Centerfield

I am not sure who would disagree with you. Judging from what I could gather in the reporting as tension built and by the very flanking operations subsequently used, I did not think we thought Saddam had, or was going to use, WMD, let alone fire large numbers of missiles at us.

Trainor and Ricks both claim that the military was surprised by the ubiquitousness of munitions Saddam had dispersed and later, that Clinton's earlier strike had in fact, broken the Iraq military back. I doubted the administration’s claim on terror links and WMDs, and saw the manipulation on intelligence as a gamble they thought a swift victory would bury. Such an outcome would have to employ a very intelligent plan, which I doubted the administration had before them. My gut told me as I watched the looting that a fiasco was likely in progress through failed thinking rather than from preventative action, regardless of WMD we might find. Invading as Bush did was a huge gamble. Unfortunately, I see our security was part of the ante if blow back and it’s enabling partisanship disrupt our forward strategy during a critical moment.

There is nothing wrong with learning what happened. History may very well show that the US made the right move incorrectly and that as damaging to US success was a partisan effort to portray reasonable Western self-interest in security following 9/11, as a new more rabid form of American Domination. I believe history will show that in the present decade, regimes and extremists conspire to unhinge what the Cold War could not; -the Hegemony of Liberal Democracy and the rule of Human Rights. We are still stuck here in a political standoff, with our soldiers over there deciding what will happen next.

"And if we act without clear criteria against Saddam we run the risk of future blow back which will threaten the broader effort to thwart Iran, stabilize Afghanistan, eliminate Jihadists and force some real progress in the Middle East. If we make arrogant mistakes and squander hundreds of billions, we damage the very credibility and ongoing military procurements that we need to prevail in the world. Mistakes will dangerously delay us as the war creeps on in blood, treasure and perceptions. These errors will further polarize our resolve and diminish what little coalition we have to opposes Islamic extremists and the help they receive from our former adversaries." Maxtrue 2002

Reasonable Intelligence, bi-partisan review of war strategy with delineated exit plan, and reasonable criteria and pro-action arguments presented to the American people regarding prevention or pre-emption were all needed for maximizing our risky chances for success. We all knew that. These elements were needed to complete a coherent model by which we could advocate a position clear enough to rebuke the anti-American opposition and sway international opinion. The was no reason to be seen as acting more unilaterally than we were. Perception does matter over time.

And this is one war of perception the Democrats want to continue winning against the Republicans. Fortunately, this too, must rest on THEIR credibility, not the lack of someone else's.

I wonder if the focus on the military "mistakes" will add to the shifting blame game. As Hanson said in his dry neocon way, they don’t have Rumsfeld to hit anymore. So Attacking the military on blogs and in Congressional reviews might create some split between the administration and the present DoD. Didn't Murtha chastised the DoD for complaining about Pelosi’s transport requests? He laughed and said it was stupid because Congress is the one that gives them the money (and pays their mercenaries). Yes, Mr. Murtha, cut Raptors to protest the military’s objection to Pelosi’s unprecedented transportation requests. Levin is building an argument that he will use to derail any present plan to strike Iran. Make the DoD keep a muzzle on their troops, stop supporting the Decider….or…..or what?

Maxtrue,

I really cannot understand what you are saying. You seem to be saying that Bush might end up being right for the wrong reasons and that any criticism about the false basis for the invasion is irrelevant. It that is not what you are saying, I apologize for my interpretation.

It's certainly true that actions taken for one reason (or for a reason different than publicly stated) can have a variety of consequences. Lincoln entered the Civil War to preserve the Union and ended up abolishing slavery. The allies entered WWII to, in effect, restore the balance of power and ended up saving the Jews.

But invading on a blatantly false premise, which Maxtrue seems to acknowledge is what happened, seems to me to be a different issue if for no other reason than any rational observer would know that an invasion carried substantial risks of unintended consequences. It also suggests that the president really doesn't have to be honest with the public but can make his own decision about what's in the public interest and then justify it however he wants. I'm not naive about the way power works, but I have a real problem with that.

I suspect that the administration truly believed there was WMD in Iraq. But they were predisposed to believe that and to ignore any contrary evidence. They were also predisposed to use American power in the wake of 9/11 to establish some sort of pax Americana. Both of these are defensible positions, but not to the extent that they justify a continuing deceit on the part of the administration as to why we invaded Iraq and the progress being made. It's always possible, of course, that history will vindicate Bush (how can we possibly know what will happen in 100 years) but it sure doesn't look good now.

