Rumsfeld proven a liar. Twice.

[BryanLower]

Whoah. Bi-weekly potshots at US warplanes, Oil-for-food corruption starving the population while Saddam and Co. got richer and richer, perpetually stonewalled inspectors, resolution after spineless resolution amounting to nothing but mounting embarrassment for anyone with dignity enough to be embarrassed (sit down, Russia, France, Germany, I wasn't talking to you)... That's your idea of stable containment, is it?

Not a threat to his neighbors. Not a threat to us. He wasn't going anywhere. Yes, this is containment. Maybe you didn't like the conditions under which he was contained, but we had bigger fish to fry at the time. We had been attacked, and the mastermind of the attack was (is) still on the loose.

Well, had Saddam opened up as he was required to under the armistice, there would not have been a question of WMDs, would there? And you see, 12 years of this same obfuscation is precisely what put US intelligence (as well as practically everyone else on the planet) into the position they were in.

There were inspectors in Iraq before the invasion. An honest assessment of Iraq's WMD between the 1998 withdrawl of inspectors and the 2002 re-instatement of inspections was that the old UNMOVIC/UNSCOM destroyed most of the WMD. What was left would probably be useless after the passage of time. The only way to know for sure is to get inspectors back in. So inspectors went back in. Hans Blix reported that Iraq had stepped up their cooperation with inspectors, but the inspectors needed more time to investigate. They weren't given the time. The failure of the inspectors to turn up proof of WMD was used by the Bush administration as proof that Iraq was not really cooperating (woooooahh! a little CT thinking there! Lack of evidence is proof of a cover-up!). I frankly don't care about "12 years of obfuscation" as long as we get the data. We were getting the data, it just wasn't fitting what the Bush Administration wanted it to be.

Frankly, considering what you consider "stable containment," I'm a little skeptical of what it would take to make you REALLY, REALLY sure.

Frankly, it doesn't matter what you think of what I consider "stable containment". In IR, of all fields, what is matters far more than what you think should be. Containment is containment, and Saddam was contained.

As for what I would consider being REALLY REALLY sure, I would have been satisfied if the Hans Blix team had found evidence of stockpiles, or an active program to create nuclear weapons. If they had found either of those, and if they could not be dismantled peacefully, I would have supported invasion. But they didn't find them, because they didn't exist! And with Bin Laden still running free, it was absolutely unconscionable to divert American resources to a non-threat. Data obtained since the invasion has only confirmed that he was a non-threat.

The destabilized situation in the region now-- with Iran developing nuclear weapons, with insurgents resisting any improvements in Iraqi politics, with large parts of Afghanistan still pretty much lawless, with our alliances with other Mid-eastern nations stretched thin-- though at least not yet to the breaking point, the situation before the war looks very stable. Our presence in Iraq has created a security dilemma, which any competent head of state should have considered before invading.

I'm sorry, but the arguments of those who still support the invasion of Iraq, despite events thoroughly proving that it was not the best course of action, really get on my nerves. I know they need to feel like they are right, despite it all. I know they'll feel ashamed for supporting a war that has cost American lives unnecessarily if they can't still find some way to justify it. But American kids are dying, American prestige around the world is lower than it has been in a very long time, and the person who should be held most accountable for attacking the United States is still on the loose. I frankly don't care about their feelings anymore.

 

[Jocko]

The fear from the Sept 11th attacks was what motivated the people to rally for Bush's war.

I thought you said it was the lies of Rumsfeld that motivated people. Which is it, Ken?

 

[Huntster]

Ken:

Even if you don't read the 42 linked documents, read the overall citation's summary. It's a very good one, in chronological order, from the National Security Archive of George Washington University.

(Would it help if I told you that Madeline Albright teaches there on occasion?)

 

[Huntster]

...Shouldn't you be out there hunting Bigfoot?

Edit.........

It appears I've caught a Bigfoot, and he can't seem to extract his Bigfoot from his Bigmouth.

 

[Huntster]

Not a threat to his neighbors. Not a threat to us. He wasn't going anywhere. Yes, this is containment....

As late as David Kay's involvement, Iraqi attempts to continue missile development were discovered:

...In addition, Kay summarized some of the Survey Group's discoveries, which included: a clandestine network of laboratories and safe-houses controlled by the Iraqi Intelligence Services containing equipment suitable for CBW research; reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientists home; documents and equipment hidden in scientists' homes that could be used for resuming uranium enrichment activities; and a continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD missiles....

