For any reader of Flopping Aces, this is nothing really new; just go through Curt’s categories on "Saddam Documents", "Iraq/Al Qaeda Connection", or even "The Plame Affair" (those infamous 16 words…). You’ll find a wealth of information that supports that especially knowing what we do know now, going into Iraq was the right thing to do; the irresponsible course of action, would have been to do nothing but perpetuate the status quo.
Christopher Hitchens sums it up so well, here it is in its entirety:
So, Mr. Hitchens, Weren’t You Wrong About Iraq? Hard questions, four years later.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, March 19, 2007, at 1:53 PM ETFour years after the first coalition soldiers crossed the Iraqi border, one can attract pitying looks (at best) if one does not take the view that the whole engagement could have been and should have been avoided. Those who were opposed to the operation from the beginning now claim vindication, and many of those who supported it say that if they had known then what they know now, they would have spoken or voted differently.
What exactly does it mean to take the latter position? At what point, in other words, ought the putative supporter to have stepped off the train? The question isn’t as easy to answer as some people would have you believe. Suppose we run through the actual timeline:
Was the president right or wrong to go to the United Nations in September 2002 and to say that body could no longer tolerate Saddam Hussein’s open flouting of its every significant resolution, from weaponry to human rights to terrorism?
A majority of the member states thought he was right and had to admit that the credibility of the United Nations was at stake. It was scandalous that such a regime could for more than a decade have violated the spirit and the letter of the resolutions that had allowed a cease-fire after the liberation of Kuwait. The Security Council, including Syria, voted by nine votes to zero that Iraq must come into full compliance or face serious consequences.
Was it then correct to send military forces to the Gulf, in case Saddam continued his long policy of defiance, concealment, and expulsion or obstruction of U.N. inspectors?If you understand the history of the inspection process at all, you must concede that Saddam would never have agreed to readmit the inspectors if coalition forces had not made their appearance on his borders and in the waters of the Gulf. It was never a choice between inspection and intervention: It was only the believable threat of an intervention that enabled even limited inspections to resume.
Should it not have been known by Western intelligence that Iraq had no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?The entire record of UNSCOM until that date had shown a determination on the part of the Iraqi dictatorship to build dummy facilities to deceive inspectors, to refuse to allow scientists to be interviewed without coercion, to conceal chemical and biological deposits, and to search the black market for materiel that would breach the sanctions. The defection of Saddam Hussein’s sons-in-law, the Kamel brothers, had shown that this policy was even more systematic than had even been suspected. Moreover, Iraq did not account for—has in fact never accounted for—a number of the items that it admitted under pressure to possessing after the Kamel defection. We still do not know what happened to this weaponry. This is partly why all Western intelligence agencies, including French and German ones quite uninfluenced by Ahmad Chalabi, believed that Iraq had actual or latent programs for the production of WMD. Would it have been preferable to accept Saddam Hussein’s word for it and to allow him the chance to re-equip once more once the sanctions had further decayed?
Could Iraq have been believably "inspected" while the Baath Party remained in power?No. The word inspector is misleading here. The small number of U.N. personnel were not supposed to comb the countryside. They were supposed to monitor the handover of the items on Iraq’s list, to check them, and then to supervise their destruction. (If Iraq disposed of the items in any other way—by burying or destroying or neutralizing them, as now seems possible—that would have been an additional grave breach of the resolutions.) To call for serious and unimpeachable inspections was to call, in effect, for a change of regime in Iraq. Thus, we can now say that Iraq is in compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty. Moreover, the subsequent hasty compliance of Col. Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya and the examination of his WMD stockpile (which proved to be much larger and more sophisticated than had been thought) allowed us to trace the origin of much materiel to Pakistan and thus belatedly to shut down the A.Q. Khan secret black market.
Wasn’t Colin Powell’s performance at the United Nations a bit of a disgrace?
