I want to focus primarily on something the both of you mentioned and that’s the 9-11 report. Predictably, you both think the 9-11 report was the end of the discussion on the assertion that Iraq and Al Qaeda were connected. It’s not. But let’s go off that report alone for just a second and note what it DID say about the ties between the two:

Page 58 – Bin Laden built his Islamic army with groups in various countries, including Iraq.

Bin Ladin now had a vision of himself as head of an international jihad con federation. In Sudan, he established an “Islamic Army Shura” that was to serve as the coordinating body for the consortium of terrorist groups with which he was forging alliances. It was composed of his own al Qaeda Shura together with leaders or representatives of terrorist organizations that were still independent. In building this Islamic army, he enlisted groups from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Oman, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea.

Page 61 – Bin Laden willing to explore a relationship with Iraq.

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.

Page 61 – Bin Laden agrees to stop supporting activities against Saddam; Reports indicate Saddam may have supported, or at least tolerated, Ansar al-Islam.

To protect his own ties with Iraq,Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

Page 61 – Bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, and asked for assistance. No evidence of an Iraqi response. This was not the last attempt.

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.

Page 66 – Iraq took the initiative to contact Al Qaeda.

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Page 125 – Clarke points out that Iraq had discussed hosting Bin Laden.

Clarke commented that Iraq and Libya had previously discussed hosting Bin Ladin, though he and his staff had their doubts that Bin Ladin would trust secular Arab dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qadhafi.

Page 128 – Clarke suggests that a chemical factory is probably the result of an Iraq-Al Qaeda agreement. Chemical evidence backs that up.

The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”109 This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.”110 This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998.

Page 134 – Clarke discusses the possibility–even likelihood–that Bin Laden would move to Baghdad, if attacked in Afghanistan, and cooperate with Saddam.

[Clarke] wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.” Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually impossible” to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared.134 Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and “Pak[istan's] intel[ligence service] is in bed with” Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: “Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.”135Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight.

Page 334 – Clarke’s report found anecdotal evidence of an Iraqi link to Al Qaeda, but no compelling case that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke’s office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled “Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks.” Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda.The memo found no “compelling case” that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.

Page 335 – The Camp David discussions….

According to Rice, the issue of what, if anything, to do about Iraq was really engaged at Camp David. Briefing papers on Iraq, along with many others, were in briefing materials for the participants. Rice told us the administration was concerned that Iraq would take advantage of the 9/11 attacks. She recalled that in the first Camp David session chaired by the President, Rumsfeld asked what the administration should do about Iraq. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz made the case for striking Iraq during “this round” of the war on terrorism.

Page 335 – DoD presents the three priorities: al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iraq

A Defense Department paper for the Camp David briefing book on the strategic concept for the war on terrorism specified three priority targets for initial action: al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Iraq. It argued that of the three, al Qaeda and Iraq posed a strategic threat to the United States. Iraq’s long-standing involvement in terrorism was cited, along with its interest in weapons of mass destruction.

Page 335 – Bush did not accept that Iraq was an immediate priority.

Secretary Powell recalled that Wolfowitz—not Rumsfeld—argued that Iraq was ultimately the source of the terrorist problem and should therefore be attacked.66 Powell said that Wolfowitz was not able to justify his belief that Iraq was behind 9/11. “Paul was always of the view that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with” Powell told us.”And he saw this as one way of using this event as a way to deal with the Iraq problem.” Powell said that President Bush did not give Wolfowitz’s argument “much weight.”67 Though continuing to worry about Iraq in the following week, Powell said, President Bush saw Afghanistan as the priority.

Page 335 – Bush decides Iraq is off the table, barring new information.

President Bush told Bob Woodward that the decision not to invade Iraq was made at the morning session on September 15. Iraq was not even on the table during the September 15 afternoon session, which dealt solely with Afghanistan.69 Rice said that when President Bush called her on Sunday, September 16, he said the focus would be on Afghanistan, although he still wanted plans for Iraq should the country take some action or the administration eventually determine that it had been involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Page 335 – A WoT Phase Two could include Iraq, if necessary.