...Maybe you didn't like the conditions under which he was contained, but we had bigger fish to fry at the time. We had been attacked, and the mastermind of the attack was (is) still on the loose....

Thanks for the further indictment of the intelligence community.

...There were inspectors in Iraq before the invasion. An honest assessment of Iraq's WMD between the 1998 withdrawl of inspectors and the 2002 re-instatement of inspections was that the old UNMOVIC/UNSCOM destroyed most of the WMD. What was left would probably be useless after the passage of time....

With Saddam still in power, and still obviously resisting disarmament?

"Probably"?

...The only way to know for sure is to get inspectors back in. So inspectors went back in. Hans Blix reported that Iraq had stepped up their cooperation with inspectors, but the inspectors needed more time to investigate....

Really?

http://www.un.org

...With regard to cooperation on substance, Blix's report is more negative, noting that Iraq has failed to engage in the "active" cooperation called for in Resolution 1441. He questions Iraqi claims concerning the quality, quantity, and disposition of VX nerve gas produced by Iraq as well as claims that Iraq destroyed 8, 500 liters of anthrax. In addition, he reports that Iraq has tested two missiles in excess of the permitted range of 150 kilometers.

The final portion of the report specifies how the inspection process can be made more fruitful - including the turning over of more relevant documents, lists of key personnel, and the facilitation of credible interviews....

...The failure of the inspectors to turn up proof of WMD was used by the Bush administration as proof that Iraq was not really cooperating....

And your evidence of that claim, please?

...We were getting the data, it just wasn't fitting what the Bush Administration wanted it to be....

We were not "getting the data".

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe you didn't like the conditions under which he was contained, but we had bigger fish to fry at the time.

I've seen this argument made quite often, but never with any real detail. Which bigger fish do you refer to?

Osama? He's been essentially incapacitated, but considering he's likely in Pakistan and they want to handle their restive frontier provinces on their own, what exactly could we have done short of invading Pakistan? Or are you suggesting that we should have done so?

What about North Korea? That doesn't make sense either: Kim Jungle is even more contained, but the options to do anything against him much costlier.

Or maybe you meant Iran. But that's a hindsight argument: most of what we know about Iran's nuclear weapons program came AFTER our invasion of Iraq, and possibly even because of it (Quadaffi ratted out the AQ Khan network after Saddam got caught). And what would we have done about them anyways? Exerted more diplomatic pressure? Ha! That approach was rather a proven failure: we couldn't get Saddam, in his weakened state and with a decade's worth of UN security council demands to actually behave via diplomatic means, why on earth would Iran cave? Should we have threatened an invasion? On what basis?

In short, what bigger fish did we have to fry, AND how exactly should we have fried them?

 

[Ziggurat]

But they didn't find them, because they didn't exist!

It's become an article of faith that because Blix couldn't find anything, that meant nothing was there. But there was no basis on which to arrive at that conclusion. Blix had been rather successfully deceived before - or are you not familiar that Blix had given Iraq the all-clear BEFORE the first gulf war, only to find out afterwards that he had been completely wrong? Perhaps you weren't aware that one of his decisions regarding monitoring of nuclear materials was actually directly responsible for Saddam's so-called crash program for developing a nuclear weapon, a program that wasn't discovered even after years of extensive inspections but only came to light when Saddam's son-in-law defected and revealed its existence?

Some of us didn't trust Blix's ability to ferret out any such programs enough to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. We wanted all doubt removed, and the only way to do that was to remove Saddam.

 

[BryanLower]

As late as David Kay's involvement, Iraqi attempts to continue missile development were discovered:

Missile development is not WMD. Even with missile development, there was still no evidence that Saddam was planning to attack his neighbors. In fact, it would have been absolutely the last thing he would do, considering the circumstances under which he was operating.

Thanks for the further indictment of the intelligence community.

I have no reason to spare their feelings, either.

With Saddam still in power, and still obviously resisting disarmament?

"Probably"?

In retrospect, knowing what we know now, "probably" becomes "certainly".

Really?

http://www.un.org

Shame on you. Read more recent reports, and read the actual report. The inspections were slow and cumbersome, and they could have been made easier, but they were progressing, and they were gathering data.

