Dr. David A. Kay, who recently resigned as America's chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says that Saddam's scientists and underlings lied to Saddam about the state of Iraq's weapons programs, making off with much of the money themselves while doing only meager amounts of actual development work, especially starting around 1997, when the Clinton administration was bearing down hard on the regime but Saddam was again resisting inspections. Kay also says that some of the missing stockpiles that weren't destroyed, or didn't simply decay, are likely in Syria.
He says U.S. intelligence sources have been flawed for most of the last decade, and refuses to blame either the Clinton or Bush administrations, or the British government, for these failures. He does recommend that the CIA conduct a thorough review of its intelligence capabilities, saying that in some cases, intelligence analysts came to him literally in tears over the failure to find things that those career professionals were sure would be there.
Those of us who understand that there is no such thing as foolproof intelligence find this disappointing but not shocking. Those who seek partisan cheap shots, however, or are simply ignorant of how intelligence agencies really do their jobs, will of course use this as a campaign issue come November, their obsession with winning elections greatly overriding any sense of fairness or, really, any genuine interest in strengthening national security.
There is, of course, only one person responsible for this result, one person upon whose desk this buck stops:
Saddam Hussein's.
So the stage is now set for Campaign 2004: those who wish to blame Bush, vs. those who wish to blame Saddam.
I'm tired of having my country and my President bashed by people who seek only partisan cheap shots and easy points while we're in the middle of a war for the future of Western civilization. We did the right thing in Iraq, for the right reasons, and were not lied to by anyone but Saddam and his minions--as any reasonable person should conclude.
Just as any reasonable person should conclude that both America and the world at large are better off with this madman out of power.
Indeed, it is to our great shame as a nation that we did not act as we did long, long ago, having instead chosen to cripple an entire nation just to keep a dangerous dictator in power with "sanctions" and "embargos" and "no-fly-zones"--all while Iraqis died by the hundreds of thousands, a lunatic police state refused to cooperate with its surrender terms, its government cooperating with and sponsoring terrorism, and while forbidden weapons programs were continued.
I, for one, am proud that we finally did the right thing.
For all the right reasons, and with honor.
I'm not looking forward to another long year of people spreading delusions about how we were told our primary reason for going to war was the imminent threat of Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Anyone who actually remembers the year-long debate we had in this country over that knows that there were well over a dozen reasons given, all of which wound up in the war resolution passed by the Congress, and which you can read for yourself by just clicking here, and that WMDs became the central focus of our arguments to the UN after we, the people, authorized the President to act.
But hey. It's politics. We won't let facts get in our way. Why expect honesty from partisans who think of the great issues of our generation as merely sport, or worse, some kind street fight?
It won't stop disgusting me to watch, though.
At least two of us are glad that Saddam is where he is instead of sitting in one of his palaces ordering the murders of his people.
The leftists just don't get it.
Whoever gets the Democratic nomination, if they are smart will try to steer away from the war on Iraq, because most people still support what we did, and for good reason.
The more Democrats tries to bring up Iraq, the likelier it will be Bush will get re-elected....take that to the bank.
I hate to say it, but there is a bit of an issue here that the Dems could exploit, but it isn't that mindless "Bushlied(tm)" crap.
The problem is, quite simply: there are people in high places (CIA and FBI) who dropped the ball before 9/11 (remember Massassoui?) and after.
Now, last I heard, not one single person lost their jobs over over any of this.
But then I'm the kinda guy who thinks the entire State Department should be purged so we can start over again... :)
You are absolutely right about this. I blame Saddam for the Iraq war, and, yes, we _are_ in a War for the future of Western civilization. The sooner every American (and every European) wakes up to this, the better.
are you people for real? There were no WMD's(and the government knew this from beforehand)therefore no reason to go to war. Hey i am no fan of Saddam Hussein he was ruthless evil dictator ...but you guys need to realize that is no reason to go and invade IRAQ...if u are going to use that line of argument then the USA would probably need to go invade 75% of the world.... we know for sure North Korea has WMD's(which i dont think they are above using and selling to terrorist groups) and they dont seem to be letting up in the production of them
but somehow we are not declaring war on them (maybe we are afraid they would kick our ass)
This war was ridiculous and a waste of economic as well as physical resources...so what? we caught Saddam ..big deal ...where the hell is Bin Laden ...maybe you guys forgot (i sure didnt ,i am from NY and that was one of the worst days of my life )but he was the one who organized the terror attacks (and is probably now still organizing so more too).