At the September 17 NSC meeting, there was some further discussion of “phase two” of the war on terrorism.71 President Bush ordered the Defense Department to be ready to deal with Iraq if Baghdad acted against U.S. interests, with plans to include possibly occupying Iraqi oil fields.

Page 335 – Wolfowitz continues to push for Iraq.

Within the Pentagon, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz continued to press the case for dealing with Iraq.Writing to Rumsfeld on September 17 in a memo headlined “Preventing More Events” he argued that if there was even a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack, maximum pri ority should be placed on eliminating that threat. Wolfowitz contended that the odds were “far more” than 1 in 10, citing Saddam’s praise for the attack, his long record of involvement in terrorism, and theories that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi agent and Iraq was behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.73 The next day, Wolfowitz renewed the argument, writing to Rumsfeld about the interest of Yousef ’s co-conspirator in the 1995 Manila air plot in crashing an explosives-laden plane into CIA headquarters, and about information from a foreign government regarding Iraqis’ involvement in the attempted hijacking of a Gulf Air flight. Given this background, he wondered why so little thought had been devoted to the danger of suicide pilots, seeing a “failure of imagination” and a mind-set that dismissed possibilities.

Page 336 – Blair asks about Iraq; Bush tells him Iraq is not the immediate problem.

On September 20, President Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the two leaders discussed the global conflict ahead.When Blair asked about Iraq, the President replied that Iraq was not the immediate problem. Some members of his administration, he commented, had expressed a different view, but he was the one responsible for making the decisions.

Page 336 – CENTCOM/General Franks wanted to plan for possible movement against Iraq. Bush rejected it.

Franks told us that he was pushing independently to do more robust plan ning on military responses in Iraq during the summer before 9/11—a request President Bush denied, arguing that the time was not right. (CENTCOM also began dusting off plans for a full invasion of Iraq during this period, Franks said.) The CENTCOM commander told us he renewed his appeal for further military planning to respond to Iraqi moves shortly after 9/11, both because he personally felt that Iraq and al Qaeda might be engaged in some form of collusion and because he worried that Saddam might take advantage of the attacks to move against his internal enemies in the northern or southern parts of Iraq, where the United States was flying regular missions to enforce Iraqi no-fly zones. Franks said that President Bush again turned down the request.

Page 502 – Iraqi Fedayeen member not involved with 9/11 plot.

We now know that two other al Qaeda operatives flew to Bangkok to meet Khallad to pass him money. See chapter 8.That was not known at the time. Mihdhar was met at the Kuala Lumpur airport by Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi national. Reports that he was a lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi Fedayeen have turned out to be incorrect.They were based on a confusion of Shakir’s identity with that of an Iraqi Fedayeen colonel with a similar name, who was later (in September 2001) in Iraq at the same time Shakir was in police custody in Qatar.

Page 559 – Clarke and Bush dispute versions of post-9/11 meeting. Clarke’s secretary claims they did meet, but Bush’s manner was not “intimidating”.

President Bush told us that Clarke had mischaracterized this exchange. On the evening of September 12, the President was at the Pentagon and then went to the White House residence. He dismissed the idea that he had been wandering around the Situation Room alone, saying,”I don’t do that.” He said that he did not think that any president would roam around looking for something to do.While Clarke said he had found the President’s tone “very intimidating” (”Clarke’s Take on Terror” CBSnews.com, Mar. 21, 2004, online at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories /2004/03/19/60minutes/printable607356.shtml), President Bush doubted that anyone would have found his manner intimidating. President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004). Roger Cressey, Clarke’s deputy, recalls this exchange with the President and Clarke concerning Iraq shortly after 9/11, but did not believe the President’s manner was intimidating.

Page 559 – No credible evidence of Iraqi involvement in 1993 WTC bombing.

