Originally posted by TourDeForce:
I keep telling you guys the data gathered was nothing more than frosting on the cake. Declarations from Iraq to the UN would tell any reasonable person that the WMDs were there. As for the ugency, let's review news stories reported in the press in the months leading to the war:

1. Iraq regularly shooting at coallition planes patroling the no fly zone. That alone is grounds for military action according to the post Gulf War I agreements, IIRC.

2. Regular refusals (over a 12 year period mind you!) & delays in permitting inspections at various sites, giving Sadam a chance to move his WMD materials & personel away prior to allowing inspectors in.

3. US seeking UN agreement on action against Iraq for their refusal to allow un-inhibited inspections is expectedly met with resistance. Diplomats from france are actually campaigning/bribing other countries (particularly in Africa if you will recall) to vote against action, and france assures security council veto. Further investigation into the matter reveals contacts between the french ambasador & persons handling money in the oil for food program. Investigation begins as to whether or not france has been selling their security council vote.

4. Prior to invasion, review of the last two Iraq declarations reveals missing WMD materials & delivery systems - in a very considerable quantity. I documented these discrepancies on CEG with links to the CBS News website on more than one occasion. Additionally, Iraq is un-able and/or un-willing to provide explanations of these discrepancies & again blocks inspectors & refuses to allow access to various "palaces" that are suspected to house WMD materials and/or information.

Considering the animosity developed over the last two decades between Iraq & the U.S., is there any doubt that Iraq would at least consider placing some of the materials in terrorist hands??? With some material already gone, what choice would you have made given these conditions?



i'll try to respond to these more specifically later, but suffice it to say for now that the above reasons by themselves would not have gained approval from congress for a pre-emptive attack on iraq. if those reasons alone were the litmus test for pre-emptive attack we'd be bombing half the globe right now.

the main issues that i've mentioned before and i'm talking about now is the information linking iraq to al qaeda and 9/11 (which was used so many times together and even in the same sentence during state of the union addresses that most people probably believed saddam collaborated on 9/11), mobile biological weapons labs, nuclear weapons development program, wmd stock piles, terrorist training camps.

all of which were disputed by our intelligence agencies. but this disputed evidence wasn't available to the masses at the time congress and the american public were asked to give their support. even powell himself later on admitted "I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qaida." yet they were constantly mentioned in the same sentence. this was said time and time again based on unreliable/false information, that was noted as such before it was even mentioned. why? why didn't congress and everyone else have access to this information?

personally i don't believe that the bush admin would have gotten the green light for pre-emptive attack based on your 4 points alone. they needed to make a link to al qaeda, 9/11, nuclear weapons, wmd stock piles, terror camps, mobile weapons labs, etc in order to beef up their case for war and get congressional approval to use force.

'03 Saab 9-5 Aero