Actually, it sounds like we pretty much agree on the facts. I agree that Bush was pretty clear he was going to war with Iraq. I just don't think his decision was based on duplicity ( and certainly was not done in as dishonest a fashion as FDR employed to get us into WWII. Sometimes you have to get people to do the right thing even if it is for the wrong reasons. )

I think he thought they had WMD, but in any case he regarded Saddam as a strategic threat and I think he wanted to send a message to Syria and Iran as well ( and having ground airbases in Iraq is strategically a pretty good idea. )

I don't think it was "for oil" or if it was we really did it wrong. Actually, if he had said "Iraq doesn't have WMD so we can kick their butts and take their oil and gas will be $1.00 a gallon" he would have been supported by acclaimation and Europe would have said "Cool, can you do Saudi Arabia while you're over there."

I don't think the US invasion of Iraq - as it happened - was a good thing. I think it could have been, but the implementation was one of the great examples of hubris and cultural ignorance in human history. I still am delighted to see Saddam and his evil spawn dead, but I think the best we could have hoped for would have been a ruthless dictator who was our ruthless dictator. (Welcome to Pakistan, Mr. Bush )

The thing the people don't get about the neo-cons ( Wolfewitz, Kristol, Pearle ) is that they are idealists. They really believe that stuff about the Iraqis yearning for Jeffersonian democracy and they are, of course, wrong. Kissinger, Metternich, and Tallyrand would have planned something different.

Regarding threat assessment, of course, you also realize that if it is a close call you have to weigh the downside. I think it is a very safe bet that the stupidest thing a country can do it to say "We almost have nuclear weapons and wouldn't it be cool to use them on Israel." One has to err on the side of caution and allocate the risk to weigh heavily elsewhere. Saddam's own generals thought he had WMD. He should probably have made more of an effort to convince the world he didn't. You just don't kid around about that kind of stuff.

>>>
>>>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.
>


The antiwar movement here definitely warned of mass casualties from WMD ( but developed amnesia on the issue after the war - though certainly not the occupation - was a rousing success. It is kind of fun to watch people who are doing the Bush Lied thing try to deny stuff they actually wrote about WMD in Iraq before the war )


>
>>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.


I meant more the politicians ( who depended on the money from those who dealt with Iraq ) positioning themselves as defenders of the Peace and the UN when they were really defending the interests of their contributors ( Gee, American politicians would never do something like that <s> )

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

I think the US population still find war a pretty tough sell, but after 9/11 it got easier. Of course, most Americans have very little idea where Iraq is and thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11 ( and this was not because Bush said that, but only becuase all that foreign stuff kind of blurs <s> )

I think if we would have had more support from Europe the American people may have stopped it before it started. But once it became an issue of "The President wants to knock off Saddam but France and Germany say we can't and the UN won't let us" then it was a done deal. ( though actually I think a poll would have shown most folks would have accepted France as a substitute - pretty women, better food, nice climate, good roads, and it would only take a couple days before they surrendered <g> Personally I was pushing for Canada - they have oil, you could come home on weekends, the dollar goes further than in France and you can still get American TV shows. And given the weather we would have come home before it got cold. )