JT excellent post. This is the reason I am fully behind the war. I vividly remember GW saying in the 2002 State of the Union Address,"WE cannot wait for Iraq to become an imminent threat." The left lies and says GW said it was an imminent threat. GW also said that he is giving notice to all terrorists that they are now the target and those that harbor them. He did not say Al Queda only. The MSM really knows how to manipulate the facts to bend an opinion. Thank God for the internet. ww

Jay,
Since when has Truth been a part of the typical anti-war liberal's argument(/rhetorical). You know, the "twisted truth(non-truth)" Michael Moore uses for his arguments. Sorta like the recent twisted-truth MacCain used on Romney about his time-table comments.

I'm sure an autocratic leader like despot Saddam would have loved the chance to get his hands on some WMD or failing that boasted that he could...easier said than done especially with hundreds of UN weapon inspectors crawling around Iraq. That part of the world is truly Byzantine. Speaking of Saddam here is a very interesting story about his latest biography by Robert Fisk .

Jay, as always, you set it out clearly, logically and persuasively; thank you! Of course, you realize it isn't going to have the slightest impact on the barking moonbats on speed, who positively enjoy wallowing in the KoolAid and comparing symptoms of BDS...

;-)

They buried an entire wing of Foxbats in the sand Jay. The only reason we found them was because one's tail became uncovered by sand and then somebody snitched about the rest of them afterwards. Do you really think that Saddam was inept enough that he couldn't either bury it deep enough that we couldn't find it or that he couldn't strike a deal with Syria? Especially given that anything he had could have fit on two big container trucks?

This is an absolutely amazing post. Thank you.

It has been and will always be for me, the fact that inspectors were thrown out, and not forcibly put back. That is the biggest reason for this campaign, non compliance with UN sanctions. This event showed the weakness of President Clinton and let darkness fall on inspections. For 4 years Clinton allowed the inspectors to be removed which created enough doubt as to WMD's. I am proud that GW did what he said he would do and stuck to his beliefs. Although, the rush to war was less than admirable.

Jay,

Wow! That was pretty eloquent. Its a shame you'll only wind up preaching to the choir on this. Maybe post it over on Wizbang Blue??

The "60 Minutes" report simply confirmed a lot of things we already knew. As far back as 2004, the Duelfer Report stated plainly that Saddam was extremely fearful of Iran and that he was particularly agitated over the fact that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons (one of the worst-kept secrets in the world at that time).

Duelfer's report went on to explain that Saddam had retained scientific and technical staff as well as lab equipment and chemical reagents that could be used to manufacture biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. The Duelfer report concluded that as soon as UN sanctions were lifted, Saddam would have aggressively restarted his BNC development programs.

Doesn't the thought of a nuclear race between Iran and Iraq make you feel safer?

And then there were those inconvenient convoys between Iraq and Syria during the final 72 hours before we invaded, which the BDS-suffering conspiracy kooks have never quite managed to explain away.

By the same logic used by BDS-sufferers, Roosevelt and JFK were two of the biggest liars who ever held office. By their logic, Roosevelt lied to us about WMD; we spent billions and developed the world's most awful weapon and even used it twice, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, yet the Nazis weren't even close to developing an atomic weapon. (The fact that we didn't know this until after Nazi Germany fell is irrelevant.)

And by their logic Kennedy was one of the 20th century's most notorious "neo-cons". Kennedy's CIA tried to overthrow the government of Cuba by military invasion and gave tacit approval to the assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm in South Vietnam. Kennedy started the quagmire in Vietnam which lasted a decade and cost 58,000 American lives.

Of course if you try to explain this to BDS-suffering yellow dog Democrats, their heads explode -- which is what makes it all the more fun to do.

Readers - you all should also read this, which gives a point-by-point outline proving that the United Nations -- and not some super-secret Bush CIA black helicopter conspiracy -- actually provided the burden of proof for our pre-invasion assumptions about Saddam's WMD/NBC programs.