Yes, it was, as was the supporting role played by George Tenet and the CIA (which has been reliably wrong on Iraq since 1963). Some good legal experts—Ruth Wedgwood most notably—have argued that the previous resolutions were self-enforcing and that there was no need for a second resolution or for Powell’s dog-and-pony show. Some say that the whole thing was done in order to save Tony Blair’s political skin. A few points of interest did emerge from Powell’s presentation: The Iraqi authorities were caught on air trying to mislead U.N inspectors (nothing new there), and the presence in Iraq of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a very dangerous al-Qaida refugee from newly liberated Afghanistan, was established. The full significance of this was only to become evident later on.
Was the terror connection not exaggerated?
Not by much. The Bush administration never claimed that Iraq had any hand in the events of Sept. 11, 2001. But it did point out, at different times, that Saddam had acted as a host and patron to every other terrorist gang in the region, most recently including the most militant Islamist ones. And this has never been contested by anybody. The action was undertaken not to punish the last attack—that had been done in Afghanistan—but to forestall the next one.
Was a civil war not predictable?
Only to the extent that there was pre-existing unease and mistrust between the different population groups in Iraq. Since it was the policy of Saddam Hussein to govern by divide-and-rule and precisely to exacerbate these differences, it is unlikely that civil peace would have been the result of prolonging his regime. Indeed, so ghastly was his system in this respect that one-fifth of Iraq’s inhabitants—the Kurds—had already left Iraq and were living under Western protection.
So, you seriously mean to say that we would not be living in a better or safer world if the coalition forces had turned around and sailed or flown home in the spring of 2003?
That’s exactly what I mean to say.
Curt adds:
Mark Eichenlaub wrote a piece a few weeks ago which meshes nicely with Christopher’s piece. Mark details the support Saddam gave to terrorist outfits all over the world during his reign, and in so doing Mark tells us how very dangerous that regime was:
A recent story in the Greek news outlet Ekathimerini, pointed out to Regime of Terror.com by Dr. Laurie Mylroie, reported on previously undisclosed evidence implicating Saddam Hussein’s regime in international terrorism aspirations. The report reveals an incident in which a number of items were secretly removed from Iraq’s embassy in Greece during the run up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The items removed fit a pattern of behavior but also raise a number of questions.
Ekathimerini reported that it had been made aware of "a joint operation by Greek and US secret service officers in March 2003 (which) led to the seizure of a large cache of explosives from the basement of the Iraqi Embassy in Athens."
The types of explosives reportedly discovered were particularly noteworthy .
"Sources said a raid on the embassy unearthed explosive materials, car bombs, detonators, several guns and dozens of rounds of ammunition. Much of the material was “ready to use” while some was too old to be of any value, according to sources who said all the material was destroyed within a few weeks of discovery."The presence of car bombs, explosives and the other materials in this instance would indicate that Hussein’s Iraq had used it’s Greek embassy just as it had used it’s embassy’s in the Philippines, Jordan, Prague, and Yemen in recent years, as a hub for terrorism. This is to say nothing of Iraq’s planned international terror attacks in London (as reported on page 53 of the Iraqi Perspectives Project) or the attempted bombing attack by Iraqi operatives in Bahrain during the runup to the invasion of Iraq (Senate Intelligence Report: Phase II).
This discovery follows Iraq’s modus operandi of using their embassies and diplomatic privileges as cover for hiding and moving weapons/explosives/equipment abroad for potential terror attacks.
These were not the first time Iraq had dipped its toe in the waters of international terrorism. In 1998, in what some viewed as a possible buildup to war between the U.S. and Iraq, U.S. News and World Report cited intelligence officials saying over 30 teams of terrorists, each team consisting of 2 to 3 men had been dispatched by Baghdad in 1991 and indicated that similar attacks may take place against U.S. interests again in 1998 in the case of a war with the U.S.. (It should also be noted that those in the intelligence community were said to be split during this time period as to whether or not Iraq had already dispatched similar teams of terrorists at this point.) The men, who were disguised as businessmen, used Iraq’s diplomatic pouches to move automatic weapons, explosives and timers to embassies around for planned attacks.
Former deputy director of the State Department’s counterterrorism office during the Gulf War, Larry Johnson, told U.S. News and World Report in the same piece that car bombs, assassinations and hostage taking were "likely scenarios."