DOD memo, Wolfowitz to Rumsfeld, “Preventing More Events” Sept. 17, 2001. We review contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda in chapter 2.We have found no credible evidence to support theories of Iraqi government involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing.Wolfowitz added in his memo that he had attempted in June to get the CIA to explore these theories.

* “Notable”=non-tangential mentions.

Not only does that address your incorrect belief that there were “no ties” between Iraq and Al Qaeda” but it also addresses your incorrect belief that the President rushed to war with Iraq. Wolfie was pushing for war with Iraq and the President “took it off the table” for the time being.

Did either of you even READ the 9-11 report outside of what parts you thought would hurt the administration?

As I stated earlier, the publication of the report did not close the issue. In fact, it left more questions than answers. In typical fashion, though, the media misrepresented the findings and some of those on the left hand side of the aisle swallowed them whole without doing a whole lot of digging themselves. In fact, I don’t entirely blame you for not knowing all of this becaue the media sure has done it’s level best to only hightlight the info that they believe damages the admin’s credibility. And even though I’m extremely disappointed in the administration for not talking about and driving the point home about the ties between AQ and Iraq more, when it comes to people who were against the Iraq war in the first place, the admin’s not talking up the links really doesn’t matter because the few times they have done so, the yell from liberals is “Bush is lying!” so no matter how much the point is driven home, you won’t believe it anyway. Your minds are already made up, which is why discussions about this between liberals and conservatives is almost completely pointless.

I’ve linked up to some Weekly Standard pieces here and here that discuss the ties between Iraq and AQ. Feel free to peruse.

I’m closing the comments section on this now, as I don’t have the time to continue to rehash this issue time and time again with people who’ve made up their minds. Just as soon as one ‘lie’ is debunked, you guys will move the goalposts even further – hoping eventually that you’ll bring up something that can’t be refuted. I’m not playing that game. Don’t worry, though. This won’t be the last time I discuss this here so there will be plenty of other threads in which both of you can given us your opinion on it, should you so desire.

And BTW, I visited the AA blog again today seeing as another link from the AA blog appeared on my Sitemeter this morning, which is another reason I’m closing this thread. I’m hoping that doing so will spur you guys to move on to other topics there besides me and the posts there about how you want to do your level best to “counter” my “rhetoric” with “the truth.” I suspect now there will be a post there discussing how I “cut off” your “right to respond” to this? Also to you both: I’ll repeat what I’ve already said here before: I don’t ban people for disagreeing with me. It has a little something to do with not being keen on people insulting me at my own blog. That type of behavior is best reserved for the playground – not my blog. Neither one of you have done that, and that’s why you’re still here.

Thanks for your opinions.

ST: Where do you keep coming up with this “wait until inspections were done” stuff? What makes you think they would have been?

Marco: What makes you think they wouldn’t have ?? Honestly…when I heard President Bush threaten Iraq, I thought, “Bush is really smart – bluffing Saddam like that. Bush is gonna’ win this without firing a shot.” I really believed it to be masterful brinksmanship on the President’s part. How mistaken I was.

WG: “Even if it was a remote chance of avoiding all this human and financial cost, why not wait?”

ST: You see, this is where I was hoping you’d go with the argument. “Waiting” was what brought us 9-11.

Marco: Incorrect. 9-11 was brought about by two things.

1 – Iraq had invaded kuwait, in part because Kuwait was stealing oil beneath Iraqi fields by “sideways drilling”. The US establishes bases in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield/Storm, kicking Iraq out of Kuwait. Osama bin Laden objected to these bases as an “Infidel invasion of holy lands”. OBL had the support of many Saudis because while the Saudi government wanted us there, most of the citizens did not. That’s why 3/4 of the 9-11 highjackers were Saudi.

2 – In the 1980s, the US gave weapons and support to the Mujahadeen in thier effort to overthrow Soviet occupation. After the Soviets left in the ’90s, Afganistan turned on itself. The former Mujahadeen took over as the Taliban, using some of the weapons we supplied. Osama bin Laden was offered safe haven in Afganistan by the Taliban years later. This is where he plotted 9-11.

