| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| Saddam: What We Now Know | |
| 2011-09-22 | |
| |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #6 There's a link to the Duelfer report in the article. Just reading the Addendum is an eye-popper - for example, all the Iraqi state technology sites that were found stripped of all equipment. I'm sure many of you remember the reports of truck convoys to Syria around the time of the invasion. We fully expected to find WMD. The troops even wore their bio gear. The Duelfer report recommended that investigation be resumed once the security situation improved. Why hasn't that happened? |
| Posted by: KBK 2011-09-22 20:24 |
| #5 Is that a serious or a rhetorical question? This is a serious question. Note that I didn't mention nation building, just the decision to take out Saddam. If anything Saddam was less rational and less susceptible to deterrence than Gaddafi. So a diplomatic settlement with Saddam would have unraveled faster than the Gaddafi accord. Also remember that this was after 9/11, an attack directly linked to Iraq(*), and that by 2003 the US had been at war with Iraq for over a decade. So yes. I'm serious. None other than George W Bush implemented the leftist policy of diplomacy&grand bargain with Gaddafi and the result was a failure. This is what the leftist Obama administration has admitted by taking out Gaddafi using military means. (*)Al Quaida's stated reason were the sanctions against & the military containment of Iraq. |
| Posted by: Percy Tojo7636 2011-09-22 20:08 |
| #4 The left's mantra/talking points that Bush illegally and unjustifiably invaded Iraq is getting to be so much tired B.S. and lies. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2011-09-22 09:59 |
| #3 "How can the left still criticize Bush's decision to take out Saddam?" Is that a serious or a rhetorical question? If the former, then because they see the actual cost (in lives and money both) of the invasion, not the hypothetical cost of a non-invasion. You may call that a short-sighted perspective if you so believe it to be; but you can't be be confused about why 'the left' criticizes Bush's decision: the left makes it clear why they criticize it -- they don't believe the cost-benefit analysis justified it. "Gaddafi was the control experiment and it was the US left that correctly decided to terminate it because it turned dangerous." I'm pessimistic about the chances of Libya either way, but there was significantly less expenditure of American lives and money in Libya than there was in Iraq. The cost-benefit equation is significantly different (even though I'm not sure said equation favoured the Libyan intervention either). |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2011-09-22 08:42 |
| #2 There is little doubt that the pre-war intelligence on Iraq was faulty, mostly because of Saddam’s continuing attempts to convince Iran that he still maintained a potent WMD capacity despite years of sanctions. Really? "Since 2003 Coalition have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent." That's degraded militarized agent. This was material that was suppose to have been destroyed in accordance with the first Gulf War cease fire agreement a decade prior. I'm sure those who tsk-tsk the quality of those weapons would be the first to object to their storage in their neighborhood, city, or locale. Non-militarized home made sarin was employed in 1995 in Tokyo. The meme just has a life of its own. Say it loud enough, long enough and people will think its true. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-09-22 08:40 |
| #1 How can the left still criticize Bush's decision to take out Saddam? Gaddafi was the control experiment and it was the US left that correctly decided to terminate it because it turned dangerous. |
| Posted by: Percy Tojo7636 2011-09-22 06:19 |