I hope the troops( my cousin's fighting over there) come home soon ..i think its a waste of time to send them over there to do the dirty work so that some fat cats can get even richer by taking over Iraq's oil.
Dean: "I'm not looking forward to another long year of people spreading delusions about how we were told our primary reason for going to war was the imminent threat of Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction."
Actually Dean, that document isn't a great place to support your statement. If you actually read it, they mention weapons of mass destruction in more than half of the points. That sure sounds to me like a 'primary reason'. And they also mention links to al Queda in almost a third of the points. That line of argument is none to persuasive.
Camjam: I'm not sure if your a troll or just ill-informed, but I'll assume the latter and give you a serious answer. First, 'fat cats' were already profiting off of Iraqi oil: Syria, Jordan, Russia, China, France, and many others were all profiting off of illegal trade with Iraq, not to mention the billions Saddam was sacking away. At least the American companies that might some day profit from Iraqi oil will be paying US taxes, and sharing profits with the Iraqi people instead of a bunch of terrorists and dictators.
Second, if you'd actually like to get an understanding of why we went to war, try reading some objective analysis of the situation. The Threatening Storm by Ken Pollock is a great place to start. A few little tid-bits: both Gore and Clinton supported going to war against Iraq post 9/11, and Gore even supported military action DURING CLINTONS PRESIDENCY! This invasion was not a right-wing conspiracy.
Actually, patrick, I'm waiting to hear how he can support the nitwit statement that "here were no WMD's(and the government knew this from beforehand)" (emphasis added)
Now just camjam know the government knew?
It was Clinton who both advocated and signed the law that made regime-change in Iraq the stated policy of the United States, and Clinton who spent literally years saying exactly the same thing the Bush administration did about WMDs.
But I disagree with Patrick about how revealing the authorization of use of force by the Congress really is. Because just "mentioning" WMDs is perfectly legitimate. Posession of WMDs was not the only justification. If he had no WMDs, but refused to prove it by cooperating with inspections, then that alone was justification. If he was merely working in a halfhearted way to develop them, then that too was justification for invasion, ACCORDING TO SADDAM'S SURRENDER TERMS FROM THE LAST WAR.
Thus he didn't need to have them. He never needed to have them. Refusal to prove he didn't have them, or any attempt to develop them no matter how small, was justification under the terms of his abrogated surrender agreement.
This making "camjam's" statements about other WMD-possessing countries null and void. Those other countries haven't proven that they'll use them in war and, more important, those other countries didn't have surrender agreements with us pledging to destroy them, provide a full accounting of them, and cease all efforts to develop or acquire them.
In 1991, Saddam surrendered, and part of the conditions for his surrender agreement was that he cease all production of WMDs. He did not. That he immediately destroy and provide a complete accounting of all WMDs. He did not. That he stop all efforts to develop nuclear or other new WMDs. He did not.
Any one of those was justification for invasion, under the terms of his regularly-abrogated surrender agreements.
As any person who is actually well-informed on the issue knows, actual possession of WMDs was not the requirement, and never was, for war.
No WMDs, but refuse to verify it? That is justification alone.
Possess fewer WMDs than we thought? You still possess them. That is justification alone.
Firing on coalition forces? Attempting to assassinate a former President? Attempting to develop more WMDs? Massive human rights violations?
We know all of these was true, and every single one of them was justification alone for action.
By the way, I increasingly take the phrase "I am no fan of Saddam" as proof of utter shallowness.
"I'm tired of having my country and my President bashed by people who seek only partisan cheap shots and easy points while we're in the middle of a war for the future of Western civilization."
Well too bad. The president led us to costly, war that won't make us safer and did so on the basis of faulty intelligence. Whether he lied or not (and I seriously doubt he did) makes a difference. But even if he didn't, he made a decision and should be held accountable for it.
I want people to remember this when the president asks to keep his job. I don't think he's an evil man. I just don't trust his judgement and that of his advisors. I will not vote for him on this basis.
Personally, I'm sick of people who casually link "bashing the president" with "bashing the country" as though they are one in the same.
This sort of cult of personality that might have worked for Kim Il Sung's North Korea but has no place in the United States of America.