And your evidence of that claim, please?

I'll have to dig it up later. Used to have it all at my fingertips, but it's been too long.

We were not "getting the data".

Yes, we were.

 

[Upchurch]

Osama? He's been essentially incapacitated, but considering he's likely in Pakistan and they want to handle their restive frontier provinces on their own, what exactly could we have done short of invading Pakistan? Or are you suggesting that we should have done so?

Hold up.

1) Osama is/was in charge of the group who attacked us on 9/11 and you're advocating letting him run free?
2) We invaded Afghanistan because they refused to hand him over. We invaded Iraq on ground that Saddam had given aid and comfort to the terrorists. Why is Pakistan different?

 

[BryanLower]

I've seen this argument made quite often, but never with any real detail. Which bigger fish do you refer to?

Osama? He's been essentially incapacitated, but considering he's likely in Pakistan and they want to handle their restive frontier provinces on their own, what exactly could we have done short of invading Pakistan? Or are you suggesting that we should have done so?

It's amazing how fast "Dead or Alive" becomes "eh, he's not so important anymore." And "whatever it takes" becomes "... short of annoying Pakistan." Bin Laden is the bigger fish, having demonstrated the willingness and the resources to attack the United States. There was no ambiguity about it. No inspectors needed.

I also have doubts about how "incapacitated" he is. He has gone many years between attacks before-- the passage of time is not a factor in his plans. He strikes when he's ready. Until he's captured or killed, I'm not satisfied that he is "incapacitated".

What about North Korea? That doesn't make sense either: Kim Jungle is even more contained, but the options to do anything against him much costlier.

You brought it up, not me. And I agree with you.

Or maybe you meant Iran. But that's a hindsight argument: most of what we know about Iran's nuclear weapons program came AFTER our invasion of Iraq, and possibly even because of it ... etc. etc.

You're right, it is a hindsight argument. That's why I wouldn't make that argument. And the possibility of a SD with Iran should have been considered by the Administration before invading Iraq. In fact, considering that nukes could be at stake, it should have been high on the priority list.

In short, what bigger fish did we have to fry, AND how exactly should we have fried them?

"what bigger fish" answered above. As for "how", I leave that up to the experts. But I don't have to be an expert to tell you one thing: diverting resources away from Bin Laden to a non-threat is NOT how to do it.

 

[BryanLower]

It's become an article of faith that because Blix couldn't find anything, that meant nothing was there. But there was no basis on which to arrive at that conclusion.

It was not an article of faith. It was the best evidence (ie. the most recent evendence from people on the ground). There is always a possibility that the evidence is wrong, but if you're deciding on invasion, you have to decide on the best evidence. Blix's reports were by nature better than the old data used by the Administration, because of the time and proximity.

You can't invade a country because you don't know something. You invade a country because the best evidence gives you a good reason to believe something. The best Bush's evidence could give was "don't know". The Blix evidence provided no casus belli.

Blix had been rather successfully deceived before - or are you not familiar that Blix had given Iraq the all-clear BEFORE the first gulf war, only to find out afterwards that he had been completely wrong? Perhaps you weren't aware that one of his decisions regarding monitoring of nuclear materials was actually directly responsible for Saddam's so-called crash program for developing a nuclear weapon, a program that wasn't discovered even after years of extensive inspections but only came to light when Saddam's son-in-law defected and revealed its existence?

Ad hom. If you have a reason to indict Blix's inspections of Iraq in 2002-2003, then do so. But wait... he didn't find anything because there was nothing to find!

Some of us didn't trust Blix's ability to ferret out any such programs enough to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. We wanted all doubt removed, and the only way to do that was to remove Saddam.

Basically, this creates a situation where you're going to believe that there are WMD programs no matter what new evidence comes up. Nothing short of invading the country could satisfy you. And so we did. And you were wrong.

You don't invade a country to remove doubt. Human lives are at steak, for Christ's sake. You invade a country to remove a threat.

AND

THERE

WAS

NO

THREAT!

 

[Ziggurat]

It's amazing how fast "Dead or Alive" becomes "eh, he's not so important anymore." And "whatever it takes" becomes "... short of annoying Pakistan." Bin Laden is the bigger fish, having demonstrated the willingness and the resources to attack the United States. There was no ambiguity about it. No inspectors needed.

