Originally posted by JaTo:
First, let me put forth my definition of stupidity:

"Doing the EXACT same thing over and over again, expecting a different result."


Now, diplomacy was tried across 4 terms of 3 sitting US Presidents with Iraq over a decade (unilateral and bilateral diplomacy, I might add)...

...so you're telling me the umpteenth time was going to produce something of a different nature?

You're telling me we would have been able to DECISIVELY determined Hussein's WMD capability through diplomacy? If so, there's a number of historians that have written on this topic that would vehemently disagree with you.

We've invaded and over 2 years later we still don't have an accurate assessment of what was originally in his arsenal (tons of material are still totally MISSING according to even the most recent reports).

If you're trying to pose a situation where impeachment is warranted when one sees the writing on the wall and puts for a presumption of war (i.e., planning and coordination) among those in the international community with the same vision and same concerns, Neville Chamberlain would have loved your thinking. I seem to remember that the US did go back to the UN to lean further on Iraq during the post 9/11 days before we invaded...

More than once, in fact. Of course, this and countless other resolutions, statements, announcements and grievances addressed to the UN and Hussein get entirely ignored or shoved under the table, all for what appears as partisan purposes...

After a little over 10 years of letting the UN play "Hide and Seek" with no end in sight and security concerns at an all-time high, I think Bush and Co. figured out in 2002 what most intel analysts did in the mid to late '90s: The only way to mitigate any risk that Hussein posed as a purveyor of WMD or a wholeseller of WMD to parties of immense concern was to eradicate his power base and remove him from office.

That was step 1; no other forms of "progress" could be assumed or even hoped for until Saddam was rotting in a grave or locked away somewhere.

Again, you have to remember the time you are speaking of; this was during the days of George Tenet's "slam dunk" statement and when both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate were certain that Hussein held a mountain of toxins and WMD. I'll be more than happy to provide quotes from Senators that wander out in far left-field; quotes that have them baring their war-fangs on the removal of Hussein FAR before Bush, Jr. made it into office...

Ultimately, the biggest failure that the US has to face in all of this is the dismal performance of the intelligence community as a whole, as our leaders decisions are only as good as the intelligence they are based upon.

Having said that, if you want to hang someone, go back to a certain US administration in the '90s that utterly gutted CIA HumInt in the Middle-East, gutted CIA budgets here at home and abroad beyond description and half-assed Middle-Eastern policy and statesmanship in such a fashion that helped give "autopilot diplomacy" a new meaning.

It wouldn't be entirely fair to nail Clinton to the wall or burn Madeline Albright at the stake, though; the US and the UK have a LONG history of entangling themselves in Middle-Eastern affairs during entirely different eras; Cold War, WWII, WWI, The English colonial period, etc., etc. Belgium, France and Russia could also be thrown into this "stew" of blame as well, given some of the ethnic and political boundaries that were artificially and fatally set up in the past...

Let's just say that in terms of blame, I think there is a huge line in front of Bush, Jr.



JaTo, what the hell are you talking about? You are still making the case for war, I guess. But that is not the issue here.

THE ISSUE HERE IS INTENTIONAL FALSIFICATION AND MANIPULATION OF INTELLIGENCE TO JUSTIFY THE WAR.

Can you refute the British memo? Can you show us how it is false? Can you argue that it does not support the argument my side has been making for years?