yellow cake was discounted, the Brit dossier was discounted, and the inspectors hadn't found anything they thought was worth going to war for. (Someone mentioned Scuds, but I don't remember scuds: I remember SAMs which exceeded their limits, but not scuds.)

This is not directed specifically to Bernard, so much as to many of the other posters: I'm surprised no one wonders why the list of the quotations was posted. I think the list was posted to condone the positions taken by the Bush administration. It's true that there are quotes from Clinton and his administration (Albright & Berger), but if you look at the dates of those quotations you'll see that the Bush administration was privy to much more recent information. Timelines are important here, people. 1998 was five years before the invasion.

Reid, your tone isn't helpful, and it's beneath you. Your last post was a lot of fire and little light.

Frank: You may have thought you answered me, but I don't think so. The (one might say) ancillary reasons you give were stated prior to the war, and certainly were no secret to anyone paying attention. So, when I read you positing "secret reasons" for the war, I am left to conclude you think you knew something the rest of us don't. Forgive me for being wrong on the point.

Bernard, I agree that the other reasons were out there, but they weren't what the President was talking about, and it's the President who gets the ratings, not Tim Russert's show. Go back and weigh the time he spent talking about WMDs versus everything else. I'd be surprised if WMDs were less than two-thirds of his words.

Frank, forgive me for again pointing out the obvious, but it was you who brought up the issue of "secret reasons" which you have yet to identify. No-one is arguing that WMD were not given prominence as a justification for going in, as was Saddam's inability to certify and prove that he did not possess said weapons, as was his refusal to allow inspectors free and unfettered access to search for such weapons. I freely concede that point because, as Paul Wolfowitz stated, the issue of WMD was given emphasis (not that there weren't others) because it was seen to be the one thing that the whole rest of the world could be counted upon to understand and support. (A supposition that in retrospect now seems rather too generous.) The fact is, despite (literally) all the intelligence in the world, we were uncertain just what Saddam did or did not have. We -- and the rest of the world (I would refer you to numerous UN resolutions) -- wanted to find out. Saddam refused to co-operate. The rest of the world then decided that twelve plus years weren't enough for the Iraqi regime to comply, that it should be given more time, but the President said: "No, time's up" and we went in. That, of course, is a rather simplified and truncated explication, but is, I think, a more or less faithful representation of events. But I digress. To get back on point, I will ask one more time: What were the "secret reasons" for the war?

Bernard, I was wrong to use the word secret. They weren't literal 'secret' reasons, but relatively secret given the comparative volume being expended on WMDs.

Frank - 20. Count 'em. 20.

Other than insisting that the justifications that the President gave for war ( the decision that an historical record of mass murder, thuggery, and support for terrorism coupled with a refusal to comply for twelve years with a ceasefire , and-ultimately- a unanimous Secutity Council decision for a final opportunity) were other than what the record ( not the commentary and opining) shows them to have been, and insisting that lack of proof (thus far) for finding specific numbers of specific weapons somehow not only negates any need to actually consider the historical record but creates some reason to advance conspiracy theories of "secret reasons"---- do you have a point?

If so, don't you think your point could be better advanced by joining in the current attempt to again ignore the current reality of rapid progress in Iraq and instead create a distorted picture of the present that will match up with the fantasized past?

Reid: is that a reference to the number of posts from me? There would probably be more who post who agree with me, but if you take a look at the 'trackback' on this post, it's only been noted on conservative blogs. Politically oriented blogs, as you know, tend to be echo chambers: if you need confirmation, look at the links on the home page here.

Grumpy: Yeah, I do have a point.

First, the first to be charged with an intelligence failure is the current administration, and pointing to the statements of past Democrats does nothing to mitigate the seriousness of our govenrment's intelligence failure. Precious few people who have commented in this thread have made that point.

(Oddly, the owners of this blog have yet to call the administration's failure here into question, or even to admit the possibility that they were wrong. It smells.)

Second, from all the Democrats who could be charged with hypocrisy (in Stephen's original list of quotations), it might stick with Bob Graham, but that's pretty much it. Other current quotations come from senators and officials who probably didn't have access to anything aside from the declassified information, which, as Judis & Ackerman point out, didn't contain all the caveats and footnotes. As for Clinton-era quotations, those were five years ago, based on information which was current back then (there were inspectors then). So, the use of this list of quotations does nothing to excuse the current intelligence failure even in a relative sense.

You got that?