With the discovery of Greece as a front in Iraq’s pre-invasion international terrorism attempts maybe Americans will even one day be made aware of what the other 6 or 7 countries are which U.S. government officials told the Washington Post’s Walter Pincus were targeted anti Western bombings by Iraqi Intelligence.
Of course the left continue in their tired attempts to propagate the myth that Saddam was secular, so he would never support these religious fanatics.
What silly fools.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Well the one explanation that I wanted to read was how we are safer now. Our military personel are tapped out, our machine/material portion of the military is falling apart, no other foriegn Gov’t would back us up in a similar request now,3300 men and women are dead on our side, 10,000 are without arms, legs and eyes – and how are we safer?
Zarqawi was in the portion of the country that Hitchens claims was under “western protection” not under Saddam’s protection. Saddam had no WMD, was safely contained, and should have been target #3 behind N Korea (Nukes on hand, taught AQ Khan how to make them and sales of weapons to rouge nations for years) and Iran (more weapons that Saddam ever had, a theocracy that hates us and supports terrorism at levels that Saddam could only dream of) at best. This was supposed to be Bush’s Falklands War. We should have listened to the smart Bush (HW) and kept our troops out of the population centers and slowly bled Saddam to death.
We are less safe today, more hated and a lot poorer with virtually no benefit from this war.
Hey look, the “Republican” is back.
Gotta say that was the most error filled comment you’ve made yet.
Are tapped out? So in essence you believe the US is capable of fighting one conflict at a time? How ignorant. Many are on 2nd and 3rd deployments because they WANT to go back, and because a rotation must exist for training and resupply.
Again, WTF are you smoking? Our military is just fine, and they have some of the finest of equipment given to them.
Yup, the lowest death rate for what has been accomplished in our history. This shows how well trained, well organized, and adept at war our military is now. Not to mention the quality men and women our military now has.
Let me guess, your tinhat view would be that we protected al-Qaeda?
So completely wrong it’s mind boggling. Why don’t you check out those stories Word linked to before writing such trash.
Problem is we did not have a cease fire with Iran in which they flaunted their refusal to abide by. Iran didn’t keep attacking our jets, or attempt to assassinate our President, or used WMD to kill its citizens, or invade another nation….I could go on and on but their is a big difference. After 9/11 it would have been criminal for Bush not to have taken out Saddam, thankfully we had someone with the guts to do the right thing instead of the wrong thing…cough Clinton cough…
Guess he should have listened to a leftist like yourself instead of his Generals huh?
Geez
Less safe huh? When was the last time we were attacked on our soil again? And we should not take out a threat because we will be hated? Do you really believe we were liked prior to 9/11?
And you say you not a KOS leftist…you just spewed every single one of their talking points.
You are wrong about our military not being tapped out. You are sharing your opinion with nothing more to back up your assertion. In his State of the Union Address President Bush announced plans to increase the size of the U.S. Army and Marines by 93,000, at a cost of $10 billion a year. However, it is debatable that increasing the size of the ground forces will really address America’s long term security needs either in Iraq or globally. And it is inarguable U.S. troops have been tremendously strained by their operations in Iraq
How stretched are they? A Congressional Budget Office report issued in October 2005 noted that overall the total level of land forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan has averaged about 175,000 to 200,000 personnel over the past two years. Those levels of force are well above what CBO considers sustainable over the long term.
The Army says we have too much broken equip., and too little back up. Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army’s chief of staff, is lobbying hard for more money to repair what he calls the “holes” in his force, saying current war funding is inadequate to make the Army “well.” Asked in a congressional hearing this past summer whether he was comfortable with the readiness levels of non-deployed Army units, Schoomaker replied: “No.” Do you know something that the US military does not know or do you just not care?
No, I am not saying Zarqawi was protected by us dude, I am saying that he was not protected by Saddam as Hitchens said.
The CIA said there were no WMD, that is good enough for me.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/index.html
You still have not said how we are safer now because of the war, neither did Hitchens. You can’t say that. I have not been attacked by a bear since we invaded Iraq either. Care to draw a line to that too?
