Quote:
|
Originally Posted by onetime2
The predominant thinking in all intelligence services at the time of the Iraq invasion was that there was a high probability that Saddam was hiding wmds, had the desire to build nukes (as evidenced by the neatly tucked away programs found since the invasion all set to be started again once international focus faded), and violating the constraints of the deal that ended the first Gulf War.
Whether it was "wishful thinking" or not is kind of a ridiculous argument IMO. Do you really think that Bush wished it to be true when he was about to invade the country? The prospect of embedded reporters detailing the grisly deaths of young Marines overcome by biological and chemical agents is hardly a rosy election picture. A more accurate statement perhaps is "feared it was true" or "couldn't risk the chance that they did exist or were being developed".
My whole point about sanctions is that they were not discouraging to state sponsors. Hussein retained power. Retained control over Iraq's oil. Continued to enrich himself and his cronies. Did pretty much whatever he wanted. Engaging "moderates" or others opposed to the regime in power resulted in how many dead in Iraq? The solutions you outlined have been tried for 30 years in the face of terrorism against the US and they have failed to limit its spread or remove terrorist minded leaders from power.
|
I watched a documentary called "Uncovered" that dissected the build up to war in Iraq and featured career analysts from the CIA and State Dept who ridiculed the WMD "evidence" used to justify invasion and detailed the pressure that was brought to bear on intelligence agencies to come to the "right" conclusions. The White House formed the Office of Special Plans to cherry pick their own intelligence to justify the invasion, so obviously they felt that the existing intelligence wasn't good enough. Dick Cheney made multiple trips to Langley to pressure the CIA into massaging the data that they had. All in all, saying that the WMD threat was conventional wisdom in our intelligence agencies is a bit of a stretch. I'm sure that Bush & co did believe that the WMDs existed, and they weren't going to let a little thing like a lack of evidence dissuade them.
So far preemptive invasion hasn't done much to stop the spread of terrorism, turning a former terrrorist cold spot into a global focal point. Do you feel any more secure? The old methods may feel inadequate, but they are far more attractive than eternal war. Furthermore, Iraq was NOT a major sponsor of terrorism...Afghanistan was, but we've bungled that invasion in the rush to grab Iraq.
Doesn't it seem suspicious that a current administration official co-authored a document calling for the invasion of Iraq a decade ago, for reasons that had nothing to do with terrorism or the "threat" of Saddam? Is it just a happy coincidence that we turned our attention to Iraq so soon after 9-11 gave Bush a blank check with regard to foreign policy? Why did we put 10x the amount of troops into Iraq than we did into Afghanistan, where we knew the terrorists were? It doesn't take a conspiracy nut to start to put the pieces together here. I, for one, think that history will take a very dim view of this administration and it's insanely arrogant doctrine.