If all your statements are true, why weren't we able to have a coalition like the first Gulf war? And why did the administration go to such an effort to trump intelligence that was listed by many in the intelligence field as coming from extremely questionable sources?

When you look at the history for the last couple years, there was an aweful lot that transpired that consists of obvious lies, falsehoods and very questionable statements.

We've also seen many leave the administration and supporting positions because they knew that known false statements were stated as fact.

Then to top it off, the administration ignored experts who described scenarios that could occur after the Iraq government fell. They were ignored because they had a picture in mind of what they expected to happen. They only wanted to listen to people who gave analysis' that agreed with what they thought would happen.

I watched a documentary on the war that described how Rumsfeld was focused on fighting the war with as small a force as possible. Every military official was against this.

They finally found a colonel who was trying to get others to listen to his ideas on warfare that included fighting wars with small forces.

This was a major help in getting Congress to agree to the war, as they were finally able to bring a live soldier in front of Congress who agreed with their position.

All the information I read, and listened to in the early days of the war, pointed to the level of deceit used by the administration to justify the war.



>Not that this is any great news. It's been public knoweledge for some time that Bush outright lied to justify his personal vendetta agains Saddam Hussein.
>
>Kevin,
>
>First, I'm not a big Bush fan. He's arguably one of the most deeply-flawed presidents we've had in the post-WWII era.
>
>But when you really stop to think about it - it's almost impossible for Bush to have "outright lied". It assumes that Bush knew for a fact that there wasn't a "direct link", and yet attacked anyway. Al-Qaeda has cells all over the world, including many middle-Eastern countries - somehow they magically missed Iraq??? But regardless...
>
>The facts remain:
>
>1) When Al-Qaeda got so big in the late 1990's that bin Laden could no longer finance it on his own, Hussein came the aid with state funds. Despite the fact that Hussein and Iraq are more "secular", Hussein has sympathized with bin Laden in that they have common enemies. Many believe Hussein has bankrolled bin Laden to the tune of millions per year.
>
>2) Hussein rewarded Palestinian suicide bomber's families with cash (between 20K - 35K)
>
>3) Hussein ordered many political dissidents to be tortured/killed
>
>4) He used money intended for aid for his own personal benefit
>
>5) With the UN sanctions collapsing, Hussein was planning on NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) capabilities within 2-3 years. Iraq was headed towards being far more dangerous than many realized. (And by the way, tons of documentation on their plans have gone "missing"). His continuous defiance of UN Resolution justified the ultimate suspicion.
>
>6) The U.S. has proof that Hussein was trying to purchase nuclear material from the Russian black market.
>
>Is there a specific hard link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks? We may never know. But Hussein was previously a paymaster for the organization that was responsible, and his country partied in the streets after the events of 9/11.
>
>When you take into account all of this - it more than justifies U.S. taking action against Iraq, as well as any country that bankrolls terror networks whose expressed purpose is destroying the U.S. and its allies.
>
>Believe me, I hate seeing the American death toll rising over there. My wife lost a cousin over there. I have serious reservations about Bush's leadership. But even with Bush's flaws, nothing changes the fact that the U.S. was morally justified in taking action.
>
>
>Kevin