And no, I'm not ignoring the benefits of progress in Iraq and a freer society there. I just want a participative democracy here, too, one where we're not sold a bill of goods. At the time of the invasion, I repeat, it should have been clear to the administration that the WMD data was epehemeral. They positioned the war primarily as a response to a dangerous situation provoked by Hussein's possession of WMDs. The ships should have turned around.

First, making charges like "intelligence failure" and "secret reasons" isn't the issue. You can make as many charges as a teenage kid who just found daddy's Gold American Express- but at some point you have to make good on the charges.

The real charges- the seriousness of being prevented for twelve years to conduct the unobstructed inspections necessary to evaluate compliance with a signed and no longer negotiable cease-fire agreement, the seriousness of the consistant material breach of the ceasefire and unanimous Security Council resolutions, the continued murderous brutality of the Iraqi people, the support of terorism remain legitimate charges that no matter how much rhetoric you pile in front of them have not been, and cannot be refuted with evidence.

(Oddly, the insistant harping on labeling the administration's actions as secretive, calling them "failures," etc has been repeatedly addressed, but you just can't seem to break out of the desparate need to find fault)

Second, I presume the list of Democrats who were hypocrital was limited to avoid the reader having to page through endless screen after screen after screen, and to help mitigate the exorbitant bandwidth drain of a comprehensive list.

You got that?

And, if you're really advocating a participatory democracy, so far the particpants of this one aren't buying the bill of goods being sold by the people shouting "LIAR LIAR" and "SECRET AGENDA!!!!"

So why not accept the fact that of course, we didn't have 357 Secret Agents employed deep within the Baathist Thuggery to go do a comprehensive inventory and Fed Ex it to CIA headquarters.

That's why George made it abundantly clear that the primary reason for military action was his quite wise decision not to allow the security of the US to depend on the rational behavior of Sadam Hussein.

I repeat, it should have been as clear to you as it was and is to anyone who actually listened or is finally now willing to listen - that any data based on "intelligence" rather than the unconditional compliance with the cease-fire agrements that required unconditional compliance with the UN inspections would have to be judged based on the available evidence of available intelligence.
Here, the President made the same conclusion that previous administrations made and that the most current UN inspections had made. - Saddam was in continued material breach and there was no reason to expect that he would ever give the necessary unconditional compliance required to answer exactly what WMD and programs existed.

Hussein's unquestionable history with WMD, and his unquestionable refusal to comply with a final opportunity was more than sufficient reason to to take action.

As the President said, "Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

Unless you can produce some intelligence that shows Saddam Hussein's undeniable history as mass murderer, tyrant and terrorist and his lack of any demonstration of sanity and restraint was just a cover for the great humanitarian "secret agenda" of the Baathists- give it a rest.

No you're not ignoring the progress in Iraq and the end of a murderous regime- far worse than ignoring it, you wish the ships had turned back- which would have negated it and left Saddam in power until he was able to retire and turn the family business over to his highly esteemed sons.

Gee, Grumpy, I guess we see things completely differently. What should we do now, ya think?

(By the way, I only wanted the ships to turn around because I saw this as a war waged on an inaccurate premise. I care about democracy here. Too bad you seem content to let ours lapse into tyranny. Why do you hate America so much?)

"lapse into tyranny"???"Why do you hate America...???" blah blah blah. Nice that you've dropped the pretense of reasonableness, Frank. You'd better cancel your subscription to the NYTimes--sounds like you're OD'ing on Maureen Dowd columns.

Stephen, it's consistent with everything else I've said. Going to war is one of the most important decisions a government can make. The US government sold this war on the basis of WMDs, giving only lip service to other reasons. Anyone who really loves the ideals on which this country was founded, and not just the economic opportunities it provides, will recognize that when the country is told that we're going to war for a reaosn which doesn't pan out, then something is wrong.

This doesn't ring a bell with you? Six months ago, in another thread here, I talked about the various places the Bush administration had fudged the truth (the trifecta, the impact of his tax cuts, etc.), how they'd been shown to be untrustworthy by an independent site like SPinsanity, and how that meant that we needed to take the evidence presented by the Bush administration with skepticism. By that point, Colin Powell's presentation to the UN had already been considerably discredited.

And what did you yourslef do? You asked me if it would take a mushroom cloud over Manhattan to convince me. Yeah, that was some humanitarian argument you were pursuing, Stephen. I'm sorry, but you need ot get out of your echo chamber, and read other news sources more.