One more thing -- someone else a while ago pointed out that the press twisted "weapons of mass destruction" into "mass weapons of destruction," meaning that we "failed" because we didn't find a "massive" amount of these weapons. But consider that only a few cylinders of cyclosarin is enough to kill or incapacitate thousands of people, and that such an amount could be easily transported in the trunk of a car. You don't need "warehouses full" of BNC's in order to have enough to do a tremendous amount of damage. BDS-sufferers, aided by an ignorant press to have totally lost this concept.

I'll compliment the activity in Iraq with corresponding activity outside Iraq.

The Clinton administration was bent on enforcing sanctions on Saddam. Probably because Europe loved the cheap oil. And Bill liked being loved by Europe. An adoring CIA gave Bill everything he needed for justification for limit actions.

Then Bush came along. For reasons connected to 9/11, Saddam could not be tolerated any longer. The Bush administration saw the same evidence the CIA has been generating for Clinton and decided they had justification to address Saddam.

When it became clear we weren't headed for another bombing campaign to enforce the sanctions and the exploitation of Iraqi oil by Europe but to actually kill the golden goose, we lost Europe's support. At the same time the CIA stopped supported the Bush administration from disagreement over politics and policy. Evidence which the CIA gleefully endorsed to support Clinton's actions was be looked at critically by an antagonistic CIA.

The CIA turned off the spigot basically because they liked Clinton and hated Bush. But not before momentum had been established to go to war with Saddam.

That was an excellent post, Jay.

You hit the historical, factual points in an understandable and easy to follow manner.

I'll save this one.

Thank you for that Jay - perfect summary. I think that with minor adjustment that write-up should become the description contained in history books (if conservatives can ever get any influence again in our educational institutions)- or, at least, as the definitive response in Wikipedia.

Three cheers to you!

6 Stars. And tack on the comments about the CIA. Spot on all.

Jay...one of your best...EVER!!

thx!

the "60 Minutes" piece WAS excellent, and they DID (oddly enough) do a great job on it. Of course, they advertised it in a way that made people think it was all about "Saddam did NOT have WMDs". I think this backfired on them, however, since I think a lot of moonbats tuned in and got surprised!!

cheers!

The big problem with WMDs is that they're SMALL. The entire (large) Cold War US chemical arsenal would fit in a medium-sized Wal-Mart. Saddam's known arsenal, at its peak, would have fit in a couple of mid-sized warehouses (and still been "large" and capable of a lot of damage).

Right on target Jay, thanks.

Once again, I cannot ping back to you. I did link to your post here.

The frustrating thing for us supporters of the war is that we keep having to explain the justifications for the war over and over and over and over again. I did an extensive post on the same issue back in 2005. Jay makes many of the same points in this post. It seems that no one is listening.

I would like to add that Saddam also needed to intimidate the people of Iraq. He could not look weak to them, and he had to assure those thinking about opposing him that they could be destroyed in mass at any time including their home town.

I wonder what - Keith "Goofy" Olberman - would say about all this!!

His usual 'Ignorant/Backward/Whimpery/Whiney BS' probably!!!

Jay, I can't seem to find in your essay the results of thousands of weapons inspections, or the final report on Saddam's nuke program?

Gee I wonder why?

Because that was well after the fact, 'dingbat'.

The whole point is 'what was the evidence that was available at the time' (better luck next time)!!!

The reason one has to constantly keep trying to explain a 5 year old war rationale is because they were wrong or just felt guilty (Or both).

Care to explain your "democracy will flourish like a damn breaking open" or "insurgents can't keep this up" predictions as well? Let's revisit all of your bold predictions.

jp2: "Care to explain your "democracy will flourish like a damn breaking open" or "insurgents can't keep this up"

Please note that the thing holds back WATER is called a "DAM"

the answer is actually fairly simple:
Now that the insurgents can't keep it up, Democracy IS is starting flourish

the Jihadis ARE Losing. Yesterday they used two girls with Down's syndrome as walking bombs. The MSM failed to highlight this fact, however. The Jihadis have already run out of sympathy from the locals...and the locals are no longer cowered by them. Soon the Jihadis will run out of Down's syndrome children as well.

but maybe YOU, jp2, would like to go "reason" with these people? eh?