George Bush is more liberal than me I assure you. I would love for any president to spend half of what this monkey has spent, I would close the borders, and I certainly would avoid state building – we obviously suck at it.
As you did in your first comment.
Question, did you mean to steal a quote from an article and try to pass it off as your own or did you forget to put in quotes?
Things that make you go hmmmm…
You said:
Word for word what a UPI reporter wrote two months ago here.
How special.
Either way, taking what the MSM writes as gospel tells me much about you. When Bush came into office he inherited a military that was in very bad shape. As a percentage of GDP the money spent on our national security was the lowest since World War II and our forces were lowered by 40% since Bush Sr. left office.
He fixed that.
Readiness should be measured by many factors. The amount of training, the condition and amount of equipment, the ability to move large numbers of troops and equipment, number of new recruits and reenlistments, the number of units at full strength and the morale of the services.
On all counts we are ready. Reenlistments are up, and the services have consistently met their enlistment goals. Morale is outstanding and our troops get the very best in equipment. Your attempts at channeling John “Cut n Run” Murtha are pathetic.
You said:
Word for word what the WaPo said here.
Is this how you do things, steal others writing? And you chose to use the WaPo as a source for your argument….nice.
Either way, he is asking for more money for better equipment. Your side put so much pork into a funding bill to make a statement that they knew it would never get signed. Bush wants this bill sent to him clean so that he can authorize more money to spend on equipment…..this is wrong? Have you called your congressmen and told them to authorize even more money to fund the troops? Or do you just bitch and complain about Bushitler because he is eeeviiiiillllll.
Why wouldn’t it be, this is what you WANT to believe so why do anymore research….sad.
Oh, so the dictator of Iraq, the man who gassed the Kurds, didn’t know or care that Zarqawi was in his country?
Wow….
Please, use some common sense here. We are fighting them OVER there, they have not come here.
Riiiiight.
Why do you argue like a child? You have commented more on me that the issues that I bring up. To borrow a line from you “That tells me wll I need to know about you.” You have used that three times!
You still have not said how we are safer now because of the war
Please, use some common sense here. We are fighting them OVER there, they have not come here.
If you really believe this then you are quite possibly the stupidest human being alive. I thought that was why we were fighting in Afghanistan! Perhaps you should check in with the real world from time to time. How does one relate to the other? In your incredibly simple mind consider that we have also not had a metorite fall on the US since we went over there. Is that because of Iraq?
No, I am not saying Zarqawi was protected by us dude, I am saying that he was not protected by Saddam as Hitchens said.
Oh, so the dictator of Iraq, the man who gassed the Kurds, didn’t know or care that Zarqawi was in his country?
Wow….
I have now typed this three times. We controlled the area where Zarqawi as much as Saddam did. I do not blame the US for Zarqawi being there, nor am so stupid that I think Saddam wanted AQ in his country. Saddam was a secular leader and as such bin Laden and AQ hated him. Do some research.
The CIA said there were no WMD, that is good enough for me.
Why wouldn’t it be, this is what you WANT to believe so why do anymore research….sad.
The CIA, the ISG, even Cheney for crying out loud has admitted that there were no WMD. It’s OK, you’ll get it one day. There were no WMD.
Bush wants this bill sent to him clean so that he can authorize more money to spend on equipment…..this is wrong?
How on earth did you get that Bush wanted to start spending money on things we need over there? That is NOT what he has been doing with the money in the six years that he had a free ride from a dominated Congress. He got everything he asked for and check Aniston out, the base us packed with equipment that we are not repairing. Why do you trust him now? He has been wrong about everything he has done in Iraq.
And for the record, I never called bush either a hitler or evil. Those are both your creations. More of your inability to have a conversation about these issues because you argue in so ridiculous a fashion. Bush is frankly too incompetant to be evil with any degree of accuracy.
