sarai...
A reasonable post - much better than the "BUSH LIED - IMPEACH HIM" garbage that has been so much in evidence on this board of late. Thank you for a considered response.
"Mlsoft, I understand all of that, honestly. But, imo, the "reasons" given for war never made sense. Altho there was an effort to insinuate a connection between Saddam and Osama et al, no facts were ever offered to back that up. And the fear card was used excessively."
That is debatable. Osama was not found lounging in Baghdad, but a number of known terrorists (including al quaeda types) were found in Iraq. Regardless of the connections, the war on terror was certainly advanced by taking out Saddam. "The fear card was used excessively" - um, kinda like the dems always use the fear card with the elderly about SS and Medicare??
{i}"We were told that DC knew where the weapons were, and they were among the most lethal."
They had intelligence that they relied on, some of which may well have been incorrect - but there is certainly no reason to believe that all of it was incorrect. There was a lot of time wasted while we went back and forth in the futile effort to induce the UN to act responsibly, and Saddam had plenty of time to dispose of the WMD's - to Syria, to Lebanon, to terrorist cells, buried, who knows?? My guess is that much (perhaps most) of the intelligence about WMD's was accurate at the time and very few at the time (or now) doubted that Saddam was sitting on WMD's.
"We were told we could not afford to wait for the UN to finish it's inspections because Saddam posed such an immediate threat to our safety. There was not time for international "diplomacy". Yet, Saddam was not even able to mount any kind of defense on his home turf. We were told we had to act unilaterally, if necessary, regardless of the foreign policy implications. Safety first!! It was insinuated that the UN was inept, or worse... And everyone else was WRONG!"
Again, the extra time afforded Saddam by the UN bickering probably allowed him to make various dispositions of the WMD's, including turning some of it over to terrorists. That cannot be proven at this time, but neither can it be disproven. The fact that Saddam was not able to mount a defense against us is meaningless - very few countries on Earth would be able to do that. The UN "inept"?? Perish the thought!! I cannot think of a time when they were anything but inept. They missed all of Saddam's WMD's the first time around - why do you think this time would be any different?? The ONLY reason Saddam even allowed the inspectors into the country was because of the vastly superior military forces sitting on his border. You simply cannot let such a force just sit there - you have to use them or bring them home, and the second we brought them home, how much cooperation do you think Saddam would have given the UN????? Ziltch. Zero.
"We were told lots of things and what has been created is a diplomatic and foreign policy fiasco. The US has lost credibility in the global community, and is viewed as the villian. There are serious residual effects..."
I cannot believe you do not understand the opposition of the french, germans, and russians. It had absolutely nothing to do with their principals, their beliefs, or any other altruistic motives - it was business, pure and simple, and mostly oil and armaments business. Yet all the left wing boffo's wanted to blame our motives on oil!!! It was oil, all right, but it was the french and russians that were motivated by the Iraqi oil. And they want to accuse us of empire building - what a total farce. Show me our "empire" - I guess it was the same ones that vetoed us in the UN. I am being as honest as I know how to be when I say that I could care less what france thinks about anything.
"Saddam is a rotten guy, no question. But there are too many rotten guys, globally. Is the world a better place without Saddam? Absolutely! But given the ideology in the region, what comes after Saddam? And what is our responsibility to the world and really rotten leaders? What is the global community's responsibility? And what is the US's responsibility to "get along" in the global community?? Certainly, we do not make policy based on global sentiment, but there is a responsibility to consider and understand sentiment, at least. And there are ramifications for not doing so..."
Tough questions that we will have to work through as we go, but putting our needs subservient to a vote in the UN hopefully will never be part of the answer.
"In the US, the Executive Branch needs Congressional approval to launch a war. There were reasons to question the "drums of war" leading up to "Shock & Awe". And it was our responsibility to question as part of our democratic system. And the "case" for war didn't exactly pass the logic test, as a whole."
The executive branch got congressional approval - overwhelmingly. End of story on that one.
"Even Wolfie said they "settled on WMD" which indicates the "case" might have been made somewhat disingenuously - because all motives or the "real" motives were not known, or disclosed. So, I would not be at all surprised if the Admin did "embellish" the "case" somewhat. Would you? Did they embellish? Were false and/or misleading statements made, or was this perhaps the greatest intelligence failure of all times??... Neither you nor I know for sure. But it requires investigation."
"Wolfie" was taken out of context, but sure - they made the most effective presentation of their case for going to war as they could and they stressed those facts and intelligence data that best supported their case - no administration in history would have done any differently. willie clinton and algore made exactly the same arguments for military action (which was approved by congress) when they were in charge - did you and the lefties get all up in arms about that or is it just because Bush did it? I think it is far from established that there was a great intelligence failure - my guess is that much of the intelligence information was accurate at the time. Perhaps you do not know that much about intelligence but it is an art, not a science. You cannot sit down and interview Saddam and he just tells you everything you want to know. You get data and you make the best assessments you can from that data.
"If false and or misleading info was intentionally offered to gain Congressional and international approval for war, that is a MOST SERIOUS offense, and We have a responsibility to see that Constitutional and international law are upheld. If it was a case of bad info, ie and "intelligence failure", then We (the greatest Super Power) do not go to war (risking American lives & killing people) on bad info, obviously. There has to be higher standards of scrutiny and gov, in general. The Pres and fedl gov answer to We the People, ultimately. And they've got some splainin' to do in DC... :)"
I dispute that Bush lied, or that the intelligence was all that faulty. As for an investigation, I would be for it if I thought it would be serious and actually try to figure out what mistakes were made (I am positive there were some) and how to make things better. But I know as sure as I am sitting here that such goals would be the furthest thing from what would actually happen. It would become a circus that would absolutely without question last until the 2004 elections so it could be used as a political weapon against Bush with innuendos, lies, leaks, distortions, and everything else you can imagine. Anybody with an ounce of common sense knows that.
Unfortunately, that is the garbage dump that our government has become - it's all politics, with very few really thinking about the public good. "How can I help my side and hurt the other side" is the only game in town, and that is true of both parties.
mlsoft
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