Figures... jp2 and Baghdadbarney being the two lead purveyors of the "Bush lied people died" meme around these parts shift off the topic faster than Lohan and Britney can flash beaver.

Good job fellas..., good for asshats.

"The reason one has to constantly keep trying to explain a 5 year old war rationale is because they were wrong or just felt guilty (Or both)".------- Comment by mr. genius

Well mr. genius---The only reason we have to keep explaining it is that the liberal media keeps trying to bury the evidence. Look how quickly the media got this latest evidence out of the headlines. You know, that Hussein was trying to convince us he had WMD. It barely lasted two days and was only sporadically reported.

Contrast, Dick Cheney's hunting accident. He accidentally shot a friend, who did not die and after 3 days we found out he wasn't hurt that badly. He admitted that he didn't think Cheney meant to shoot him. The man admitted he had left the group and was 'out of position', where Cheney would not have expected him to be. However, it stayed in the news, "on the hour", "every hour" for at least 10 days (just think if he had accidentally shot a democrat - they would have gone berserk!!!!). Also, this hunting accident in 'NO' way affected National OR International Policy...............The liberal media loves this sort of Drama & Theatre as long as it is not against their teacher's pets........LIBERAL PRESS........Hyping whatever they can find detrimental to the war effort and covering up the rest (unless it is just 'so' blatant it would totally give away their liberal bias --- even to those who fight so hard not to see it!!!!!!!)

Also, Hasn't it just been a few years (like before the invasion) that you demi-dems would say: We need democracy for the middle east. The women can't vole, they are not allowed to drive, they have to cover their faces, they are beaten by their spouses etc, etc. Yet, now you claim that Democracy & Democratic Nation Building are dirty words/phrases............WHAT GIVES!!!!!

Jay,

Very excellent post. The evidence supports all you say. Even so, there hangs the question, What happened to the WMD that he had? There's still the strong possibility that he hid them so well, or shipped them to an alley before the war started.

Also mr. genius:

Remember prior to the 'First' gulf war that all of the 'so called' experts (many from the UN) said Saddam was probably at least 5, and maybe 6 years away from a nuclear weapon, but when they got in for a look-see they found he was only 1 - 1 1/2 years away.........When was the last time our 'grand media' reminded people of this point. They go back and remind people when it suits them!!!

Time allows people with political agendas to forget what they don't like

Obviously, this point also applies to Iran. Are those recent reports about Iran really to be trusted - only by children!!

I think 'mr. genius' is really "Keith Goofy".

U.S. military intelligence as well as the Bush Administration did know full well that most of the "chemical weapon WMDs" that Saddam had where merely pesticides in shells or WWI technology mustard gas, both far less lethal than any conventional explosive shell such as TNT. Such chemical weapons had extremely limited ability to kill many persons because you'd have to be very close to the ground zero area of the impact of one of these in order to be killed or even injured. So even the term WMD is rather false one to describe such limited technology and usefulness pesticide weapons. And with only limited missile technology to deliver these pesticides such as the non-nuclear version of the Soviet Scale Board(Scud missile) or cannon shells, Saddam really had little ability to kill very many persons even at the height of his military strength in 1990 for example. A small attack on an unarmed Kurdish village was too easy with such limited use weapons as mustard gas shells, but hardly a real threat to any decently equiped army.

One claimed delivery system weapon that the Bush Administration even attempted to provoke U.S. fears of was an uncomfirmed version of something similar to a small remote control crop dusting plane, of which no evidence has so far turned up to illustrate that it even existed and only illustrates the absurdity of this claimed "WMD" threat by the 1991 Gulf War weakened and UN sanctions weakened Saddam Husssein. By 2003, any honest military observer had to agree that his military was little regional threat any longer, and highly unlikely to be able to withstand any invasion from the far larger Iran, so naturally Saddam would bluster a little about his WMD potential only to keep Iran from invading. But U.S. intelligence had to really know better.