"No WMDs, but refuse to verify it? That is justification alone."
Oh really??? If so, why didn't Bush say last year "Even if Iraq doesn't have WMDs, we're still justified to invade"? Because he knew that Americans wouldn't support this nonsense. Now that the ruse is being revealed, Bush's popularity is going down. Some of us knew we were being sold a bill of goods last year. The rest of the country is now figuring this out. Even people like you admit it, that's why you so quickly change the subject from WMDs are a threat to Americans (original justification for war) to Saddam's an SOB. Because Saddam's an SOB is the only thing you got left. Strangely though, Charles Taylor's an SOB wasn't enough to get you guys to push for an invasion of Liberia.
Oh and Brian (above) is right. That "opposing the president means you hate America" garbage doesn't work anymore. I didn't hear toomany conservatives spouting this line when Clinton was president. I love my country and it deserves a heck of a lot better than Bush.
Actually, all he did was express confidence that they were there, just exactly like Clinton, Albright, and half the Democrats in Congress did.
Oh, and, uh, Chris? Poll after poll consistently shows that most Americans don't care that WMDs haven't been found. Got any idea why?
The way I see it:
1) The American people are blind sheeple who just aren't as smart as you, or
2) Most know that we acted upon reasonable suspicion, and had more than a dozen reasons for acting anyway.
That said, my mind is still boggling that Brian can both say he doesn't believe Bush lied, and then claim there were "lies" on the SOTU address.
For some people, political cheap shots are just more important than national security. Or human rights. Or basic justice.
But for those of us who actually care first and foremost about saving Western civilization, rather than "getting" a President we don't happen to much like....
Well, but I already said that, didn't I?
Dean, if I remember correctly, you said you wanted HONESTY in politics and I said I wanted that to apply to the State of the Union as well.
The president made a claim about Niger. That claim turned out to be wrong. When it turned out to be wrong, apologists shrugged their shoulders and said "Who cares?" Well, if it was irrelevant, then why was it in the State of the Union in the first place?
The president made claims about WMDs. By all APPEARANCES (and I concede this question is not definitive yet), those claims turned out to be wrong. Apologists are now saying that this doesn't matter. Yet without this, support for the war would've been much, MUCH lower.
I do not believe he overtly lied. I think the president chose to believe what he wanted to believe and chose to ignore that which was inconvenient.
So two of the reasons for war have already been largely discredited. How long until the next one is debunked?
Why does it matter? After all, an evil dictator is gone. We're all happy the evil dictator we chose to confront is gone. The reason it matters is not to re-fight this invasion but to prevent the next one.
I would've been more than happy if we'd taken out Saddam in '88-89 when he was committing genocide against the Kurds. Some Democrats actually pushed a sanctions bill but were blocked by officials in the Reagan and Bush Sr administrations. Saying we invaded Iraq to get rid of a butcher is like saying we entered WWII to stop the Holocaust.
Some of us want to make America a safer place. Taking out random dictators is good for for those menaced by the dictator in question but has no impact on Americans.
You want to save western civilization? Then let's focus our resources on the real menace to western civilization: the fascists who promote Islamic extremism. Even the French don't like them.
You might think any attack on the man who happens to be president is unpatriotic and a political cheap shot. I realize some people don't like being held accountable but that's too bad. Those people shouldn't hold elected office then.
As Republicans said during Clinton's SEX scandals: where's the outrage?
By the way, I enjoy your blog. I don't agree with most of it but it's worth reading. Just this entry got on my nerves. Cheers.
Remember the summer of 2003:
Undergrads played, Saddam slayed!
Germany traded, terror aided!
UN appeased, despots pleased!
French vacation, senior cremation!
Democrats unsafe, media chafe!
Kerry twin, Ho Chi Minh!
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/01/01_402.html
"No WMDs, but refuse to verify it? That is justification alone.
Possess fewer WMDs than we thought? You still possess them. That is justification alone.
Firing on coalition forces? Attempting to assassinate a former President? Attempting to develop more WMDs? Massive human rights violations?
We know all of these was true, and every single one of them was justification alone for action."
Well, if conservatives are CONSISTENT in their application of these principles, then I will have little argument.
Given the membership of the coalition of the willing, there's nothing to suggest that this is likely.
