Early Warning by William M. Arkin - washingtonpost.com

Early Warning by William M. Arkin - washingtonpost.com: "I don't know how you can possibly sit there and make the argument that everyone believed it until after the war. I sat and explained to my kids in the days before the invasion that the U.S. was ignoring the truth provided by U.N. inspectors. This is no 'hindsight' argument. The world did not participate in this invasion for the obvious reason that there was NO proof of WMD. The U.N spent months and months looking. And even if Saddam played games here and there, eventually the U.N. got in. And as ed pointed out, if they were busy moving these masses of WMDs around, there would be satellite proof. There was none. Bush wanted a war and he got one. And he has made the world far more dangerous with his tactics. It is well known that there was little or no terrorist activity in Iraq prior to the war. It is well known that Al Queda wanted nothing to do with Saddam. This is the endless cosmic joke of this war. Mr. Arkin, get it right. This article is a joke. No one is saying there aren't WMDs in this world. No one is saying the U.S. should disarm. No one is saying that we shouldn't keep our guard up. Sure, governments use the WMD spectre to maintain a vigilant stance. But that is not an argument to invade a country that had shown no capability and no evidence of possessing any."
Posted by: Larry | Nov 14, 2005 10:54:27 AM

-------------------------

-I also agree with Keith. The inspectors were in Iraq PRIOR to the invasion. In the few weeks before the invasion they had found nothing. Bush did not trust the inspectors, he said it himself. At the time I wondered why he felt so threatened by a country that had UN weapons inspectors on the ground and UN no-fly zones where US aircraft could restrict Saddam and even spy on the country. I'm sure we had spies on the ground as well. So I agree with Keith that at the time I found it hard to believe Saddam had any significant WMD that he could threaten us with

However, I for one was not happy with the state of the situation. Iraq HAD defied UN resolutions over and over again. The US had to maintain the no fly zones to protect IRAQIS and guard against any troop movements toward other countries. We had to maintain troops in Saudi Arabia as a deterent, and their presense helped spawn al-Qaida. The problem as I saw it was they WE declared a unilateral cease-fire. Saddam was allowed to remain unpunished. It was the UN that later imposed resolutions on Iraq
So, I for one was in favor of overthrowing Saddam. Not for any WMD or future WMD since in my opinion he could never achieve any. Saddam was keeping the US engauged and putting our people in peril (he was trying to shoot down planes patrolling the no-fly zones after all)
What is most inexplicable are the following:
-Why when no WMD were found was the director of CIA given the medal of freedom?
-Why was there no post-war planning?
-What was the urgency to invade when inspectors were on the ground?
-Why was it so important to replace the Baath party and not just mount an invasion that supported an overthrow of Saddam?
-Why was no one fired for the lack of post-war planning and the bad intelligence.
-Why, when looting was rampent in Baghdad was Rummy not fired for saying: "Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things"
After all that has happened, if Bush were running a company where I sat on the Board, I'd call for his firing. And considering that the US government is set up so that the people act like a corporate board that places individuals in positions of power, I think it is time to call on Congress to begin an investigation into the incompetence this administration has shown and impeach Bush based not on the probable lying and not on probable manipulation of intelligence, but on pure incompetence which I believe the vast majority of the American people can agree on and support
Posted by: Sully | Nov 14, 2005 11:05:25 AM
================

February 15, 2003 was a global day of protests against the imminent invasion of Iraq. Millions of people protested in approximately 800 cities around the world. The event was listed in the 2004 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest mass protest movement in history. According to the BBC between six and 10 million people took part in protests in up to 60 countries over the weekend (the 15th and 16th). Iraq wasn't invaded for another month. Millions of people worldwide did not believe that Iraq had WMD. You are a total right-wing liar to try and say otherwise.
Posted by: Dawn, NYC | Nov 14, 2005 10:40:02 AM
==============================

No, not 'EVERYONE' believed Iraq had WMDs. Far from it. Millions crowded European streets saying just that. And from the beginning nothing really made sense. On the one hand the USA was stating flatly that Iraq had weapons and the Intel community knew where they were. On the other hand, they refused to give this information to UN inspectors in Iraq equipped with helicopters and the right to go anywhere, anytime. The yellow cake scare had been blown apart - disturbingly under-reported, but very much a discredited causus belli long before war. And Powell's pictures of fuzzy milk trucks raised more questions than they answered. I think, perhaps, a portion of Americans may have thought there was a consensus on the existence of WMDs (it's easy to get lost in a sea of flags) but I can assure you over an Irish pint, a Canadian doughnut or a French coffee there was increduilty at American motives and rationale
Posted by: Liam | Nov 14, 2005 10:52:33 AM

======================

Ingoring the UN to attack Iraq for ignoring the UN - pathetic.

If we don't want to be part of the UN, then fine, but don't go and ask permission to invade Iraq because they were ignoring the UN, then get a "no" vote and say screw it were going in anyhow.
Posted by: Rob Teegarden | Nov 14, 2005 10:47:10 AM
=================

If the President, ANY PRESIDENT, isn't responsible for the words he speaks in the state-of -the-union-address, then we should not bother having a president
All that w can say now "everyone else thought the same way." We don't even let kids off with that excuse
The first question of every news conference should be - Mr President, have you had anything to drink yet today?
Posted by: Al | Nov 14, 2005 10:22:07 AM


Think. It should be apparent to the intelligent that one has to agree to be lied to for a lie to work. Did anyone NOT know that Bush/Cheney & Co. wanted to attack Iraq? How could you miss it? The neo-cons published it. We all knew. Every government needs to have a reason that decent people can support to cripple an economy or two, sacrifice our soldiers, kill civilians, and make war on another man's home. It's in the history books, folks, right there at the beginning of every war. Lies beforehand. Lies now. Only the unspeakably dense, superstition devotees, and human grist will waste time seeking more and more "facts". You already knew and you already know

Posted by: John Edward | Nov 14, 2005 10:33:02 AM