And I agree with this to an extent and wish we would have gone more that route, however, I don't think the route we went is necessarily bad. We are living in a different age, one where a nuke in the hands of a Sadaam is something we do not want to see, and a preemptive strike, when you know he is gearing up....seems logical to do.
That is the real point. By all accounts, he was not gearing up for nuclear weapons as there is no evidence that he had any capability whatsoever. Saddam was in a box created by sanctions, no-fly zones, and weapons inspections and had no ability whatsoever to produce such weapons. This is not what the administration led us to believe before the war, however, and it is the nuclear claims that I am the most pi$$ed off about. I was on the fence about Iraq until the administration officials started going on the talking heads shows and mentioning mushroom clouds. In other words, if Saddam WERE gearing up for nuclear weapons, that would be one thing, but he not only was not, he did not have the ability due to the box he was in.
I won't even argue that it was bad to invade Iraq the way we did in this thread. The only point I was making was that George W Bush did lie. Bamma said he's seen all the facts and that Bush didn't lie. I presented Bush siting a report that didn't exist, and telling the Polish People that we have found WMD in Iraq as examples. Even if it was the best idea in the world to invade Iraq and we prevented world destruction by doing so, Bush did in fact lie. Was it perjury? Were they the worst lies any President has ever told? The answers are No, and it remains to be seen, and argued. My main point was to take issue with what Bamma said about telling the truth.
But the NIE report does say 6 months, and to andy the NIE report does say that he was seeking to acquire and start a program.
Sorry, but he had not started a program. He couldn't with the weapons inspectors in his country. We had Saddam as contained as he could possibly be. He didn't have any active weapons programs or we would have found them, and we could have verified this by inserting the 2000 CIA and FBI agents that Saddam invited in to vet his lack of weapons. BTW, I believe that just about any country would be about 6 months away from nuclear weapons if they were to acquire the right materials. A big part of the case for war were the reports of yellowcake uranium from Niger and the aluminum tubes that turned out to be totally worthless for enriching uranium. The nuclear claims were just that: unsubstantiated claims.
From the NIE report first paragraph, the report that you guys have used to sully the Prez, and the report he frequently goes back to: Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. Baghdad hides large portions of Iraq's WMD efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material. If Baghdad acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year. Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until the last half of the decade. Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain proscribed high-strength aluminum tubes are of significant concern. All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program. Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs. Based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire, a few tens of thousands of centrifuges would be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a couple of weapons per year. And it goes on and on....
The report says that IF they get nuke material from abroad. They could make a nuke within a year. What Bush said was they were currently within 6 months coming up with a nuke, and he refereneced a non-existent IAEA report. The second try was another report which didn't contain that material. The third report that they said Bush meant was one that hadn't even been released at the time of the statement. There is no report that backs up what Bush claimed. There are plenty of reports that say Iraq could be a threat. I'm only arguing the lie aspect.
twhy: Keep reading. If you go further down the NIE report, you will see another point it makes which might be just a tad relevent to the discussion at hand: Yes they said that Saddam was probably wanting to aquire nuclear capabilities, but that is virtually endemic. Who wants to be the only guy in the room without a gun? But what it goes on to says are the two most compelling issues, both in terms of the threat Saddam represented to us, and in terms of showing how much we were lied to about what the White House knew vs. was saying. 1) They said he wasn't there yet, and wouldn't be for quite a while; earliest estimates were well beyond the period the UN inspections were asking for to compete their search. 2) And this is important: they were saying he wasn't a threat to us, directly or indirectly, whether he had WMD's or not. Now to me the second point seems to bear just a tad on the disucssion of...er...whether Saddam was a direct or indirect threat to us. I'm funny that way. Through all of the Bush-led demonization of Saddam, several important issues were overlooked; he had always shown that survival as leader was his priority, and had never shown a suicidal or religious fanatacism which would lead us to think he was in oursuit of Armageddon. We KNOW he had WMds's during the 1st Gulf War...AND he was under direct attack...and he still didn't use them, because, unlike the unhinged lunatic we were discribing, he was a realist and knew that would signal his own demise. We were saying he had had them for a decade since, and again, no usage. Same rationale. This was a man who had stayed in power for 3 decades in one of the most turbulent regions in the world. He was a murderous tyrant, yes, but not a lunatic seeking self-immolation. The NIE report directly reflects this, as it states that the only condition under which he might use WMDs, directly or indirectly, was IF ATTACKED. And beyond those salient facts, here's another kicker: The NIE is the direct, concise summary of what the intel community knew, and moreoever, what it was telling the White House. This is important because it is in direct contrast with what the White House was telling us our intel community was telling them. Lies, oure and simple, and anyone who won't admit that it denying reality for their own end.