Brian writes: "The president made a claim about Niger. That claim turned out to be wrong. When it turned out to be wrong, apologists shrugged their shoulders and said "Who cares?"
Nope, Brian. Didn't happen. The yellowcake claim was refering to "Africa" not Niger and it hasn't "turned out" to be wrong as yet. Interestingly, Amb. Wilson claims to have established that it was wrong, but in fact his report stated that there was an approach to officials in Niger by Iraq that they interpreted as an offer to buy yellowcake.
The president made a claim about Niger. That claim turned out to be wrong. When it turned out to be wrong, apologists shrugged their shoulders and said "Who cares?" Well, if it was irrelevant, then why was it in the State of the Union in the first place?>>>
The Niger claim was never made.The reference in the SOTU said that British intelligence had reports that Saddam attempted to purchase uranium from"Africa".After the Niger report turned out to be false MI-6 went on record as saying they had sources,independent of the Niger report of...Saddam trying to buy uranium from Africa!There was no lie there.
That's cute, trying to portray me as a snob. But like the "criticize my president=criticize my country" garbage, it won't work. You oh so conveniently forget to mention one other possiblity: the American people have short attention spans.
If this weren't the case, before the Iraq war, people might've asked, "Um, shouldn't we finish Afghanistan first before we start another military excursion and nation building process?" But this was months after the WAR part of the Afghanistan mission was over so people forgot about it. At least that war was justified.
Oh wait, this is merely excuse making on my part? I don't think so. Because you make the same argument yourself, that the American people have a short attention span. You made it when you whined, "Anyone who actually remembers the year-long debate we had in this country over that knows that there were well over a dozen reasons given, all of which wound up in the war resolution passed by the Congress, and which you can read for yourself by just clicking here, and that WMDs became the central focus of our arguments to the UN after we, the people, authorized the President to act." So are the American people just blind sheep who aren't as smart as you or do you agree that they have short attention spans?
Some of us are more concerned about ACTUAL threats to western civilization than wasting resources on someone just because they didn't follow a resolution from a world body most Americans seem to hate anyway.
...help me out here Dean or anyone of your little "lets go invade countries even if we dont have any good reason" friends..... None of your asses are in Iraq ..it is so easy to sit comfortably over here and talk about this war is justified just because Saddam is a "bad man"....well guess what guys ..they are a heck of a lot "bad men" in the world and i dont think they are going to disappear soon...that is no reason to launch a "preemptive war" ..If we are going to send hundreds of thousands of American men and women to risks their lives it better be for a damn good reason ..get your facts and data straight .. ..and i'm sorry Dean and Patrick half-truths and speculation as well as really bad intelligence doesnt count...An american soldier getting killed just so that somebody can get rich off oil is not a good reason to me ..they are not pawns they are human beings and i wish u guys could get beyond the politics and realize that ....if a republican makes a wrong decision ..it is still a bad decision ....if any democrat makes a bad decision its is till a bad decision it ..wrong is wrong.
We have spent so much time and money in IRAQ we will soon end up not having enough to fight terrorism ...and i noticed nobody talked about it but let me repeat it where the hell is Bin Laden ......why is it we cant catch that SOB yet ?
Cam,
I have a serious question for you: What would you propose that the US should have done with regard to Iraq? What alternative to war are you proposing?
Continue with sanctions and a policing force? Thousands of people were dying each year because of Saddams control of the food and medicine funds. Smuggling was rampant, and the neighboring states were increasingly uncomfortable with the US forces. How long would this last before we were forced to give up, allowing Saddam to return to persecuting the Iraqis, Kurds, and Kuwaitis.
Or maybe we should have just walked away, and let Saddam take over the entire GCC? This situation would make the current war look like a joke. (Think trillions of dollars and thousands of US lives.)
And I'm not being a jerk or argumentative, as I was moderately opposed to the war myself. But there really aren't any good alternatives. Sometimes we have to bite the bullet and do the hard job.
"None of your asses are in Iraq ..it is so easy to sit comfortably over here and talk about this war is justified just because Saddam is a "bad man"...."
Excuse me? I have my Honorable Discharge hanging on my wall, twit. Until July 30th of last year, I still had my bags packed in case the Army came calling. So you can take that arguement and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Every time an idiot pulls out that kind of rebuttle, I know that they have NOTHING ELSE of substance.