Centerfield

Wow, Marc, we seem to think alike in some ways. YES to the "coalition of the bribed," indeed.

Before we invaded, the UN inspections teams were reporting that Iraq WAS COOPERATING with the inspectors and that the inspectors were being given access to the sites they requested.

How is this making life difficult for the inspectors, exactly?

And how could we ever be sure that there were no stockpiles if Saddam were in power? How about we let the inspectors do the job that the Iraqi Resolution was supposed to ensure?

Kerry's coalition of the bribed is dead on in the way that he meant it. And with the entire picture in hand now..it's pretty evident that Bush short circuited the inspectors and led us into a war where the intelligence was trumped up and his surrogates lied to us.

In response to Carla --

While Saddam was still in power, the only way that we could be SURE that there were no WMD was for him to have provided the UN inspectors with documentary evidence proving that the unaccounted for WMD had been destroyed. No such evidence was provided. Since Saddam wanted to deter Iran, he couldn't provide such evidence, as it would have destroyed his bluff. Further, he evidently believed that he didn't need to provide such evidence, as he thought that bribing the French, Russians, and Chinese would prevent the Security Council from authorizing the use of force, and that the US and UK wouldn't invade without such authorization.

We didn't call a bluff. That implies that we knew he was bluffing, which we didn't.

And for the record, I agree, Carla.

It's been stated over and over that "everyone" agreed he had the WMD. I think this an overstatement. Isn't it more accurate to say that every thought he had some weapons at some previous point, but that there was substantial doubt about the current status of weapons in Iraq.

The ""everyone agreed" theme is always used as a defense of the Bush admin's actions and the subsequent invasion. Those who didn't go along had doubts that they wanted to investigate via inspections, and let's not simply dismiss the fact that they were right to have doubts, because there were no WMD. I'm SURE some of this was attitude was being pushed by those who stood to profit from delay and obstruction. But all? I dunno.

And yeah, it's logically obvious that we couldn't be SURE without hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground. (Although Colin Powell was happy to play sure). If that's a good enough reason here, then it's a good enough reason every next time we feel like invading too. Well folks, get used to living with uncertainty, because we don't have troops to knock down every abdul's door.

Corrupt diplomats are a given, I'm not sure how much they prove other than that venality and profit are still alive and well under the diplomatic covers. I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!

Carla,

Iraq only STARTED cooperating AFTER we had 100,000+ troops mobilized on it's border. That happens to be the fact. Now exactly how long do you think we could have those troops on ready-alert? Exactly how long do you think it would take Hussein to stop cooperating once those troops were no longer massed for attack?

All Hussein had to do was wait us out and he knew it. 20 years from now we would still have to have 100,000+ troops mobilized in the Saudi Desert and there would still be a Hussein in power, butchering his own people and waiting for those troops to leave so he could rearm. Either that or you would have had Iraq under Saddam or Uday fully rearmed and with a functioning NBC sctockpile thanks to the complicity of Russia, France, Germany and corrupt U.N. bearucrats.

Could we have waited 3,4 or 5 years? Sure. Would the timing have been better then? Who knows. However, 3,4 or 5 years is a long time to keep troops on station waiting for an attack, it's a long time to give an enemy to plan a defence.... and I really wonder where all those foreign fighters we are now battling in Iraq would have CHOSEN to battle us? My guess..... Chicago.

You don't have to know someone is bluffing to call them, Amy. You just have to decide the odds of winning are in your favor. You never really know someone was bluffing until you see the cards.

BK,

There are some interesting things that come out when reading the details of the report. Although the ISG concludes in it's key findings that Iraq unilateraly (meaning without UN verification) destroyed the bulk of it's surviving CW stockpile after Gulf War I. These findings are based almost ENTIRELY upon interviews with captured Baathist officials and a failure to turn up chemical munitions during inspections. THERE HAS BEEN NO ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of this destruction discovered to corroborate these claims. Contrast this to biological weapons where there was actual evidence of weapon destruction. Furthermore while the fact that no chemical weapons were found during physical ISG inspections of munitions stockpiles seems damning. If you actualy read the details of the report you will see that by ISG's own admission it was only able to inspect one-quarter of one percent of Iraqs KNOWN munitions stockpile. Furthermore, Coalition Forces in TOTAL have only been able to account for (destroy or secure) and inspect 8-12% of Iraq's KNOWN munitions stockpile.

Given this, I'm not sure how anyone, including the ISG, can feel comfortable in stating what happaned to Iraqs KNOWN stockpile of CW that existed at the end of Gulf War I, let alone anything that may have been produced since then.

I'm not trying to play WMD boogyman here. It just difficult for me to fathom people making such definitive assertions like "there were no WMD" when the evidence one way or another is incredibly sketchy and such a miniscule fraction of the munitions that we even KNOW about has been accounted for and examined.

Cengel and Tully make good points. I definitely would not have waited 3 or 4 years. The things you guys mention are the reasons why I always characterize my quarrels with the timing as minor. I felkt we rushed, but we were pushing about the right things. I might have been willing to let inspections keep going forward and withdraw some troops temporarily with the caveat that "this IS the LAST lap around the mulberry bush." But the whole ground logisitics thing (troop morale, support, weather issues) is a VERY strong real-world argument.

Any understanding of Iraq has to include an understanding of the whole history of Hussein and how he kept using the UN to play us, and how important it was post 9/11 to let everyone know it was a new game now. I think we could have painted Germany and France into a better corner given another 6-9 months, but hey, who knows?

The Wall Street Journal agrees about the Coalition of the Bribed.

The president had encouraged the public to wait for this report before we make any assumptions about the existence of WMD's.

Alright. We waited.

The inspectors had the run of Iraq in the lead up to the invasion. Blix and Al Baradei both reported that they were being given unfettered access to whatever sites they wanted. US intelligence was free to name sites they wanted checked and the inspectors were going in. But Bush short circuted that effort by claiming "mushroom cloud"...and then we had the invasion. It was irresponsible and careless...especially given the well known problems with such an invasion and occupation.

Iraq cooperated when we had troops on the border. BUT THEY COOPERATED. And they did so completely. But rather than let that go forth...Bush and his people invaded...and now we are where we are. Saddam "waiting us out" is a silly argument. We had him completely boxed in. Inspectors had the run of his country. If the inspectors would have been allowed to finish their job...we could have known that nothing was in Iraq and that the scientists had been lying to Hussein. We could have saved ourselves this massive bloodshed and financial burden.

Given the fact that there were other nations that we KNEW harbored terrorists (Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Sudan) and we virtually ignored them for Iraq is a serious miscalculation. It also gave bin Laden EXACTLY what he wanted and predicted...the US attacking a Muslim nation that never attacked the US...nor could have.