>>
>>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.

Agreed but from my perspective a bit besides the point. The "blatant untruth" is spoken in retrospect - yes - but right up to the start of action the WMD issue was not really pressed. The whole thing was more of a poker bluff
[Saddam: the guys daddy had me over a barrel, but was at least smart enough not to go in too deeply. perhaps his son is not as stupid as he always sounds off...]
[GWB: I want him. I will heap more and more pressure until I go in with the whole army and only stop if Saddam is gone]

>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 did not spent much of my time in intelligence circles, but some time in the army was was spent underground or training for it. And I never was a coal miner. I know about threat assesment and interlinked scenarios being fragile if base assumptions are off. But I think the WMD was delibaretly kept an open issue to be used as official reason for the war. The US did not press for going in to search for WMD even against Iraq's wishes (perhaps being afraid of giving Iraq hostages instead of making a few western martyrs). I think GWB headed for a war any possible way.

>All European intelligence organizations ( including the Bundesnachrichtendienst and the French DGSE ) believed there were chemical and possibly biological weapons.

They agreed that if there were WMD, most likely they would be chemical in nature. The big question was the amount left over from the pevious wars and if there was any new production capability established in the late nineties.

>Most of the anti-war movement predicted if the US invaded there would be mass American casualties due to chemical weapons.

Here I definately disagree from the things I remember from germany. The issue was "we [pronounced with the politically correct german guilt complex] must not go to war! And we especially must not go to war if the issue is unclear/it might be unfounded/just to tickle GWB's vanity" (the last one for at least rudimentary thinking people)

Arguing for mass casualties by chemical weapons would mean Iraq to have them, and they don't spout illogic at that heightened level<g>. There were some headlines about possible mass casualties, but that was just tabloid selling tactics.


>But the "Bush lied" arguement is just political theater.
Agreed - he is not that stupid, after Clinton being grilled for creating a very fine taxonomy on sexual conduct with interns.

>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).

Not debating that before the war more business connections existed from europe. But I don't think there was any peace posturing involved: those deals had to be kept secret here as well, but were not as actively sought after by the authorities as in the US. Spouting off about Iraq would have put you into the spotlight. Bad for business.

My point is: GWB showed that the US population can be manouvered into war by half thruth and posturing.

regards

thomas