You said the who, but not the how. How exactly should we have gone after Osama? Are you advocating an invasion of Pakistan? Do you have a plan for how he could be pursued that does not involve invading Pakistan? Because as far as I can tell, when Pakistan says they don't want our troops in their country, putting our troops in their country is invading them. That's not simply annoying them.

I also have doubts about how "incapacitated" he is. He has gone many years between attacks before-- the passage of time is not a factor in his plans. He strikes when he's ready.

Well, not only has it been a long time since his last attack, even his rhetoric shows increasing desperation. He makes peace offers, and he talks about shifting focus to basically anywhere where American troops are NOT located. He's on the run, most of his underlings are dead or captured, his network is fractured. The ideology he represents is still as dangerous as ever, and terrorists can strike at us easily enough without his assistance, but he as a commander is of very limited relevance now. His primary activity over the last few years has been simply staying alive.

"what bigger fish" answered above. As for "how", I leave that up to the experts.

Not good enough. Not when the "how" simply isn't possible without creating far more problems than it could possibly solve. There never was an option for pursuing Osama to any significantly greater degree short of putting large numbers of American combat troops on Pakistani soil, and they have already made clear that they would not accept that.

You can't simply pass this problem off to experts to solve, as if they can magically solve anything. There IS no other solution: you have to decide whether or not you would accept the price.

I don't accept the price, and I think you're only willing to in the abstract, because you know you don't actually have to face that possibility (since it's clear we aren't going to invade Pakistan regardless of what you and I want). Pakistan is internally divided. But us stepping onto their soil in the manner required to actually hunt him down in short order (as opposed to limited surgical strikes against Al Qaeda targets when opportunities present themselves, which we have done) would be declaring war on the whole country. It would make allying with us essentially impossible for any significant number of Pakistanis, and that's exactly NOT what we want right now.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
As late as David Kay's involvement, Iraqi attempts to continue missile development were discovered:

Missile development is not WMD. Even with missile development, there was still no evidence that Saddam was planning to attack his neighbors. In fact, it would have been absolutely the last thing he would do, considering the circumstances under which he was operating....

The Scud missles were a violation of the UN resolutions, were being sought by Blix, and are an appropriate delivery vehicle for the very agents Iraq couldn't account for:

...At a meeting of the Security Council the next morning, weapons inspectors Blix and El Baradei reported cooperation had improved, but that Iraqi cooperation was less than complete. Blix issued a report to the Council specifying a number of questions that remained unsolved since the passage of resolution 1441 (and previous resolutions). The UN weapons inspector's report specifically stated that Iraq had not accounted for up to 10,000 liters of anthrax, Scud missile warheads (missiles Iraq fired at Israel and coalition forces in the Persian Gulf War and that could be armed chemical or biological agents), and drone aircraft that could fly past UN-allowed limits and that also could be fitted with spray units that could deliver chemical or biological weapons....

Thanks for the further indictment of the intelligence community.

I have no reason to spare their feelings, either.

It's not their "feelings". I'm concerned with. It's their failures, and how to fix them.

Diverting attention to the political leaders they steered wrong not only doesn't fix the problem, it compounds it.

With Saddam still in power, and still obviously resisting disarmament?

"Probably"?

In retrospect, knowing what we know now, "probably" becomes "certainly".

How so?

"Probably" is weak, but "certainly" requires evidence to support.

...Shame on you. Read more recent reports, and read the actual report....

Whoops. Sorry. Wrong hyperlink:

Hans Blix, An Update on Inspection, January 27, 2003.

Better?

You you have one "more recent", or "mo betta"?

...The inspections were slow and cumbersome, and they could have been made easier, but they were progressing, and they were gathering data....

That's opinion, and apologetic at that.

I doubt Saddam would even thank you for it.

 

[Upchurch]

You said the who, but not the how. How exactly should we have gone after Osama? Are you advocating an invasion of Pakistan? Do you have a plan for how he could be pursued that does not involve invading Pakistan? Because as far as I can tell, when Pakistan says they don't want our troops in their country, putting our troops in their country is invading them. That's not simply annoying them.

The Taliban wasn't so hip to us putting troops in Afghanistan. Same with Iraq.