Had the US not meddled in Afganistan or Kuwait, 9-11 would not have happened. In fact, pre-emptive US action is what caused 9-11.

WG: “He was…
Iraq Largely Cooperating With Inspectors, UN Security Council Hears
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012903B.irq.jan27.htm”

ST: You cannot possibly expect me to take that seriously. Saddam never had any intentions of giving unfettered access to suspected WMD sites. Never. Is that not obvious from the way he stalled the UN for years?

Marco: When the UN – and later the US – entered Iraq, no WMD had been found. Any weapons had been destroyed years before.

So why did he stall the UN? It was a face-saving gesture. He had nothing, yet didn’t want the world to know that. If you hear barking behind a fence with a Doberman’s picture on it, you’re gonna’ think there IS a Doberman there. When push came to shove, Iraq finally opened the gate, only to reveal a mini Dachshund. I don’t think 1800+ soldiers’ lives was worth uncovering the bluff.

Other countries have big dogs barking behind a fence, as well. For example, Israel’s is called “Nuclear Amgiguity”. They neither admit, nor deny, a nuclear weapons program. Although openly admitting nukes would violate international law, I don’t think the US will invade Israel.

ST: No,it warranted a regime change in Afghanistan first. Then on to the next terrorist aider and harborer: Iraq.

Marco: Outright wrong. The 9-11 comission concluded that Saddam neither aided nor offered safe harbour to terrorists. Even President Bush finally admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

The fact is Saddam was a terrorist’s worst enemy. He was so good at going after Islamic extremists that Reagan and Bush senior sold Iraq weapons to fight them in the Iran/Iraq war. Too bad he used some of those weapons on his own people.

No doubt that Saddam was a bad person. Yet he was a secularist, and therefore an enemy to Islamic extremists. The fact is, many of the people we now fight in Iraq wanted Saddam dead more then we did.

If we claim the right to pre-emptively strike a sovereign nation if it “might” be a threat, that means other countries would have the same right. That is a Pandora’s box that should never be opened.

Peace.

Marco

ST- You poor thing! You have to take your shoes off now at the airport for security purposes — what a horrible violation of your rights!

It’s not that! It’s a stupid, knee-jerk reaction to one guy who couldn’t set his shoes on fire. Do you really think this is an effective way to combat terrorism? Do you really even think they would try and hijack a plane again?

I didn’t forget anything. Our ports are wide open. So are nuclear reactors and water supplies.

Iraq Largely Cooperating With Inspectors, UN Security Council Hears
ST-You cannot possibly expect me to take that seriously.

I guess not. No facts left ignored. Like this one.
9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

Do you not understand the difference between changing your mind once you get into office as a part of adapting to situations that occur once you hold it versus changing your mind back and forth from week to week? Also,do you think we should have just gone into Afghanistand, bombed the hell out of the AQ hideouts, and then left THEM to rebuild? No doubt some on the left woulda criticized that, too. There’s no pleasing some people.

“I’ve never heard anyone say that,”

I have. More times than I care to.

“but I’ve heard it said that Hussein probably wouldn’t have been in power at all were it not for Reagan/Rumsfeld.”

America’s “support” of SH actually started before RR.

“murdering people in his own country with bio/chemical weapons, horrible as that may be, does not constitute a threat to another country over a decade later (especially since most of those weapons would have been unusable by that point).”

Why do you guys always shift the argument? His gassing of the Kurds were just one of many reasons used to remind people of the kind of person he was and what he was capable of if not dealt with. And the admin didn’t argue that Iraq would attack us. It argued that they harbored and helped terrorists that would – and they did.

WG: “Why couldn’t Bush wait until the inspections were done?”

Where do you keep coming up with this “wait until inspections were done” stuff? What makes you think they would have been?

“Even if it was a remote chance of avoiding all this human and financial cost, why not wait?”