Re enlistment is up, but it is not enough to cover the shortage in new recruits but I am sure you knew that too.
http://media.www.isubengal.com/media/storage/paper275/news/2006/01/25/
News/Army-ReEnlistment.Figures.Up.But.Recruitment.Lags-1503568.shtml
Finally, I struggle with the format of your comment section. I am trying again above to quote but can not tell if it is. I also do not get the opportunity to view prior to submitting the comment and anyone that comments here must wait for your approval to have the comments posted. Go to my sites and you will see that I always link to the source, I just can not quote well in this format. As always, please feel free to reply about me personally instead of any of the points that I made. I am quite used to it.
Ok, I guess I just missed your links to the MSM articles you were cutting and pasting from….
Yeah.
And you call me stupid, obviously your just retarded. What the flying hell does a metorite have to do with the war on terror? The few braincells you have left obviously can’t grasp the fact that we are fighting them over there, hence they are not here as they were when Clinton was in office.
Man your dense.
Last time I will say this, and I will say it very slowly. I have tons of information in my posts disproving that, Saddam did indeed have WMD’s. Can’t come to grips with that? I could care less, your in good company with KOS retards.
Yeah, deposing a tryant, freeing 25 million people, giving them democracy and freedom with only 3300 soldiers killed….wrong.
Please put the bong down and maybe you will sense someday.
Anyways, your a waste of my time and oxygen. You obviously have some issues to deal with which I hear med’s may help with…take my advice, use them.
In your incredibly simple mind consider that we have also not had a metorite fall on the US since we went over there. Is that because of Iraq?
And you call me stupid, obviously your just retarded. What the flying hell does a metorite have to do with the war on terror?
Exactly, just like being in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror simpleton. They are completely unrelated – thanks for making my point!
The CIA, the ISG, even Cheney for crying out loud has admitted that there were no WMD. It’s OK, you’ll get it one day. There were no WMD.
Last time I will say this, and I will say it very slowly. I have tons of information in my posts disproving that, Saddam did indeed have WMD’s. Can’t come to grips with that? I could care less, your in good company with KOS retards.
I am typing slowly so that you can keep up. Since when are sources like the CIA, ISG and Dick Cheney with KOS? You are brilliant! You like your paranoid freak show sources, I will stick with the federal government (do you also believe that the federal government brought down the towers?) you left your tin foil hat on the table by the door.
He has been wrong about everything he has done in Iraq.
Yeah, deposing a tryant, freeing 25 million people, giving them democracy and freedom with only 3300 soldiers killed….wrong.
you keep believing that Curt. 70% of the US and 90% of the world are way ahead of you, but I am sure that you will catch up some day…
The CIA, along with the other 14 intelligence agencies of the US, as well as the rest of the world, believed Saddam DID have WMD before the war.
The only reason that they know better NOW that what there is, or isn’t, in Iraq…is because Saddam is gone.
Saddam didn’t just fool “our” intelligence..nor just the CIA. He fooled, bribed, threatened, etc. nearly the entire world. That includes the “UN”.
CentFla wrote:
Unfortunately, we will never know what the alternative history could have been. We can only speculate. I believe in the longterm, Saddam did pose a danger. No matter how much longer we would have waited (12 years of non-enforcement of the original cease-fire agreement is not long enough to deal with a metasticizing cancer upon the world?), France and the UN would never have approved war with Iraq. I believe French officials had been caught on record admitting as much.
Saddam was not contained, despite what you said earlier. Not in the sense that he had French allies working within the UN to have the sanctions lifted; and as we know from the Duelfer Report, there were weapons labs ready to begin proliferation once sanctions ended.
Things were still being smuggled into Iraq; the UN Food for Oil allowed Saddam and his cronies to steal billions.
He made no secret about his hatred for the US or his desires to acquire wmds. His was an active state-supporter of terrorism. And we have more information as to his ties and negotiating with terrorist organizations. He did seek alliances with America’s enemies.
Also, consider David Kay, who the critics and the mass media love to cite as saying no wmds were found in Iraq:
And yet all that the liberal media likes to quote him on is, “no wmd found.”
