Not meaning to but in on this conversation but the bolded above I think has been shown that Hussein felt he had to bluff his way around not just vs. the Americans but the Iranians. That's why he didn't let the UN inspectors in because they would have reported a "paper tiger" existed and that would have shown his hand to Iran. I think he was more worried about them than the US. (at least in the beginning)

 

That very well may have been the case Hatz.

Saddam was playing an elaborate game of bluff ... he wanted everyone to think he had WMD so they wouldn't think he was vulnerable.

If I may respond:

 

I don't disagree that some Republican policy advisors came into Bush's administration wanting to take out Hussein. I only trust that they had good reason for wanting to do so.

I'm paraphrasing a bit, but Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector that has been critical of the decision to go into Iraq, has said the overthrow-Saddam movement was part of the neo-con "wield a big stick" approach to foreign policy and dates back to the decision not to take Saddam out in 1991.

The fact that it had been 15 years since he had used wmds on the Kurds, may indicate that he had turned a new leaf and was no longer the diabolical and sinister person that he once was. I'm not sure I'd have been optimistic enough to believe that also.

That certainly wasn't my take on it, but there was no reason to believe that Saddam had a functioning WMD program since the Gulf War era.

I'm also not sure that Hussein wanted no part of us. He had every opportunity to allow the inspectors to freely inspect his facilities yet he refused to do so. Either he was not afraid of us or he thought we were bluffing. Either way, he lost his life because he failed to lift his skirt completely.

He was bluffing. Very well, in fact, too good for his own sake.

Bill Clinton no doubt gained valuable foreign policy experience in his 8 years in the Oval Office. One can seriously wonder what if any input Hillary would permit him to provide to her. As to the experience Hillary gained as First Lady, I'll let her and Obama slug that one out, but from what appears to be coming out, it doesn't appear as if she was "in" on many foreign policy decisions when Bill was the President.

Well, if Hillary has to rely on advisers, what better adviser than someone who was in that position for eight years and has a vested interest in seeing her presidency succeed?

As to your thoughts about McCain, I am glad to read that you are at least considering McCain. He's the moderate Republican that I have been hoping for, for quite some time. We need someone that can work with both parties to move this country together and forward.

My feelings exactly. My biggest concern about McCain is that he seems to feel the need to pander to the far right wing of the party on occasion.

 

And ... I'm not the leftist some here might think I am, but I do get awfully tired of the bomb-throwing from the right that is a regular occurrence on this board.

 

Moderates are always in the crossfire coming from both sides.

While there are a lot of important issues facing this country, in my mind, foreign policy experience is the most critical of them all, as foreign policy decisions often don't (and can't) be beaten around in the public like the other one's can and are. Thus, it becomes critically important that the President have expertise in that area. Anyone critical of Bush's reliance on Cheney, Rolfowitz, et al, has to be concerned with Obama's and Clinton's similar lack of foreign policy experience I would think. While the President's importance on economic matters is real, its no where near as critical as it is in foreign policy and military matters in my opinion.

I'm not convinced that McCain's edge in such matters is as great as you feel it is, but I agree with the rest of your assessment.

Finally, I appreciate and respect your position on these issues.

The feeling is mutual.

The majority of Iraqi's and their government are Shia and are friendly with Iran. The majority Shia population voted in a majority Shia pro-Iran government. The Iraqi leadership is chummy with Iran and Al Sadr only called off his Basra fighting b/c of Iran's request to do so.

Then why was Al Sadr hiding behind Iranian skirts while his troops were being trounced in Basra? Why was his own government killing his forces? With friends like that...

Then why was Al Sadr hiding behind Iranian skirts while his troops were being trounced in Basra? Why was his own government killing his forces? With friends like that...

 

Was he getting trounced? There are conflicting reports from the field. Iran wants all the Shia on their side. That includes the pro-Iran government and the Shia militia under Sadr's pseudo-control.

 

There's a documentary coming out on PBS about Bush Sr. In it Colin Powell talks about why the US didn't take out Saddam after Desert Storm. He says it was b/c Saddam was a buffer to Iran. Perhaps Powell should have said something to that effect to Bush and the cronies before the Iraq war.

By all accounts, Powell wasn't big on the Iraq invasion, but he was clearly outnumbered by the neocons in the administration. It always struck me as telling that the one high-level player in the Bush administration that had military experience was the one that wasn't on the bandwagon.

More people were murdered in Chicago in March (88) than soldiers in Iraq in the same month (33).

 

This country aborts over 3,000 unborn babies A DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You will need about 10 months months of Iraq deaths to catch up to the number of abortions that happened TODAY in this country.