Wow, was I that unclear? Clinton promoted regime change and many Democrats stated that the US was wrong not to oust Saddam in 1991. The military was planning it for years. You follow so far? Saddam was a dangerous bastard that was on a collision course with the West and his neighbors. I suggest you read Fiasco. After 9/11 Bush stated he would pre-empt or prevent known assholes and regimes (see Axis of Evil and his terrorist designations) from seeking WMD and collusion with terrorists/extremists. Many experts felt America was sending a signal to these people by taking out the weakest link (Saddam) and their support of the terrorist/intelligence network by knocking the easiest offender. There is plenty of evidence, which makes a reasonable argument on where Saddam's dangerous evolution was going. You would have to be pretty thick to miss his money for suicide bombers, his use of WMD and his threatening claims to Kuwaiti territory. Many intelligent experts foresaw what a nightmare the end of sanctions would be. Russia and France wanted the sanctions to end. Period. To many people, removing Saddam was a growing eventuality. Clinton said this, as well as other DLCers. The WMD stuff and links to AQ were poor means to convince a nation to prevent further Saddam threats. Bush had the power to invade and I think this manipulation was uncalled for. It is also false to say Bush invented false intelligence. He didn’t lie but knowingly stretched intelligence to support his decision. Saddam even confessed to playing up his lame WMD programs to fool Iran. There was certainly the idea that Saddam had some dangerous capabilities and that he was eager to use vast incomes to catch up quickly with Iran as soon as sanctions ended. Bush saw the window of opportunity and I think Rove saw one too..

What I said was that history might well show that Bush's deeper reasoning for ousting Saddam was right. It will probably also show that his explanations and timing was counter-productive and the gamble taken under such circumstance and the “winning” was further impaired by a lack of coherent strategies.

I think your examples are backwards. Lincoln stated Slavery was the cause behind succession, but it was only a means to inspire and save a Union dominated by the North.

FDR made Liberty and Freedom the cause to enter the war while fashioning a new balance of power at Yalta.

We are fed many reasons, yet underlying reasons remain in the dark. Look at Truman’s dilemma. Look at Kennedy. Did he disclose our missiles in Turkey? Chomsky has even argued that Viet Nam was less about Dominos and more about the West keeping Japan in line. Others claim Viet Nam was about oil.

In this light, Bush was not so deceitful as the Left want to believe. He wanted to prevent a nexus between a lunatic and WMD in a region of mutual terrorist networks engaged in confrontation with the West, America and Israel and Rove thought it was the politically right time to do it. Kennedy came close to the world’s end over Cuba and did not tell us the bigger picture. Truman dropped two nukes. Clinton was close to bombing the North Koreans when they confiscated our Plutonium. I would be less idealistic about how things happen and wonder why they do. In that sense, I said history will regard ousting Saddam in itself, less of a mistake than Democrats do now. I then claimed that if the deep meaning was what I suggested, yes, Iraq will not make WMD anytime soon, but no. now, the instability increases the possibility that we won't prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, nor send a signal to rouge regimes that they are in danger. We must fix the mistakes or the gamble will risk our future security.

"But invading on a blatantly false premise, which Maxtrue seems to acknowledge is what happened, seems to me to be a different issue if for no other reason than any rational observer would know that an invasion carried substantial risks of unintended consequences.”

So does invading when 1. you think there are WMD and there aren't and 2. invading when you state other reasons that I mentioned. Invasions always have consequence and at the time, I blogged till I was blue that we needed a better criteria to protect ourselves from blowback and a failure of resolve. I am not naive either and Bush could have invaded for a number of reasons.

"It also suggests that the president really doesn't have to be honest with the public but can make his own decision about what's in the public interest and then justify it however he wants."

They often do. When you have many people disgusted with Saddam and recognizing his days were probably numbered, making the move as President is not a violation of the war power act or reason.. At least as far as I understand it. It is totally within the bounds of the public to chastise him for a gamble made with mediocre planning at best that is now failing. It is foolish to let such behavior reverse direction of our NSS as though it was a punishment, when the outcome now affects our security. When I first came here, the intentional lack of criteria really pissed me off for the very reasons we see today. It does not change my opinion that Saddam is much better removed. How we move forward, for me, is much more important than yesterday’s whys.

The stories aren't substantially similiar. The Washington Post story is more damning. But this is partly because they accidently contributed quotes that Carl Levin was making to the actual IG report. They issued a correction though.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17051786/

A Feb. 9 front-page Washington Post article reprinted on MSNBC.com about the Pentagon inspector general's report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith's office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith's office drew on "both reliable and unreliable reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" were also from Levin's report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith's office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general's report did not draw. The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith's office: Levin's report refers to an "alternative intelligence assessment process" developed in that office, while the inspector general's report states that the office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The inspector general's report further states that Feith's briefing to the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."

Still, the actual IG report is damning enough