Curt’s right. Rather than us regurgitating, why not check out the category links I provided? There’s more there than I care to type out. Also, I don’t want to waste time doing your homework for you. That’s why Curt can get “rude”. Take a hint: he’d rather spend his time doing something more productive than talking to brick walls. Some of your reasonings just ignores anything in the Hitchens article; so of what good is it to link to stuff that supports where Hitchens probably got some of his information sources from? It probably won’t do you any good.
Let me reiterate what is in the Hitchens article: The action was undertaken not to punish the last attack—that had been done in Afghanistan—but to forestall the next one.
Only two governments celebrated 9/11. The Taliban’s Afghanistan and Saddam’s Iraq. Still, as Hitchens also points out, President Bush never said Saddam had a hand in orchestrating 9/11. If you don’t understand the connection to the Greater War against the kind of terrorism we are fighting then I don’t know how to help you. President Bush said it in the very beginning that we have entered a new kind of war, and it’s larger than simply taking out al Qaeda. That is just one organization.
I’ll go along with Curt and say that is utterly the lamest bit of analogizing eeeever! You should be embarrassed for yourself.
Actually, you’re the one who needs to do the deeper research; and that you think the CIA statements are “good enough” for you is laughable, given how the CIA has been wrong on so many intell reports for the past several decades. Intelligence is such that historically, we’ve underestimated the capabilities of our enemies.
Did Einstein “lie” when he took information to Roosevelt, warning of Germany’s impending atomic bomb? Did Roosevelt “lie”, when he commissioned the Manhattan Project? And in retrospect, we now know that Germany wasn’t as far along in their building of an atomic bomb than we were led to believe.
Your argument about Saddam being secular and would therefore have nothing to do with Osama and al Qaeda is laughable, because it is so behind the times; it is so outdated, and just as arrogantly mistaken as the CIA analysts who lacked the imagination to think outside the box. They had all the information at hand pointing to potential collaborations between Saddam and al Qaeda, yet even when the evidence was presented in front of their eyes, they were so conditioned as to dismiss the possibilities.
Here, I did a little legwork for you because I already knew where to find this one (just to give you an inkling of what you can find out there, if you really are interested in looking for it):
The CIA, the ISG, even Cheney for crying out loud has admitted that there were no WMD. It’s OK, you’ll get it one day. There were no WMD.
No stockpile of wmd found. Or is accuracy not important?
And the case for war didn’t involve just wmds; and if you knew that, perhaps you’d also see the bigger picture instead of the “Saddam had no connection to 9/11” meme.
You have to bracket it with “blockquote”; not “quote”. Hope that helps. For some reason, my blockquoting of the Hewitt interview isn’t working.
Gee this nitwit from Fla is hitting everyone today!
CentFla do you even know or have anyone serving in the Military? I dont think so buddy. You are clueless and your arguements are old and tired!
I didnt take the time to read the comments earlier I just chased goofball over here from my place.
We have a real winner here, and he says our arguements are old and tired, yet he is repeating 4 year old newsclippings from the MSM!!
He must have been absent the day President Bush went before Congress 9-19-01 and stated “You cannot run, you cannot hide, whether we bring our enemies to Justice or Justice to our enemies Justice will be served”!! To which the then, Congress applauded the loudest I ever heard. Both sides, Democrats and Republicans alike.
President Bush was talking about ALL terrorists, not just those in Afghanistan. And Saddam Hussein was the biggest terrorist of them all!
Saddam was the pain in the ass of the middle east and most clear thinking people (Yourself excluded) are glad he’s gone!
You know what I think? I think you people that want our Troops out yesterday are affraid. Affraid of actually winning this war, and then all those Democrats and RINO Republicans that are out there yelling “If I had it all to do over again I would NOT have voted for the war”, will be left looking like the idiots they truly are. Then what will they say? What will YOU say?
We are on THIS Country’s side, ARE YOU?
It’s a waste of time arguing with the “Republican” guys. He listens to only those who agree with his view on the world, as we all know lefties tend to do.
By the way, I just updated Word’s post with a article from Mark Eichenlaub, well worth the read.