How is Pakistan any different than Afghanistan, in terms of "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists"?

Well, not only has it been a long time since his last attack, even his rhetoric shows increasing desperation. He makes peace offers,

The local conservative radio talk show guys have assured me that that is a sneak attack method permisable in Islam. I know it's an argument from authority, but still.

Anyway, as has been pointed out, it was 7-8 years between this last attack and the one before it. 5 years isn't so long.

 

[Huntster]

...We invaded Iraq on ground that Saddam had given aid and comfort to the terrorists....

Not quite......

...On October 11, 2002, the United States Congress passed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002", giving U.S. President George W. Bush the authority to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein did not give up his weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)....

Iraqi support of terrorism was just one factor in the authorization, and not the primary reason.

 

[BryanLower]

You said the who, but not the how. How exactly should we have gone after Osama?

Asked and answered, but will discuss more below.

Well, not only has it been a long time since his last attack, even his rhetoric shows increasing desperation.

This is a matter of opinion, and not reassuring to me. It is still no reason to let him run free.

He makes peace offers, and he talks about shifting focus to basically anywhere where American troops are NOT located.

That may be what he's saying, but it is not supported by the evidence. Al Qaeda is active in Iraq, and that's where US trooops are.

He's on the run, most of his underlings are dead or captured, his network is fractured.

There is no evidence of this. There is no way to know precisely what percentage of his underlings are "dead or captured", how important the dead and captured ones actually are, or how many have since been replaced. This is wishful thinking.

Not good enough. Not when the "how" simply isn't possible without creating far more problems than it could possibly solve. There never was an option for pursuing Osama to any significantly greater degree short of putting large numbers of American combat troops on Pakistani soil, and they have already made clear that they would not accept that.

You can't simply pass this problem off to experts to solve, as if they can magically solve anything. There IS no other solution: you have to decide whether or not you would accept the price.

I don't accept the price, and I think you're only willing to in the abstract, because you know you don't actually have to face that possibility (since it's clear we aren't going to invade Pakistan regardless of what you and I want). Pakistan is internally divided. But us stepping onto their soil in the manner required to actually hunt him down in short order (as opposed to limited surgical strikes against Al Qaeda targets when opportunities present themselves, which we have done) would be declaring war on the whole country. It would make allying with us essentially impossible for any significant number of Pakistanis, and that's exactly NOT what we want right now.

So I have to step in the place of the generals and make military decisions before I can have an opinion on foreign policy. No. I leave military decisions to the experts. But from my point of view as someone who has read on the subject, I think I can take a crack at some of your criticisms.

Moving troops into Pakistan, if that would indeed be necessary, is not equal to invading for the purposes of regime change. How would Pakistan react? They would have been really annoyed, to be sure. There would have been sabre rattling. But for them to retaliate against the United States would out them in a position of paying too high a price. In fact, the Pakistani reaction to the limited air strikes is about what we could expect if we dropped troops in to search the border region. They are both no less an "invasion", by your definition, and for the same purpose. The only difference is in method and perhaps scale.

And if they had reacted more forcefully? I would trade all the crap that we're experiencing in Iraq for an equal amount of crap in/with Pakistan-- perhaps more, since we would actually be dealing with a threat (Bin Laden), not a non-threat.

So, do you want to capture the person who attacked the United States and murdered 3000 Americans, or do you not? Do you realize that you're placing a greater burden of justification on me advocating limited military action in Pakistan (if that would indeed be necessary, deferring to the experts) than you place on the Bush administration for an ALL OUT INVASION of the non-threat Iraq. That is ridiculous. You "don't accept the price", yet you accept the price of invading Iraq. Rubbish. Absolute rubbish.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat :
I've seen this argument made quite often, but never with any real detail. Which bigger fish do you refer to?

Osama? He's been essentially incapacitated, but considering he's likely in Pakistan and they want to handle their restive frontier provinces on their own, what exactly could we have done short of invading Pakistan? Or are you suggesting that we should have done so?

It's amazing how fast "Dead or Alive" becomes "eh, he's not so important anymore." And "whatever it takes" becomes "... short of annoying Pakistan." Bin Laden is the bigger fish, having demonstrated the willingness and the resources to attack the United States. There was no ambiguity about it. No inspectors needed.

