No, the UN inspectors did. ...
You mean the "Ignorance is Blix" inspectors? Do you really think Saddam was honestly cooperating with them? The UN inspections were just as much of a joke as the UN is itself.
Those CIA officials who knew better were ignored or their reports "cooked."
What was Bush supposed to do, call Tenet a liar (and virtually ALL of our allied foreign intelligence services) and take the word of underling officials?
We went to war, in part, because crooks like Chalaby and the rest of the ambitious Iraqi emigres were feeding us lies and we believed them because we wanted to believe then and not the evidence.
I'm sure Chalaby was part of it, and he turned out to be a bad guy. But I hardly think he was a linchpin. Some of the evidence we did have was an uncompleted inspection by a UN team motivated to NOT find anything (Blix is an admitted pacifist), an obviously uncooperative Iraqi government, the fact that Saddam had already used WMDs against the Kurds, Saddam's own prideful statements that he still had WMDs and was looking to develop more, Saddam's OPEN support for terrorism ($25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers), and Saddam's repeated failure to comply with the terms of the original surrender agreement. He was still shooting at our planes.
And all of this was public knowledge. I'm not sure of the evidence you are speaking of that should have been put ahead of what they DID have. Besides, most of the Dems voted to go to war along with Bush anyway. If Dems ever vote to go to war with a Republican president, then they must have been absolutely convinced too.
[Chalaby, et al.] were used, as it appears, by the offices of VP Chaney and DefSec Rumsfeld and and his neocon cons, all of whom have either explicitly or implicitly expressed loyalty to Israel, and I just can't believe that the only person who didn't know was none other then the Chief Executive. If he was, then he is clueless (which many believe but I think it's his act because one does not get to be where he is by being clueless, or naive).
Is loyalty to the leading functional democracy in the Middle East a bad thing? Israel has always been a friend of the U.S. While pound for pound Israel is better able to defend herself than almost any other country in the world, if we DID pull our support then there would be a mass war in the Middle East. Would that be a good thing for us?
Bush did not need to know if Cheney and Rumsfeld supported Israel, everyone knew, and it was Bush's own open policy. No secrets there. The United States supports and (now) protects Israel. We have done so for 60 years under administrations on both sides. Why should this not have been a factor to consider?
And PM Blair was in it too. The smell of cheap oil was irresistible.
Ah, the old "war for oil" scam. You know, I've never heard an intelligent answer from someone who holds that view on this question: If we went to war for oil, and we now control the oil fields, why aren't we just cleaning up? To my knowledge we haven't gotten a drop of cheap oil for our efforts. Is that just more Bush incompetence? :)
That's like three Stooges doing the dance together. They are all in it together.
The conspiracy is revealed! :)
FK: "Third, the imminent danger argument was NEVER used by Bush."
But he didn't stop those claims either.
What was Bush supposed to do? Whenever he was asked about it, he set the record straight and his own words are part of the record that anyone can look up.
Dick Chaney actually said on more than one occasion that, contrary to all evidence known then, Saddam did have WMDs. You don't think the Israelis were going to contradict him? After all, they had the most to gain form an invasion of Iraq.
How do you know what "all evidence known then" was? You should have faxed all this evidence to liberals in the Congress since they apparently didn't know it either. It is an incontestable FACT that Saddam had already used WMDs. Were we supposed to assume that a mad tyrant would voluntarily dispose of all weapons, and then claim the opposite to the world??? Come on, Kosta. :) Much more reasonable is that the weapons he did have are today sitting somewhere in Syria.
And BTW, while Israel certainly stood to gain, the ones who had the most to gain from an invasion were the Iraqi people.
The joke was telling the truth. The truth was known, but now one wanted to see it. The Democrats were afraid of being labeled "unpatriotic," or worse, treasonous by such human replicants made by Dick Chaney's Haliburton as Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter.
What was Bush supposed to do, call Tenet a liar (and virtually ALL of our allied foreign intelligence services) and take the word of underling officials?
Again, the facts were known. Anyone who followed more than one-sided network press knew that there were no WMDs and that there was no imminent danger from anyone in that part of the world attacking the US. Those who did were in Afghanistan.