You see, this is where I was hoping you’d go with the argument. “Waiting” was what brought us 9-11. I can just imagine it now, same scenario as the President presented with respect to Iraq, except he makes it several months before 9-11, and not long after he becomes President. The crowing and carping from the usual suspects would ensue. “We need more time!” “That’s not proof enough!” “We need the UNs approval or we shouldn’t go to war!” etc etc. What’s ironic about this is after the August memo that came out that so many liberals touted as being the “smoking gun” of the admin’s supposed negligence when it came to the OBL threat, I can’t tell you how many comments I read from the same bunch who said we should have waited on Iraq saying “we should have done something about AQ both here and in Afghanistan. If Bush would have been doing his job, 9-11 would have never happened. BUSH KNEW!”

Do you see where I’m going with this? You have to think about it with a pre-9-11 mindset. I strongly doubt the President would have been able to sell the war with AQ in Afghanistan before 9-11. The usual suspects would have proclaimed loudly that he was a ‘warmonger’ trying to pump up his ratings, show he was an effective leader, jumpstart the economy with a war,etc. The President has made it perfectly clear since 9-11 that threats have to be handled before they strike. Playing the waiting game led to the loss of 3000 innocents. After 9-11, he wasn’t prepared to take the chance that a rogue regime like Iraq – with known ties to terrorists and WMD- were going to aid those who wanted to destroy America.

“He was.
Iraq Largely Cooperating With Inspectors, UN Security Council Hears
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012903B.irq.jan27.htm”

You cannot possibly expect me to take that seriously. Saddam never had any intentions of giving unfettered access to suspected WMD sites. Never. Is that not obvious from the way he stalled the UN for years?

“Don’t forget Germany, Spain, Italy, and last but not least Poland.”

Yes, most of whom were countries who knew it was pointless to vote yes on a resolution that France guaranteed to veto. I also note that 3 of the four you mentioned are helping us in Iraq, remember? No thanks to France, of course.

“You’re right. He had to act. And his first choice was invasion.”

If his “first choice” was invasion he wouldn’t have waited as long as he did, would he? I really don’t understand where people get the idea, that this was “rushed.” When did 18 months become “rushing”? Let’s also not forgetthat the US had a policy of regime change in Iraq since the administration of he-who-walks-on-water.

“I know. An attack on NY warrents regime change in Iraq.”

No,it warranted a regime change in Afghanistan first. Then on to the next terrorist aider and harborer: Iraq.

“I get the connection. Everything changed after 9/11. At least for Americans. So our civil liberties are restricted and I have to take off my shoes at the airport.”

You poor thing! You have to take your shoes off now at the airport for security purposes — what a horrible violation of your rights!

“I feel so much more secure now. It’s too bad were not doing anything real to protect our homeland”

Really? You might want to tell that to law enforcement in NY, Oregon, and Florida (for starters) who busted up terror cells/captured terrorist financiers thanks to the much demagogued Patriot Act. Interesting how you forgot that.

“but harass US citizens. ”

What US citizens are “being harasssed”?

And BTW, if you don’t believe any of the President’s reasons for going into Iraq, why *do* you think he chose to invade?

Note: some legit comments this evening are getting stuck in the “recent spam” file. If they are not released within a few minutes, that probably means I’ve logged off for the evening and I will get to them in the morning. If I somehow am not able to rescue them from the recent spam filter, I still get email notification of them and I will repost them verbatim in the a.m. Keep in mind that I keep copies of any comments I have to repost, so the commenter(s) can’t come back later to claim I changed something. I have gone in to make a few changes to the filter so hopefully that will resolve the issues I’m having with legit comments getting caught in the” recent spam” file. Please be patient as I am still trying to get the hang of my spam filter. –ST

How many reasons for war can we count? WMDs, 9/11, Saddam is bad an hurts his own people, liberate Iraq, spread Democracy. That’s a “shift.”

“I think he rushed the process. He couldn’t wait one more day, not one week….”

That’s not so.

Why couldn’t Bush wait until the inspections were done? Even if it was a remote chance of avoiding all this human and financial cost, why not wait?

