democracyforcalifornia.com

British Intelligence lied, German Intellegence lied, Isreali Intelligence lied etc etc etc. IF they were mistaken, it was that Saddam was able to fool them due to the fact that it was almost impossible to have Humint on the ground in Iraq.
They do keep coming up with weapons he wasn't supposed to have had though...those sold as scrap BRAND NEW missiles/rocket motors in Amsterdam; contaminated with yellowcake BTW. And those two BINARY shells that were used as iad's when they blew up a couple Humvee's a couple months back? They were not even part of the original threat assessments before the war, and we still haven't found where they had come from. Don't forget the uranium centrifuges hidden under the garden rosebushes.

A mistake is not a lie, and Kerry himself KNEW that Saddam had WND's pre-war, by his pre-war statements. Saddam was the liar, apparently the best in the world, since he had EVERY country in the world convinced that,at the very least, he was hiding something he wasn't supposed to have.

BTW, lest you use the "containment" argument, people were dying then too; not a day didn't go by that our pilots weren't fired upon by Saddam.

In my part of the country, the term "no doubt" refers to the nonexistence of doubt. It's semantic space does not overlap with "perhaps" or "maybe." If people who have access to intel say "no doubt" to us who don't have access, are we supposed to believe them? And if they lied, should there not be consequences? Incidently, according to Ritter (an inspector in Iraq), the agents that Saddam was originally accused of possessing would have all degraded completely long before the time we launched the war. So the argument is that Iraq probably didn't have chemical weapons, and if it did, they were no longer any good anyway. The fact that these chemical agents degrade in a fairly short span of time was of course never mentioned by Powell or others in the administration.

That was one of the bones of contention Karlo...did Saddam have the ability to generate new supplies of these agents...the intelligence said probably, the inspectors said "we don't know".... Given Saddams talent at obfuscation, I believe we acted properly to safeguard our country. You don't wait until the enemy is inside the house to defend; if possible you prevent him from ever entering, that is what Bush did.

We do know what Saddam WANTED to do, given the chance. Kerry has castigated Bush for supossedly "allowing" N. Korea to develop nuclear weapons (even though it was Clinton that sold them the information to develop them, and knew they were despite the "plan" that they had agreed to not to do so and did nothing) By acting as he did, Bush preempted Saddam from doing the same...can you imagine a Nuclear Iran? same restrictions we face with N. Korea X3. At least Korea won't sell to Hamas or Al Qiada, Saddam would have.

Is the U.S. going to destroy the chemical "capability" of all anti-U.S. regimes in the world? Will it destroy every single fertilizer plant in countries that do not closely follow a pro-U.S. policy? Judging from the Om Shinrikyo Tokyo subway incident in the 90s, the capability to create chemical weapons requires little more than access to a few unemployed grad students and a bathtub. Have the U.S. troops successfully destroyed all Iraqi bathtubs? Or is the assumption that the Iraqis have now all been converted to Democracy and apple pie so we have nothing further to worry about? Myself, I think this whole chemical scare is nothing more than propaganda. If chemicals were such an effective weapon, the Iraqi dissidents would be using them. Instead, they're filling trucks with bombs and detonating them. Truck bombs are cheaper and more effective after all. (Chemicals have an unfortunate tendency to drift back in the wind and kill people on one's one side.) Perhaps instead of going after chemicals, the U.S. needs to destroy all trucks. (At least that sort of wrong-headed approach would benefit the environment.)