There are still no WMDs. I said in February this didn't look right. So far, the occupying coalition hasn't produced any evidence of WMDs. Now, who's the rabid one here? Don't you love America enough to see the mistake you made?

Frank,
More reasoned argumentation!! Keep it up Frank. Your "love" of America is so touching, as is your presumption that you can question mine. When Mullah Omar is leading you off to the "reeducation" camp, no doubt you'll be saying "but, but, but, I SAID there were no WMD's." If he doesn't listen, why not threaten to sue him for libel?

Accuse me of being unreasonable all you want, Stephen. I have been very reasonable, but you and most of your readers seem to have been in their echo chamber so long that a different opinion immediately gets classified as extremist.

Email me when the WMDs turn up.

Frank,
And I'll e-mail you when it's proved, beyond doubt, that Hitler was on the verge of developing an atomic bomb. Then we really could justify going to war. After all, Werner Heisenberg secretly sympathized with the West. Wouldn't want a tyrannical president taking us to war for the wrong reasons.

Stephen, you haven't been reading what I've written, and have jumped to your Hitler arguments too quickly. I would have supported invading Iraq under humanitarian reasons, and would also have supported warring against Germany for the same reasons. But I'm not king, and the American people have a right to participate in the dialog. But they can't when the argument is improperly framed. When we take the American people out of the discussion, that is when we slouch towards tyranny. I know I posted all this earlier in this thread.

Six months? I just got here, but you people have put up with this for six months? Maybe someone should put out an appeal to Little Green Footballs for some of their anti-troll expeditionary forces.

Frankly, I think the one who keeps trying to claim that the US administration "sold this war on the basis of WMDs, giving only lip service to other reasons" despite the voluminous evidence to the contrary ( all handily posted right here in the thread for the reading pleasure of all denizens of our participatory democracy) is a much more likely winer of the Rabidity in Thinking Award.

Honorable Mention to the Terrorists are Caused by People who Defend Against Terrorists post earlier.

I was mistaken, it was this thread, and it was seven months ago.

Frank,
Remind me, did you favor going to war on humanitarian grounds BEFORE, the war? Somehow, I don't recall your advocating war on any grounds. Those of us who did are not prepared to grant you such bona fides after the fact. But it is nice of you to assert that war on Hitler was worthwhile.

OK Stephen, here: in this thread, on February 25, 10:10 AM, I posted:

"As for comparisons to Hitler, I understand your loathing, as well as your intense interest in avoiding a similar situation. If there were evidence that Saddam Hussein is engaged in that kind of annihilation now, I would be the first to recoommend immediate invasion. I was sickened by our failure to act in Rwanda, and glad we started the bombing runs in Yugoslavia. But there is no evidence that anything like that is happening in Iraq. It did before, and it may happen in the future if the world ignores Iraq, but I don't see signs of the world ignoring Iraq."

Perhaps there was more evidence then that I didn't know about, but if so, that was probably because the Bush administration was so intent on pushing WMDs.

Yes, I cared about humanity then, I care about humanity now, and I would have supported a humanitarian-based invasion of Iraq — with the qualifier that the declaration came from Congress, as laid out in our Constitution.

Frank - apparently, you have lost all track of what this thread is about. The question is, are the Democrats being honest in criticizing President Bush on the WMD issue? The answer, as provided by the blog entry to which you are currently responding, is a resounding N-O. As proof, we have 20 quotes from prominent Democrat Party leaders attesting to their own belief in Saddam's ongoing WMD program before the war.

Thus, the Democrat Party's rank hypocrisy is thoroughly and unequivocally exposed and there is nothing, absolutely nothing you can say to wish it away (which is not to say you haven't tried).

Reid, please re-read my post from 4:23 PM today. (You may have missed it...)

Jody: some problems...

///After the decision is made, it is their responsibility to convince the jury (American people) of the rightness of their charge. During this phase nuanced positions only serve to confuse the jury. Nuance does not play well in public. Case in point, the continuing brouhaha over the Niger uranium. ///
So, shoot first and explain later? The war will be prosecuted and lives (US and foreign) will be lost, but don't worry. We'll explain it to you later. Where is the nuance in a faked document? The Valerie Plame brouhaha seems to be an attempt to discredit the sources of evidence unfavourable to GWB admin policy. 'Nuance does not play well in public.' It is for the public to decide that in a democracy. To suggest otherwise is totalitarian. Was nuance a major concern of Pravda? Who determines the degree of nuance? The people. 'Confuse the jury'? If necessary, yes. Give them the information.