Right. Considering how SH was cooperating in every way possible with them.

He was.
Iraq Largely Cooperating With Inspectors, UN Security Council Hears
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/012903B.irq.jan27.htm

I’m sure we could have – if only France would have given us their blessing.

Don’t forget Germany, Spain, Italy, and last but not least Poland.

“We also could have avoided war altogether.”

Don’t think so. In a post 9-11 world, the President had to act on the information he had at hand….

You’re right. He had to act. And his first choice was invasion.

WG: “Besides, Bush himself said we shouldn’t use the military for nation building.”
Yeah he did – before 9-11.

I know. An attack on NY warrents regime change in Iraq. I get the connection. Everything changed after 9/11. At least for Americans. So our civil liberties are restricted and I have to take off my shoes at the airport. I feel so much more secure now. It’s too bad were not doing anything real to protect our homeland but harass US citizens.

But that’s not parallel, anyway. Supporting a dictator at convenience can obviously lead to that dictator doing some dictator-like things a few years later; murdering people in his own country with bio/chemical weapons, horrible as that may be, does not constitute a threat to another country over a decade later (especially since most of those weapons would have been unusable by that point).

Why does it get confusing? You guys on the left are the ones who keeps saying he’s “shifted” the rationale for the war when the “rationale” was laid out quite clearly at the UN and he’s never backed away from that. I don’t see anything confusing about it.

“I think he rushed the process. He couldn’t wait one more day, not one week….”

That’s not so. He didn’t just decide to have a war and wage it. How long did we wait? 18 months? Hardly rushing.

“We could have had better information from the inspectors.”

Right. Considering how SH was cooperating in every way possible with them.

“We could have larger worldwide approval and a better coalition.”

I’m sure we could have – if only France would have given us their blessing.

“We also could have avoided war altogether.”

Don’t think so. In a post 9-11 world, the President had to act on the information he had at hand – and it wasn’t just information compiled from this administration, if you’ll recall.

Commenter Me: “Saddam used the weapons on his own people about a decade ago; that has no place in a discussion about what threat he posed two years ago.”

That’s quite a double standard. The left in general gives not a second thought to bringing up the gassing of the Kurds in order to claim “this is what happened thanks to Reagan and Rummy’s friendship with Saddam” so I hardly think discussing it in the overall context of what he did to his own people throughout the years is off limits.

WG: “Besides, Bush himself said we shouldn’t use the military for nation building.”

Yeah he did – before 9-11.

Bush couldn’t wait to start this war.

Yes, all of my previous post is opinion. Using weapons on his own people is lame excuse for us invade. We ignored it in Iraq before and we’ve let it go on all over the world without invading.

Besides, Bush himself said we shouldn’t use the military for nation building.

And if I remember correctly, Hussein ended up opening the country back up and inviting inspectors in a couple weeks before we invaded…but we were in some sort of hurry, I guess.

That was an 18 month long rush..

web_geek wrote, “not one week

Nope. 18 months.

web_geek wrote, “We also could have avoided war altogether.

That’s opinion (not fact). Others disagree with you. In fact, since Saddam used the weapons on his own people, it’s highly probable that he had TOO much time…..

I think he rushed the process. He couldn’t wait one more day, not one week…. We could have had better information from the inspectors. We could have larger worldwide approval and a better coalition. We also could have avoided war altogether.

As far as “rushing to war” – I’m still curious as to why you believe this. Would you expand on that some for me?

No WMDs = No Threat

I don’t think Bush believes war should be a last resort because he did not exhaust all other options.

“Now watch this drive.”

Oh yes they were. See page 2 of my link for the Bush speech to the UN.

“They were talking about a nation that was a threat to the world. A threat that turned out to be false.”

‘False’ as in a lie? Please explain.

“I don’t know where I picked up the bit that the inspectors were almost done. I’ll keep looking…”

I’ll save you some time. Stop looking You won’t find such info because it doesn’t exist.

“Well, at least we agree on something. I don’t think Bush thinks so.”

And you think this because …?