We told you so.

[gridlore]

Final U.S. inspection report expected to undercut key Bush rationale for war

Undercutting the Bush's administration's rationale for invading Iraq, the final report of the chief U.S. arms inspector concludes that Saddam Hussein did not vigorously pursue a program to develop weapons of mass destruction after international inspectors left Baghdad in 1998, according to lawmakers and others briefed on the report.

In drafts, weapons hunter Charles Duelfer concluded that Saddam's Iraq had no stockpiles of the banned weapons but said he found signs of idle programs that Saddam could have revived if international attention had waned.

"It appears that he did not vigorously pursue those programs after the inspectors left," a Bush administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity in advance of the report's release.

So, no WMD. No WMD programs. No links with al-Qaeda. No links with terrorism directed at the US.

We were lied to, and over a thousand American troops have died because of those lies.

Comments

[sylvan.livejournal.com]

Yes, and probaly close to 20,000 people have died because of those lies. I can't believe how angy I am. I mean, we knew this was true in hearts... but there it is. The part that really upsets me is that I know many, many people will still think we should have gone and done this. I feel sick.

[murphymom.livejournal.com]

Weapons of Mass Delusion is more like it - we gotta get that insufferable ass and his cronies utta there NOW!

[deathbytamarind.livejournal.com]

Is it possible that we could have known this sooner? I don't doubt its truth or its relevance but it seems like it's conveinently been revealed oh-so-close to the election date. That I don't like, if it's true. Just give us the goddamn facts without worrying about polls or approval ratings or snagging a few votes that will get wasted as they get filtered through the electoral college anyway.

[notthebuddha.livejournal.com]

Guys, it's not a single-issue war.

[thebitterguy]

It was sold as one.

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

The casus belli given by the Bush administration was Saddam's failure to abide by UN resolutions demanding that he disarm. Claims were made in the State of the Union (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html), at the United Nations (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html), and on the Sunday morning talk show circuit (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm), all of which have been proved false.

It was only after we failed to find WMD that the spin meisters began praising Bush for liberating the Iraqis. They played up a link to al-Qaeda which doesn't exist, and refuse to even mention the failed quest for WMD.

[notthebuddha.livejournal.com]

I can't argue that it was badly presented; the administration picked an issue they thought would convince a clear majority and put all their effort into selling it beyond their ability to back it up in hopes they would uncover enough goods to make it stick after the fact. But as plain as the findings of no WMD stockpiles are the findings of hijack training facilities at Salman Pak, and of the porous nature of the borders that even now allow armed bad guys from all over the Middle East to pass through on their way to go kill people.

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

And yet there was no mention made of the alleged links to al Qaeda as a cause for war.

We were told that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the United States. Check out these quotes:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

Note that none of these quotes are phrased as "we think" or "Saddam might", but instead as declarations of fact.

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

We were either lied to, or the administration was criminally stupid.

[robertprior.livejournal.com]

That's how it was presented.

Granted Saddam's Iraq was a nasty place, and the guy was dangerous to his neighbours, but after Kuwait, or the Kurds, or evidence of torture of political opponents etc etc, there was no case being presented for intervention. And before this war, the only reason being trumpeted was WMD.

[angeleyes8410.livejournal.com]

WOW after how many years they JUST figured this out? I think I'm moving to Antarctica!

[angeleyes8410.livejournal.com]

P.S maybe this'll show the country that Bush is an idiot and get him the fuck out of office (sorry for cussing on you journal) and then get all our TROOPS out of iraq ... or the other way around.

Here's my question for the floor

[dekarch.livejournal.com]

Given that Saddam Hussein apparently was not capable of maintaining NBC programs in the face of sanctions, why did he play the games he did? Why did he obstruct the UN inspectors at every turn? If he had nothing to hide, and was completely open, then the UN could have verified that in a relatively short time.

The best guess I've seen in print was that he wished to retain the benefits of being belived to have NBC capabilities. He wished to retain the ability to intimidate his neighbors by not having his capabilities disproved.

This worked for a while. Hell, he had the Clinton administration publicly stating he had these capabilities. But this is a clear violation of the ceasefire conditions of 1991.

I don't know why the NBC issue was such a big part of the administration's plan for selling this war. Maybe it was one of the few issues that can be reduced to a 10 second sound byte to get processed by Joe Sixpack, the Average American Voter. But the simple fact is that Saddam Hussein did not voluntarily observe a single one of the ceasefire conditions that were the price of permitting his regime to stay in power 12 years ago when the 101st could have driven into Baghdad without seeing more resistance than could be offered by a flock of sheep.

I've done my time downrange, and lost friends to fedayeen and to accidents. Such is life--and we all knew the risks when we signed that piece of paper. But I honestly believe that hte world as a whole and Iraq in particular are better off with Saddam Hussein behind bars rather than in power.

But realistically, the question that is truly relevant, at least for those of us whose interest in Iraq is practical rather than ideological, is not whether the war was a good idea. That became a moot point when 3rd ID LDed back in MAR 2003.

The real issue is whether we will do what needs to be done to finish the job, or whether we will cut and run and leave Iraq to a 5(+) sided civil war.

Re: Here's my question for the floor

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

You hit the nail on the head. The apperance of strength is as importnat as strength, especially when you are surrounded by hiostile neighbors and have a large minority that hates you. By playing the shell game, Saddam kept everyone guessing.

The NBC issue was important because it sold Iraq as a threat to the US. Despite the fact that the best missile Iraq had was barely adequete for reaching Israel, the Bush administration beat the war drum with visions of Iraqi missiles loaded with anthrax raining down on Middletown, USA. That was a deliberate misstatement of fact on their part.

We're stuck there. We have no choice but to stay in Iraq now, and try to keep a civil war from happening, and tryto establish a representative form of government.

I just don't think that the man who got us stuck to this particular tar baby is the one to oversee us getting out.

Re: Here's my question for the floor

[dekarch.livejournal.com]

I just don't think that the man who got us stuck to this particular tar baby is the one to oversee us getting out.


The disadvantage of a two-party system is that forces us to choose between A: the guy who got us into Iraq in the first place and screwed up some critical decisions along the way and B: Some semi-random asshole with no real plan other than giving it to the French and the UN. It is disappointing that Kerry is the best the Dems could offer.

Kerry consistently voted against military weapons programs, to include the AH-64. Now, I have been in situations where the presence of a pair of Apaches have defused the situation before the gunfire broke out. This is a good thing in my mind. Finding out Kerry voted against it is one of the things that makes me question Kerry's commitment to taking care of those of us on the sharp end.

Kerry also voted against the supplemental appropriation for Iraq. Sure, he claims his only objection was to Haliburton, not to body armor or armored trucks. But that's why amendments are in the process. I also have to ask why Mr. Kerry did not vote against appropriations bills funding Haliburton's no-bid contracts in the Balkans. Dual standards, much?

Kerry has had a year to articulate an alternate plan for Iraq. He has said:

1)I know what I'm talking about because I'm a Vietnam War Hero[tm]. Utterly irrelevant, and 4 months don't impress me much anyway. Talk to me when you finish a real tour in combat.

2)Let's get France and the UN involved. UN is ineffective in shooting wars, which Iraq is. Couldn't handle Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.

3)??????????

Is there something I'm missing?