 

BTW, Democrats want to keep that legal. The killing of over 3,000 unborn babies PER DAY.

 

Where is the outrage for the deaths of these innocents?

 

But this thread is not to debate abortion. I know, dad.

Saddam was playing an elaborate game of bluff ... he wanted everyone to think he had WMD so they wouldn't think he was vulnerable.

 

Just to add, Saddam made this claim during his interrogation. He did things to MAKE COUNTRIES BELIEVE he had WMD's. He wanted countries to think that he had them. Specifically, afraid of Iran invading.

 

He indicated that he thought the only response from the USA would be what he considered as the weak responses of the late 90's when Clinton was in office and Iraq got bombed.

By all accounts, Powell wasn't big on the Iraq invasion, but he was clearly outnumbered by the neocons in the administration. It always struck me as telling that the one high-level player in the Bush administration that had military experience was the one that wasn't on the bandwagon.

I don't think it was much about the neocons as it was people in the administration telling Bush what they thought he wanted to hear rather than what he needed to hear.

This country aborts over 3,000 unborn babies A DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You will need about 10 months months of Iraq deaths to catch up to the number of abortions that happened TODAY in this country.

 

BTW, Democrats want to keep that legal. The killing of over 3,000 unborn babies PER DAY.

 

Where is the outrage for the deaths of these innocents?

 

But this thread is not to debate abortion. I know, dad.

:thumb:

I'm paraphrasing a bit, but Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector that has been critical of the decision to go into Iraq, has said the overthrow-Saddam movement was part of the neo-con "wield a big stick" approach to foreign policy and dates back to the decision not to take Saddam out in 1991.

That certainly wasn't my take on it, but there was no reason to believe that Saddam had a functioning WMD program since the Gulf War era.

He was bluffing. Very well, in fact, too good for his own sake.

Well, if Hillary has to rely on advisers, what better adviser than someone who was in that position for eight years and has a vested interest in seeing her presidency succeed?

My feelings exactly. My biggest concern about McCain is that he seems to feel the need to pander to the far right wing of the party on occasion.

 

And ... I'm not the leftist some here might think I am, but I do get awfully tired of the bomb-throwing from the right that is a regular occurrence on this board.

 

Moderates are always in the crossfire coming from both sides.

I'm not convinced that McCain's edge in such matters is as great as you feel it is, but I agree with the rest of your assessment.

The feeling is mutual.

 

 

While it pains me to question a former Marine, I'm not sure what I believe about Scott Ritter. Here are some links to read and ponder: http://www.slate.com/id/2071502/

 

http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,350809,00.html

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DB1130F937A15752C1A9649C8B63

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/

 

Honestly, I've never been able to figure Major Ritter out. Back in the late 90's he was convinced that Clinton hadn't done enough to stop Hussein and was convinced that Hussein had wmd's and even nukes. In 02, he was equally convinced that Hussein had no wmds at all and that Bush was making stuff up to justify war. What perplexes me so much is that Ritter acknowledged that Hussein could reconstitute his wmds in a 4-6 month period, but in spite of not being in Iraq as an inspector for years, he was so certain that Hussein had no wmds in 02. If wmds can be created in such a sort time, how could be be certain?

 

Yet then he'd say that he wasn't certain that Iraq didn't have wmds, but until he had absolute proof that he did, that we shouldn't attack (which again is different from saying that that they didn't have them).

 

There are various theories as to why Major Ritter flip flopped so dramatically in such a short period of time. I don't know that I believe any of them.

 

Finally, if you want a really good read and assessment on the Iraq invasion rationale involving wmds, read http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack.

 

The author is a former NSC official during Clinton's administration. He doesn't cut Bush's administration any slack for sure. But he admits that he and most other people in the intelligence community (in many countries) truly thought that Iraq possessed wmds as the time we invaded them. If they all did, why do we now think that Bush couldn't have honestly felt the same way when he decided to invade Iraq? It really is one of the best summaries of the intel situation that I have read.

I don't think it was much about the neocons as it was people in the administration telling Bush what they thought he wanted to hear rather than what he needed to hear.

That's an awfully benign way to look at it.

 

I think the neocons saw it as an opportunity to pursue a long-term goal at a time that they could get popular support for it.

While it pains me to question a former Marine, I'm not sure what I believe about Scott Ritter. Here are some links to read and ponder: http://www.slate.com/id/2071502/

 

http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,350809,00.html

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DB1130F937A15752C1A9649C8B63

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/

 

Honestly, I've never been able to figure Major Ritter out. Back in the late 90's he was convinced that Clinton hadn't done enough to stop Hussein and was convinced that Hussein had wmd's and even nukes. In 02, he was equally convinced that Hussein had no wmds at all and that Bush was making stuff up to justify war. What perplexes me so much is that Ritter acknowledged that Hussein could reconstitute his wmds in a 4-6 month period, but in spite of not being in Iraq as an inspector for years, he was so certain that Hussein had no wmds in 02. If wmds can be created in such a sort time, how could be be certain?

