One thing Mr. Woodward left out: yes, it was believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and, yes, we tried to make a case of it. And in the end we were wrong, but let's not forget, Saddam was less than forthcoming until the U.S.A was knocking at his door. His plan, it was easy to see, was "let's bring the U.S.A. to the brink and then make them spend all this money to bring their ships back to North America... they'll NEVER hit us." And he bet wrong.

We can get all over the weapons-of-mass-destruction argument and bash Bush, Powell, and all the others who were wrong. But Saddam closed his doors to regular inspections by the U.N. (until the last minute) and kept his entire country under his thumb. Good riddance.

Saddam believed that the U.S. "intelligence" (I use that word loosely) knew he had no WMDs, and that they were just talking. He didn't want to publicly admit within his own country that he had no weapons, as that would have weakened him, but he truly believed the U.S. knew this.

In most cases, people profit from underestimating the incompetence of the U.S. government. not this time.

The idea that Iraq was a threat to the US was absurd. Saddam had no plan to attack the US or even Israel, as he knew that would bring on massive retaliation that would end his lifestyle, if not his life. He was a very bad man, but he wasn't delusional about destroying the US.

your point that Iraq was no threat to the US is the important one. Whether or not saddam still had a few pounds of agent left over from the reagan days, he certainly was no threat. Crippling sanctions, constant fly-overs, embarrassed in GW I, 2/3s of his country in various stages of rebellion, no threat. Moreover, the US had dozens of alternative ways of dealing with him. Of which the last and worst was full scale invasion.

GW II only makes sense if you understand that the true motive, overriding all other considerations, was to get W re-elected. Then it makes perfect sense. And it worked.

I'm not going to get into a discussion over whether or not Saddam was a threat to the U.S. (or world). I'm remembering the events that lead up to the invasion- events that seem to have been forgotten. I remember watching the diplomatic struggles with Saddam on the WMD's and that he wouldn't open up the damn borders until the last minute. It was UN sanctions he was flouting and the UN was toothless about it. If the UN had grown a pair, we may not have had to.

That said, you may now return to your discussions on ulterior motives or W and the threat of Saddam.

and its inspectors said Iraq had no WMDs. Now, who is forgetting "the events leading up to the invasion?"

and its inspectors said Iraq had no WMDs. Now, who is forgetting "the events leading up to the invasion?" That is exactly right. The UN weapons inspectors were correct. Hussein had no WMD and they said so. The UN weapons inspectors were deliberately ignored and ridiculed not just by the Bush administration, but by a jingoistic press, some of whose members were intimate with high-ranking members of the Bush administration. Saddam Hussein wanted the US to believe he had WMD and he wanted the world to believe it because he felt it was the only thing preventing the US -- or anyone else -- from marching into Baghdad. He was the tinhorn dictator of a weak country and he sought to hide that fact. We were saving Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden for the right moment.

It's not that they were ignored, it's that their reports weren't believed. That is, everyone assumed that Saddam was shifting tents, burying stockpiles, and running trucks. And there's not reason to believe he wasn't. Inspectors would get to one area, escorted by Saddam's intelligence, and then get ushered over another way. When the inspectors insisted on seeing something, they were shown the door. This I DO remember.

Pachomius:

It's not that they were ignored, it's that their reports weren't believed. That is, everyone assumed that Saddam was shifting tents, burying stockpiles, and running trucks. And there's not reason to believe he wasn't. Inspectors would get to one area, escorted by Saddam's intelligence, and then get ushered over another way. When the inspectors insisted on seeing something, they were shown the door. This I DO remember.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeez!

Do you have so little "critical thinking" skills to think that you could simply just pull up and move biological and chemical research centers in days and leave no trace of it being there and simply "plop" them down somewhere else?

Have you ever heard of the term "military sattlite"?

Do you have so little "critical thinking" skills to think that chemical and biological weapon precurors purchased in the late 80's and early 90's would still be chemically and biologically active in 2003?

Have you ever heard of the term "shelf life"?

Like PT Barnum said "There is a sucker born every minute!"

Anyway, the point is: some of us remember what actually happened in the events leading up to the invasion (yes Saddam DID block inspectors and yes Saddam DID open the door back up after U.S. ships were knocking at the door). Now, go "pleeez" and "sattlite" somewhere else.

Pachomius:

Anyway, the point is: some of us remember what actually happened in the events leading up to the invasion (yes Saddam DID block inspectors and yes Saddam DID open the door back up after U.S. ships were knocking at the door). Now, go "pleeez" and "sattlite" somewhere else.

It is so much easier to point out typos in posts than it is to REFUTE that statements made.

Are we to believe that chemical and biological agents have infinite shelf lifes?

I bet you also "remember" Sadam's drone planes that were supposed to be capable of delivering those dreaded "weapons of mass deception" to the United States!

<link>

Are you still here? The argument is not whether or not Saddam had these things. It's the events leading up to the invasion when everyone seems to have forgotten (yourself included). Now, go back to bed.

Geywerld is on the right track vis a vis the build up to the war being false because the main premise was that this man was a threat. The WMD and anything else was all predicated on the absurd idea that sadam somehow meant us harm.

I personally think the war was more about establishing a US presnece in the mid east and breaking opec (metaphorically not literally). I don't even necessarily disagree with that goal, but they way it wa justified and then carried out were both very amateur.

Although I agree that Saddam was a thorn in our side, to say the least, far too much of the truth of the very nefrarous methods Bush used to get us into the mess that is Iraq have been revealed. Foreer more he will be remembered has someone who took his eye off the real mark(Al Quada and Osama) and side tracked us by dubious intelligence into a conflict in the wrong theatre of threat to our nation.

Pachomius, your comment is a classic case of the Big Lie wins again.

Saddam Hussein did not close his doors to regular U.N. inspections, ask chief inspector Hans Blix, he was there. The Inspectors left suddenly when the received news of the imminence of Operation Iraqi Freedom. They wisely decided to avoid being bombed by the United States. Repeating the lie doesn't make it true regardless of how you define Truth.

Saddam had one very good reason to be evasive about his possession of WMD's: Iran. Countless members of the intelligence community, the State Department, DOD and Bush's own cabinet knew understood this. The point is, the facts and any nuanced analysis thereof didn't matter to the Bush administration. You'll get no argument from virtually anyone opposed to this misadventure that Saddam Hussein was a despicable despot. The argument has always been that invading Iraq had nothing to do with what the administration claimed it was about and that it was illegal, unjust, deadly, expensive and foolish.

The history of the Republic is littered with the wreckage of similar deceit: Mexico, Spain, Tonkin Gulf, etc., lying us into war has never been perceived as a criminal offense for a U.S. president. But let's not deny demonstrable fact either.

Alright, let me read up on this regarding the inspectors. If you're right I'll cede the point (and the post). Saddam's deception was real, though. My memory: when the U.S. was knocking at the door he relented. And I was watching the news thinking, "Right. And now let us fuel back up and tug back across the ocean to preserve his sovereignty."