More from the NIE report, not six months but definitely less than a year and with the capability to be less than six months-- Iraq is unlikely to produce indigenously enough weapons-grade material for a deliverable nuclear weapon until the last half of this decade. Baghdad could produce a nuclear weapon within a year if it were able to procure weapons-grade fissile material abroad. Baghdad may have acquired uranium enrichment capabilities that could shorten substantially the amount of time necessary to make a nuclear weapon.
Of course, these claims have been shown to be false, as there have been no finds of chemical or biological weapons. For the nuclear capability, it clearly stated "if left unchecked," and there is no way the UN was going to leave Saddam unchecked. We had sanctions, no-fly zones, and weapons inspectors in country. Of course, this stands in stark contrast to the reality that has presented itself to us. Saddam may have been trying to "deny information" at points in the 90s, but it is obvious now that he was not doing that to hide his weapons. He let the inspectors back in and even invited 2000 FBI and CIA agents to come in and scour the country for weapons. The administration decided (long before the President told us the decision was made) to invade and then went on to decide to tell us that they had explored every available diplomatic option when they had not. Again, data that could easily have been vetted had we actually pursued every diplomatic option. IOW, they likely would not be able to make a nuke until 2008-2010 and that is IF the weapons inspections were ended, sanctions were lifted, and we did not have further treaties to ban Saddam from creating such weapons. And now, of course, it has been shown that said tubes were not of sufficient quality to enrich uranium. They were for rocket systems that were not precluded by the UN treaty. Yeah, the obfuscation goes on and on.
Again, shown to be false. The "equipment" you cite were the aluminum tubes that have been shown to be totally substandard for enriching uranium.
Andy, you're arguing with the NIE report, that's just great, you're hindsight is 20/20 but this is the best intelligence we had going in there, and with something as grave as this we can't take chances. I also don't know where you're getting all of your info, but it seems pointless to me because we did not have that type of information. And the report does not say IF the weapons inspections are ended etc. etc. those are your own words....and what other diplomatic options were we going to take? How many chances do we give this guy?
The diplomatic option that was presented to us. Saddam offered to allow 2000 FBI and CIA agents into Iraq to verify that what he said (that Iraq did not have banned weapons) was true (which it has turned out to be). We went to war based on faulty information, all the while saying that we had exhausted every diplomatic option. They said that all Saddam had to do was disarm and the invasion would be called off, but when he told us that we could check for ourselves, we ignored him and chose to attack anyway, even though the rest of the world was against us. We did have the necessary information to determine that Iraq was not in possession of banned weapons, but the decision had been made months in advance and nothing was going to sway that decision. Bush got us into a war that should not have been fought, he justified it with information his minions knew was untrue, and he did it over the objections of the entire world. What a leader.
