How Could We Know?

[Bravus]

Quote:

with intentions of giving them to terrorists to attack the US

That bit is absolute guess-work or wishful thinking. *If* he was creating such weapons or wanted to, it's much more logical to think he wanted them for internal purposes than to give to terrorists, who there's no evidence he was supporting or in contact with.

[Dr. Shane]

President Putin, of Russia, has publicly said that he warned President Bush that Russian Intelligence had discovered a plot that Saddam was going to use terrorists and WMDs to attack the US on US soil.

Now we can ask ourselves what Putin's motives were and/or if Bush should have believed him. Nonetheless, in the shadow of 9/11 I think it was completely understandable that Bush take the information seriously.

After the invasion we found out that while the information was correct, it was outdated. Saddam had planned such an attack in 1996. So it would reason the threat had passed. But, of course, no one knew that until we had invaded.

[bevin]

Quote:

According to intelligence (which was wrong but we didn't know until after the invasion) Saddam was building chemical and biological with intentions of giving them to terrorists to attack the US.

The UN Weapons Inspectors clearly and unambiguously told the USA that they could find no evidence of such activities WELL BEFORE THE INVASION.

We did not need to invade to find out we were wrong.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

During the invasion Hans Blix said if the US were to find such weapons it would be because the US would have better access to the country than they did. That doesn't sound like he was convinced there were no such weapons. The inspectors were not even suppose to be searching for weapons. They were suppose to be verifying the weapons had been destroyed. We now know some of the pre-1991 WMDs had not been destroyed so it is understandable why Saddam was playing games with the inspectors.

One thing is true. The inspectors wanted to stay longer and Hans Blix was against the war. That is true.

I give President Bush and the US Congress the benefit of the doubt. I believe they were convinced that Iraq posed a threat to our national security so they used the cease-fire violations as a legal reason to resume the hostilities of the first Gulf War. That is as far as I go with giving the Administration the benefit of the doubt. I believe some major mistakes have been made in the execution of the war and see no justification for keeping Rumsfield on as long as he did.

[bevin]

Blix said they had NO EVIDENCE

Bush said he was SURE they were there

Blix was being careful with his facts, and was right

Bush was being his normal "don't bother me with facts" self, and was wrong

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Actually the inspectors stumbled across one of the pre-1991 banned weapons just a few weeks before the invasion. If Blix said he had no evidence, which I doubt those are his words, he must have been ignoring the daily headlines.

[John317]

Blix said they had NO EVIDENCE

Bush said he was SURE they were there

Blix was being careful with his facts, and was right

Bush was being his normal "don't bother me with facts" self, and was wrong

/Bevin

It wasn't just Bush, though, remember. It was also Clinton and the intelligence agencies of Russia, Germany, Britain, and France, as well as our own, who all said the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or were close to having them. Bush didn't make up this information. He was depending on briefings from various nations' intelligence services, the same as Clinton had done before.

Sometimes it's best to assume that the enemy has those things. That is better than thinking they don't have it and then being sorry later. Cops have to do that all the time-- make decisions on the assumption the person has a gun even if he has no proof of it. I think right now we have to assume that Iran is getting close to having a nuclear weapon and that if they get it they will share it with terrorists who will put it in one of our ports. I know that Israel is assuming that Iran is close to getting one and that they will use it on Israel if they ever do produce it. Iranian leaders have already tipped their hand and said they want Israel totally destroyed. I'm betting we and Israel won't let that day come.

[lazarus]

If the Taliban or Al Qaeda-influenced government takes over in Iraq-- which it almost certainly will if we leave-- you will have many situations like the recent one in Afghanistan of the Christians being threatened with stoning by the Taliban.

The facts don't bear out the notion that AQ will take over. The major challenge to American power in Iraq is NOT AQ. The pentagon and Bush have said that Aq is about 10% of the opposition in Iraq. It is the Sunni/Shiite insurgency which is sometimes allied wil AQ.

[lazarus]

Cops have to do that all the time-- make decisions on the assumption the person has a gun even if he has no proof of it.

Lets use your example of the cop:

Suppose a suspect is being searched. He's being evasive and difficult, but he's being searched. The lead officer says "I know he has a gun, stop the search" The search is stopped.

"Do you have a gun?" says the officer.

"No" says the man.

"If you don't give up your gun we'll shoot you." says the officer.

"I don't have a gun", he screams.

"You leave me no choice", says the officer

The man is shot dead by a sniper. He is searched. He has no gun.

(Sean Hannity reports that the man threw the gun away white he was being searched by the police)

[Dr. Shane]

Bad example.

Better example is that of a drug dealer that is busted and squeals on others. The information the busted drug dealer gives is bogus and yet it was good enough for a judge to issue a search warrant. Things like that happen all the time.

[Bravus]

Even if you assume that Iraq did have such weapons, there was *still* the choice of whether to go to war or to continue the very successful regime of containment by air support and UN weapons inspections. There was no reason that that had to be stopped, and waiting for better intelligence (and not filtering what they had toward a predetermined outcome) could have avoided the war. It's extremely clear that from days after 9/11 Bush wanted to go into Iraq, and that he wanted to strike while the iron of public opinion was hot. It was a war of choice.

[bevin]

the weapons they found were NOT WMD - and there was even debate about whether they were actually banned

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

The term WMD means different things to different people. A scud missle with a chemical or biological head on it was considered a WMD prior to the anti-war crowd trying to redefine what a WMD is. Such a weapon was discovered by the inspectors just weeks before the invasion and it had been banned under the cease-fire agreement.

Quote:

if you assume that Iraq did have such weapons, there was *still* the choice of whether to go to war or to continue the very successful regime of containment by air support and UN weapons inspections.

None of those things were going to continue. Saddam was bribing UN Security Council members to get sanctions lifted and inspectors out. If the US hadn't invaded Saddam would have likely been successful and the world would have never learned of the Oil-For-Food scandal. Saddam retained is capacity to make chemical and biological weapons and had plans to resume the programs after sanctions were lifted.

[Bravus]

That's a *highly* speculative line of reasoning, Shane: it relies on a whole bunch of things happening, including the Oil for Food stuff not being discovered by other means and the people Saddam was allegedly bribing having enough power to sway the UN security council despite the US veto.

[Dr. Shane]

Well, those getting the bribes had already convinced the US to increase the amount of oil Saddam was able to sell in the Oil-for-Food program. I am not sure what other means the scandal would have been revealed. Saddam wasn't going to tell and those taking the money were not going to tell.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

That's a *highly* speculative line of reasoning, Shane: it relies on a whole bunch of things happening, including the Oil for Food stuff not being discovered by other means and the people Saddam was allegedly bribing having enough power to sway the UN security council despite the US veto.

I didn't do a good job of capturing my thoughts when responding to this. In my mind I was conceding that indeed what I had expressed was speculative. However I only posted my hesitancies with that. Certainly there were better ways of handling the situation than the invasion.

However hindsight is 20/20. I supported the invasion at the time because of the information that was available to me at the time. I do not believe the President or Congress was dishonest with the American people. The execution of the war has been very poor and Bush has done an even worse job of defending his policies. Yet I am still hopeful something good will come out of it all.

We still haven't invaded Iran so... so far I am still right on my prediction that we would not do so.