 

Yet then he'd say that he wasn't certain that Iraq didn't have wmds, but until he had absolute proof that he did, that we shouldn't attack (which again is different from saying that that they didn't have them).

 

There are various theories as to why Major Ritter flip flopped so dramatically in such a short period of time. I don't know that I believe any of them.

 

Finally, if you want a really good read and assessment on the Iraq invasion rationale involving wmds, read http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack.

 

The author is a former NSC official during Clinton's administration. He doesn't cut Bush's administration any slack for sure. But he admits that he and most other people in the intelligence community (in many countries) truly thought that Iraq possessed wmds as the time we invaded them. If they all did, why do we now think that Bush couldn't have honestly felt the same way when he decided to invade Iraq? It really is one of the best summaries of the intel situation that I have read.

I realize that the intellgence community felt that way, but there have been reports that there was evidence to the contrary as well.

 

I simply feel that if the commander in chief issues reasons to go to war against a country that hasn't attacked us or taken an aggressive posture against us and put our troops in harm's way, he has an obligation to get it right.

I realize that the intellgence community felt that way, but there have been reports that there was evidence to the contrary as well.

 

I simply feel that if the commander in chief issues reasons to go to war against a country that hasn't attacked us or taken an aggressive posture against us and put our troops in harm's way, he has an obligation to get it right.

 

Of course there were was evidence to the contrary. Heck, there were many a military advisor telling McArthur not to dare try the Inchon landing in Korea also. I know you are smart enough and wise enough to realize that with every tough decision that there will ALWAYS be people that are advising against the decision made; there will ALWAYS be evidence as to why the decision should not be made.

 

If you want to say that Bush should have told the American public when he justified his decision to attack Iraq that there was conflicting evidence and conflicting advise, I understand that and frankly agree with you. That is a fair criticism.

 

But that's different than saying he made the wrong decision with the intel he had at the time just because there was evidence to the contrary. As the link I provided indicated, Clinton NSC officials felt that there were wmds in Iraq and to the extent the author of that article is honest (and I don't think he had any reason to lie, as he sure as heck pulled no punches towards the Bush administration) so did most of the intel people worldwide.

 

As to his obligation to get it right, that statement is kind of disappointing. He had an obligation to carefully consider the evidence; he had an obligation to consider all intel. But consider the quote from the article I linked (again written by a Clinton NSC official):

 

"I began my career as a Persian Gulf military analyst at the CIA, where I saw an earlier generation of technical analysts mistakenly conclude that Saddam Hussein was much further away from having a nuclear weapon than the post-Gulf War inspections revealed. I later moved on to the National Security Council, where I served two tours, in 1995-1996 and 1999-2001. During the latter stint the intelligence community convinced me and the rest of the Clinton Administration that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs following the withdrawal of the UN inspectors, in 1998, and was only a matter of years away from having a nuclear weapon (emphasis added)."

 

Its not like 10 years passed after this guy left the NSC before Bush made the decision to invade Iraq. He left the NSC in 2001.

 

Another quote for the article to consider:

 

"In congressional testimony in March of 2002 Robert Einhorn, Clinton's assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, summed up the intelligence community's conclusions about Iraq at the end of the Clinton Administration:

 

 

"How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate, and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously—and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner. (emphasis added)"

 

One final quote from the article:

 

"U.S. government analysts were not alone in these views. In the late spring of 2002 I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: Did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).

Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States; France's President Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February, "There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right ... in having decided Iraq should be disarmed." In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.(emphasis added)"

 

Perhaps there was evidence to the contrary as you pointed out, but this former NSC official sure thought there were wmds in Iraq and evidently most of the reputable intel agencies throughout the world did also.

 

One final point: much has been made about the Bush admin coming into office wanting to remove Hussein. Re-read some of the above quotes. It sure as heck seems that a lot of Clinton's intel advisors (obviously not influenced by the Bush hawks) felt and agreed with the Bush hawks that there were wmds in Iraq in 2002. Frankly if this author is being honest, and he has no political reason to lie, doesn't this article really change the way people should be looking at Bush's decision (assuming of course a person has an open mind)?

The conclusion that there were wmds was of course wrong, but that doesn't make the decision made at the time based on advise and conclusions by intel guys like this author wrong.