>>>>>>>>This should be excellent. Presented in 2 parts over tonite and tomorrow nite:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I missed the first part, but the second seemed to rehash some previous Frontline documentaries. Overall, I think they're excellent, but I'm not sure how balanced they are. Did they show anything about most countries believing Saddam had WMDs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Many countries, prominently including Germany and France, wanted to let the UN task force find WMDs before assuming they were there. We were the ones who blew off the UN after a while and insisted on invading even in the absence of evidence. Lots of Americans were angry at our long time European allies at the time. In retrospect, we would have been wise to heed their prudence. It doesn't take that much longer to do it right.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You mean the UN task force that was currently kicked out of Iraq (and had been more than once previously)? That was working well.
>>>>
>>>>I mean the UN task force that was in Iraq for weeks or months looking for WMDs. Do you mean it wasn't working well because they didn't find any?
>>>>
>>>
>>>For starters, anything UN doesn't work well.
>>>
>>>Aside from that, not being in Iraq because they were kicked out because they were trying to look in 'unapproved' places makes them somewhat ineffective don't you think?
>>
>>Your memory is faulty - the U.N. weapons inspectors were *IN* Iraq and able to get into anywhere they wished, sometimes after a bit of a bluster from Saddam.
>>The inspectors were told to leave for their own safey by the U.S. as the first bombing was imminent.
>
>(trying to be fair - I'm using pretty left leaning media - there are LOTS of references if you want)
>
>
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801E3DA143BF933A15752C1A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all>
>
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003264,00.htmlMaybe we should try a couple more. The Time magazine article represents the views of the Bush Administration in 2002. The New York Times article is from 1997.