But the politics of pandering fear similar to the Joe McCarthy "Red baiting" of the 1950's by the Bush Admistration was able to ramp up U.S. public fears of a vast security threat by Saddam to the U.S., even though many smaller worldwide dictators in Africa and elsewhere probably have about the same level of military technology as Saddam once had, including pesticide and cannon shells or small missiles.

At 225 billion barrels of estimated undiscovered oil in Iraq, which would be a 98 year supply for the U.S., the lure was just too great for former oil industry executives in the Bush Administation such as former Chevron Board member, Condoleezza Rice not to push for war to invade Iraq in 2003 for some U.S. control of the oil assets there. It was an old time colonialist foreign policy way too similar to 18th and 19th century Britain.

And remember it was the Reagan Administration that illegally used Agriculture Department CCC Funds intended for international disaster relief to help allow Saddam Hussein to buy billions of dollars of second rate military hardware from Brazil and France after the Soviets declared an embargo on all arms shipments to either Iraq or Iran during the 1980's Iran-Iraq War. The Soviets at least attempted to dry up the arms supply in the region and force Iran and Iraq to work out a peace agreement in order to keep oil flowing from the region to Russia as well as the U.S.. while the Reagan Administration only kept the war going and helped to create the huge conventional arms military of Saddam that invaded Kuwait in 1990.

If anything has been consistent here, it was that Republican controlled White Houses have made Iraq a conventional arms threat during the 1980's, helped to create conditions that led to the invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf War, and created to wave of WMD fear in the U.S. that led to the 2003 war and all of the difficulties present ever since. Virtually every problem associated with Iraq since the 1980's was due to active Republican foreign policy towards Iraq rather than any real lethal power Iraq would have have been able to generate entirely on it's own behalf. And Republican Party frontrunner John McCain only seems all too willing to compound these problems by possiby invading Iran if elected president. This long string of grossly failed foreign policy and endless MidEast military actions should only make 2008 voters wary. In 2008, the choice just might be as simple as voting for against the next MidEast war.

Excellent post, Jay. It's much of what I've been thinking these several years, then we get the CBS interview, and it all falls together.

What you've shown here is rational, reasoned, logical, with proof.

In other words, the exact opposite of the cut and run crowd Democraps.

Paul "The Denier" Hooson - "One claimed delivery system weapon that the Bush Administration even attempted to provoke U.S. fears of was an uncomfirmed version of something similar to a small remote control crop dusting plane, of which no evidence has so far turned up to illustrate that it even existed and only illustrates the absurdity of this claimed "WMD" threat by the 1991 Gulf War weakened and UN sanctions weakened Saddam Husssein.

While strictly speaking your correct, no confirmation of planes existed. However to say there is no evidence on UAV's is flat out wrong:

From the Duelfer report: "ISG has exploited dozens of contracts that confirm the requests, orders, and deliveries of UN-restricted
components and equipment involving facilities associated with Iraq's missile and UAV programs. Iraq's use of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, front companies, and false end user certificates indicate Iraq knew these activities violated international sanctions.
Iraq also negotiated with other countries for
complete missile systems, but there is no evidence any shipments were ever made (see the Procurement chapter for more information).

"The Iraqi missile and UAV programs benefited from Iraq's defi ance of UN sanctions because they were able to obtain material and technical expertise they otherwise could not have developed. Several sources and documentary evidence confi rm that Iraq participated in such activities. The measures taken to conceal these activities from the UN are evidence that Iraq was well aware these activities were illegal.

And BTW, the crop duster ref you use is a red hearing. What he actually used were MIG-21's that failed then turned to using Czech L-29 trainer aircraft.

So again you're out to lunch and clueless. How shocking is THAT!?