I also have doubts about how "incapacitated" he is. He has gone many years between attacks before-- the passage of time is not a factor in his plans. He strikes when he's ready. Until he's captured or killed, I'm not satisfied that he is "incapacitated".....

So, an invasion of Pakistan is justified?

..."what bigger fish" answered above. As for "how", I leave that up to the experts. But I don't have to be an expert to tell you one thing: diverting resources away from Bin Laden to a non-threat is NOT how to do it...

Saddam had been a threat to world peace since long before his 1990 invasion of Kuwait, just like Osama, and exponentially more dangerous.

"The experts" at finding him should be our intelligence people, unless you want the DoD to invade Pakistan, too.

Perhaps somebody should tell Mr. McGovern to sit down and shut up, or let Mr. Rumsfeld go where the CIA dares not in order to get the job done.

 

[Huntster]

The Taliban wasn't so hip to us putting troops in Afghanistan. Same with Iraq.

How is Pakistan any different than Afghanistan, in terms of "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists"?...

Because they were "hip" to allowing U.S. troops to stage and operate there might be one difference.

That'a a level of cooperation. The word "cooperation" seemed to be beyond the comprehension of Saddam and the Taliban.

 

[Huntster]

...So I have to step in the place of the generals and make military decisions before I can have an opinion on foreign policy....

You seem to have no qualms about making foreign policy decisions reserved for the President.

What's the difference? You don't have enough knowledge to be a general, but you have enough to be the President?

 

[Ziggurat]

It was not an article of faith. It was the best evidence (ie. the most recent evendence from people on the ground). There is always a possibility that the evidence is wrong, but if you're deciding on invasion, you have to decide on the best evidence.

No, you have to do a risk-benefit analysis. You have to consider the consequences of what happens if you're wrong. If we invade and he had no weapons, how does that compare to if we don't invade and there are weapons? One scenario is much worse than the other, and you sometimes need to act based on the magnitude of the consequences, not just the probabilities involved.

You can't invade a country because you don't know something.

Well, actually, you CAN. Your argument is that you shouldn't. But that's rather simplistic, and it's far from the whole argument for going into Iraq. There were things about Iraq that we DID know (we knew they continuously violated many provisions of the cease-fire that stopped the first gulf war, for example). And sometimes, not knowing something SHOULD change how you act.

Ad hom. If you have a reason to indict Blix's inspections of Iraq in 2002-2003, then do so.

Sure: no IAEA inspection of any country has ever uncovered clandestine nuclear weapons programs. Ever. There was no reason to think that their failure to do so in Iraq constituted proof that no such program existed.

But wait... he didn't find anything because there was nothing to find!

That's a hind-sight evaluation, and has little bearing on how we should have made our decision. The logic is equivalent to saying I shouldn't have paid for car insurance this last year because I never got pulled over and I never got into an accident.

Basically, this creates a situation where you're going to believe that there are WMD programs no matter what new evidence comes up. Nothing short of invading the country could satisfy you.

Well, no. Actual compliance on Saddam's part could have satisfied me, but he never did comply. And that's NOT actually in dispute.

And so we did. And you were wrong.

You can only make that claim if you assume I took the position that he DID have weapons. I never took that position. I took the position that it wasn't worth the risk. Just like I took the position that it wasn't worth the risk to drive without car insurance. I wasn't wrong about that decision, even though it turns out I haven't needed it.

AND

THERE

WAS

NO

THREAT!

But the problem goes fundamentally deeper than that. Inspections were explicitly not intended to be indefinite. The moment the UN was satisfied that he had no weapons, and it could have been completely true. He could have disarmed completely, he could have taken that next step (which he NEVER did) of complying with all the UN security council resolutions, and then what? He's free to go. He's free of inspections, he's free of sanctions. And once that happens, do you honestly think he wouldn't start those programs right back up again? Of course he would. And there'd be no basis on which to re-institute sanctions, either. In other words, the inspection regime, REGARDLESS of how good you think it was, was never capable of doing the job that really needed to be done: ensuring that Saddam never got WMD's. It could, at best, ensure that at one moment of time, after which all bets are off. That simply wasn't enough of an assurance for me. I have a hard time seeing toppling a bloodthirsty dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people as being a particularly bad thing to begin with, so if we've got to do that in order to satisfy my concerns, well sorry, but I came to a different choice than you did.