You say
///On a side point: if the US believes that vital US interests are at stake, why should the US have to convince everyone that it is correct?///
This isn't a side point matey. It is the central point. If might is right, why bore the UN with flimsy presentations about phantom WMDs? Why go cap in hand to the UN for cash to rebuild Iraq? You broke it, you fix it. Do what you want. Why debase yourselves currying favour?

The Hutton report. I didn't state that it has been completed. I referred to evidence submitted to it
testifying that the grounds for going to war were modified by the Blair administration to persuade a sceptical public that the Iraq invasion was
justified. That is why I used the words 'current
Hutton report'. Is there a similar Congressional
investigation of the Bush administration's stride
towards war? There should be.

'Democratic lies'. sigh, yes the point of the original post was that Dems said a bunch of stuff that appears to support the Iraq invasion. Are you dense? I dunno, you asked me. Citing Dems
promulgating BS does not excuse Reps promulgating BS. Is my point. You like?

Defending Jim (as you put it): The WW2 business. I don't suggest invading nations fail to benefit from
wars of conquest. Historically they have tended to do so. I state that the beneficiaries of the Iraq
invasion are not the US population, who are left
picking up the multi-billion dollar tab and remain
targets of Islamic extremists, but the companies who will reconstruct Iraq (at US taxpayers expense) and US oil firms. That isn't a maybe, it's a given. World stability has not increased, Islamic militants are more bent then ever on attacking US interests. The benefits of the majority of US citizens and those that enact US policy have never been at more variance.

Do you think I would believe the percentage of US
poll respondents believing that Saddam was directly implicated in 9/11 would have grown from 78%? No. I'll cut Americans some slack. More than 80% swallowing the Saddam link bullshit is preposterous. Recent polls suggest 38% of
Americans believe GWB was not elected fairly.
Partisan, you might say. A similar poll in Britain
over British elections would yield a negligible
percentage. Would that Americans had such faith in
their system. I'm glad that everything's OK in
Florida. The BBC et al were wrong

Your statements:
Hussein violated the cease fire agreements of Gulf War I.
Hussein had extensive programs to create WMD.
Hussein previously had extensive stockpiles of WMD and refused to account for them.
Hussein repeatedly frustrated the efforts of the UN
inspectors through deception and through out right
denial of access.
Hussein had significant terrorist connections.
Hussein had shown a previous willingness to use WMD.

In response to all this, the US supplied Saddam with WMDs including anthrax, botulism and pesticides, the conventional arms needed to deploy WMDs and information on potential targets and refused to criticise their use despite intelligence confirming the fact. There were undoubtedly attempts to hinder UN weapons inspectors. Despite that, over 90% of the material in question had been accounted for by the inspections before the invasion.

Where are these WMDs? Where is the means to create the 'mushroom cloud' referred to by Rice and Cheney, so feared by US citizens that they tacitly accepted the prosecution of this war and its subsequent cost in lives and taxpayers dollars?

Okay, you win. Time to give Saddam his country back and say: Nevermind...

Too funny, Bernard. You really stuck it to 'em. Have more Alpo.

Grumpy, you forgot to deal with my argument that practically all of the Dems on the original list of quotations can be excused on the surface from charges of hypocrisy. It's possible that the charge could stick with Bob Graham, but not the others. That was why the list was posted, wasn't it, to deflect from Bush?

Frank, you are a piece of work. The Artful Dodger I christen thee. Here's where your argument falls down.

Firstly, you quote dubious sources of freshly minted intelligence to argue that the accumulated knowledge of the past many years should have been neglected and an unimaginably huge risk taken that Saddam had abandoned his WMD program on that basis. It's amazing how all this new intelligence seems to have come about just since Clinton left office. Isn't that convenient? (Well, admittedly, the intelligence level of the greater DC area did increase measurably when the Clintons and their entourage left town.)

Of course, the other fact you neglect is that, if Saddam did away with his WMD programs, he did away with them all those many years ago when all these quotes were fresh. And then there's the fact that Bob Graham is apparently nobody to be concerned with in your universe. How about Carl Levin, current ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee? Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence since 1997? Oh, never mind, He's a nobody, too.
Well, how about Edward Kennedy, also of the Armed Services Committee and one of Senator Levin's colleagues. No? Robert Byrd, also of the Armed Services Committee? Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Leader of the House of Representatives is not