Where are you getting this Saddam peace deal, and why should we believe he would treat those agents any differently than he did the UN weapons inspectors. And do you know what the word "entire" means? Is Britain no longer a country? And where exactly is this "global community"? The UN? Ha. What a joke.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1079769,00.html And widely covered in a thread on this BBS. In order to keep himself in power for as long as possible. OK, how about the VAST majority of the world. Besides, the PEOPLE in Britain did not approve of the action, as evidenced by the massive protests they have had over there. You may think of the UN as a joke, but they ARE the global community. It was THEIR RESOLUTIONS that we violated when we invaded Iraq, purportedly to enforce the very same resolutions we were breaking. Again, we went against the vast majority of the world to fight an unjustified war that we did not try every diplomatic option to avert. In doing so, we pullled out of Afghanistan, weakening the war on terror and allowing OBL to slip away. We also took money that should have been used to rebuild Afghanistan and spent it to oust a leader that was no more a threat to the US than a horsefly is to a horse.
twhy; Not sure why you've ignored my previous post, but I want to address this element, partly in response to you, and partly because this whole " Hindsight is 20/20 thing is becoming so prevalent, and is so personaly offensive. Before the war I ( along with several others, hereafter covered with 'etc.) said that basing a war on intel was a dubious at best proposition that came nowhere near the standard which should be applied to a war. Before the war I ( etc.) pointed out time and again all the intel and diplomatic officials who were saying that the administration was collection intel selectively, and was making it clear it wanted intel which only supported it's position. Before the war virtually every piece of intel the administration did go public with was debunked...and I ( Etc.) pointed out the fact that when the 9presumalby0 strongest pieces of the intel construct were shown to have been so poorly vetted, and from such questionable sources that it wouldn't have merited serious concern in an objective sense, let alone support an invasion. Before the war I ( etc.) pointed out time and again the fact that no one else...no other country at large was buying the argument. Given that Saddam would theoretically represent a greater threat to those neaerst him, and they were saying his threat was contained, a logical conclusion would question the validity of our position. Couple that with the above factors, and it made the case all the more hollow. As MacNamara says, when everyoe including your traditional allies disagrees with you, only incredible hubris would lead yo to conclude that you need not question your own view. Before the war I ( etc.) pointed out that the version of Saddam that Bush et al were spinning, ie that of an unhinged loon hell bent on mutual destruction, was completely at odds with his record and profile, which showed a bloodthirsty, ruthless tryant, but above all else a realist whose priority was political survival. There were many, many examples of this, especially the fact that he had WMDs in GW1, and didn't use them despte being under attack. Before the war I (etc.0 pointed out time and again that the assumption Bush/Cheney et al were making about the warm welcome we would recieve was incongrous with history, and based on naive, arrogant assumption of superiority. Before the war I (etc.) pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence of any connection whatsoever between Iraq and 9-11, and severely criticized this move as a sophomoric attempt to create a hard target out of a soft one for political purposes. I said it was at best a deviation from the war on terror, and most likely an exploitation of same. WHat made having to argue this all the more frustrating was that, in this very site, as far back as the days mmediately following 9-11 I predicted in here that Bush et al might very well try and exploit the anger and fear ( as well as latent racism) which 9-11 caused to pursue other aims, such as an invasion of Iraq, and was laughed at and called paranoid by several posters who, a year later, were now arguing with me about how an invasion of Iraq was a natural consequence of 9-11. I could go on, but I am getting more irate as I type. To have predicted point after point, seen them ridiculed, ignored, or cited as evidence of treason, cowardice, etc. and then seen them one by one come true is in itself a source of exteme frustration. To have the same people continue to deny that these have come to pass is equally frustrating. To have some sidestep the fact that they were wrong and people like me were right on point after point and smuggly argue new points is, as you'd expect, annoying in the extreme. To know that having been right is no more comfort than having seen the iceburg coming, when you were ignored and an unjust war counting thousands of needless deaths has resulted in sipte of your predictions is depressing and angering. But to have people tell you that you may be able to criticize now, but that hindsight is 20/20...after you have made these points time and again, in the face of vitriolic and often obscene opposition dating back to well before the invasion is unbelievably insulting and madening, in part because you know that that very mind of thinking is going to lead us right down the same path again in the future. Sorry to unload this entirely on you...many more are more guilty than you, who only came on board this argument pretty late in, but you are part of it, and the 20/20 thing is just so ignorant.
