>
>But I could ask also slanted: As an educated, intelligent person, do you really believe that there Iraq's WMD are still hidden somewhere, as they were neither found nor used ?
>
>Without arguing the "correctness" of the decision to topple Saddam, the fact that such a blatant untruth was needed *and* successful to enter the action makes for a quesy stomach.
>
A mistaken assumption ( which Saddam did nothing to dispel ) is not the same as an untruth - something which is known to be not so.

I think a distinction must be made between lying about the existence of WMD while knowing there were definitely none to create a false pretense for war and believing - perhaps incorrectly - that such WMD existed and deciding to act pre-emptively.

As the recordings of meetings and debriefing of Iraqi commanders clearly show, even at the beginning of the war most Iraqis believed there were WMDs and were stunned when Saddam told them there would be none available. All European intelligence organizations ( including the Bundesnachrichtendienst and the French DGSE ) believed there were chemical and possibly biological weapons. Most of the anti-war movement predicted if the US invaded there would be mass American casualties due to chemical weapons.

I really think the arguement also misses a very very important point - the same point that is often overlooked regarding Iran and nukes. There is another player in the region with very good intelligence, a very good military, nuclear weapons, the will to use them, and a well founded paranoia about national destruction. Despite what the world seems to sometimes think, we do not control Israel's decisions and we certainly don't control decisions it makes over perceived threats to survival. But we have been successful sometimes in offering what they find to be acceptable alternatives and thus avoiding a much wider conflict.


It is legitimate to argue the intelligence was wrong - the nature of a police state is that human intelligence is hard won. It can also be argued the analysis was flawed and that people tend to hear what they want to hear. It is perfectly sane to say we were duped by Chalabi and others with their own agendas. But to claim that Bush knew there were no WMDs ( which would imply perfect intelligence data ) is just ignorant political chest thumping. If you know anything at all about how intelligence work is done, you know that decisions are made based on an overall threat assessment, and most intelligence data is at best ambiguous.

I think it is fair to argue attacking Iraq when and how we did was a bad decision. I think it is very fair to argue there were tactical errors in the postwar period that were monumental and caused by the egos and incompetance of people all the way through Rumsfeld and the President.

But the "Bush lied" arguement is just political theater. I would imagine if the WMD had been found the same people would have claimed they were planted by the CIA or Mossad to make Iraq look bad. ( for that matter, if we knew they weren't there, why didn't we just take some in and plant them? Couldn't the evil Haliburton have spirited some into Iraq on instructions from the Master Villian Darth Cheney? )

If you want to talk about lies that preceded the Iraq war, talk about those who postured as peace lovers opposed to toppling Saddam while getting fat from Iraqi money received in contravention of sanctions by the UN they supposedly revered. Germany, France and Russia do not have clean hands in the issue of Iraq (or Iran).


>regards
>
>thomas