I'm sure Chalaby was part of it, and he turned out to be a bad guy
Chalaby was known to be a bad guys before we event there. But one has to follow more critical and informed press than Fox News. There was an outstanding warrant for Chalaby by Jordan for embezzling money. However, the Rumsfeld's neocon Israeli loyalists (and I mean by that Israel first) group would hear none of that. Chalaby was their man. It's that old FDR's famous "they may be thugs, but they are our thugs..."
Saddam had already used WMDs against the Kurds
So did the Iranians. During the war with Iran (when we supported Saddam even though we knew he gassed Kurds), this was not uncommon.
Saddam's OPEN support for terrorism ($25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers
Saudi Arabia and all Islamic states do the same; Saudi Arabia actually leading. I don't see us planning to topple Saudi regime any time soon for the slake of democracy, even though their treatment of women is no better than that of the Taliban, and the fact that there is not a single church in Saudi Arabia, and that Jews cannot enter the country.
Nothing destroys one's credibility than transparent hypocrisy.
He was still shooting at our planes
We were still flying over his country.
Dems ever vote to go to war with a Republican president, then they must have been absolutely convinced too
Look, the Congress supported the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution concocted by LBJ and his gang because we wanted an excuse to attack North Vietnam. And the Congress coalesced across party lines and not wishing to be "unpatriotic" by distrusting the government (can anything be more patriotic and America then actually distrusting the government?!) approved of it, to their shame. The same thing happened with Iraq. Our media helped along as well -- some much so that syndicated columnists with some brain called them "presstitutes."
Is loyalty to the leading functional democracy in the Middle East a bad thing?
No, as long as that loyalty is not in our national interest or if it is not doing anything positive for our national interests. we cannot equate our national interests with that of another country.
Israel is better able to defend herself than almost any other country in the world, if we DID pull our support then there would be a mass war in the Middle East
There was no imminent threat of a Middle East war; only entefada started by Ariel Sharon.
Why should this not have been a factor to consider?
Israel wanted to be rid of Saddam, because Israel was somewhat within the range of his hypothetical missiles, but had no resources to invade Iraq. Someone else had to do it for them. Us. The same thing applies to Syria and Iran. Had we not gotten bogged down in Iraq like a bunch of amateurs, we would be invading Iran and Syria I am sure (and still may). The plan was to make Middle East safe for Israel by all accounts. With our blood, money and resources. Pretty clever. And, from an Israeli point of view, perfectly legitimate.
If we went to war for oil, and we now control the oil fields, why aren't we just cleaning up?
Because oil prices are determined by speculation. In some parts of this world, that's a dirty word. We have actually destablizied the region, making it easier for Iran to become a more influential power, as they are closely allied with the Iraqi Shiia population and imams. We have also angered the Saudis who can's stand the Shiites and who don't want a dominant Shiia state on their side of the Strait of Hormutz. Besides, the oil pipes are being blown up daily and the oil production is not even close to what it was before the war. getting the oil from point a to point b is more dangerous and costs more...then there is just plain old Greed. The companies are actually making bigger profits than before the war and we are paying more than twice for gas, all thanks to GW (who's bank account is doing much better along with Chaney's and Rice's because of oil prices).
The conspiracy is revealed!
There is no conspiracy. Only blindness of the populus too busy with heir toys ( blackberrys and text messaging...)
How do you know what "all evidence known then" was? You should have faxed all this evidence to liberals in the Congress since they apparently didn't know it either
The evidence was there and it did not look good for the Bush administration. The presentation of Collin Powell was a joke. It used "intercepted" taped phone conversations of alleged "Iraqi official's" and computer-generated cartoons of two "chemical" trucks. Those who followed more than prefab news reports knew that there was no evidence of WMDs or any imminent threat and that this whole thing was being cooked as an excuse to go to war.
I was reading as much as I could find, and I never believed there were any such weapons to be found. If I didn't there was plenty of evidence for others to do the same. But as always in life, some of us would rather stick our heads in the sand and pretend the sun doesn't shine.
the ones who had the most to gain from an invasion were the Iraqi people
That is really "obvious." They used to have normal schools, and electricity and water, and now they don't know if they will come home from going to the market...try telling them that.