Draginol:
Yes, I am American. Born, raised, and proud to be.

The Secretary of State is often seen as the chief spokesman of foreign policy for the United States Government. He is handpicked by the President and often shares daily briefings, certainly he is one of the few who help formulate foreign policy. The statements that the Secretary of State makes represents the President. You may choose to disagree, which would say to me that Colin Powell was duped because he stated a policy not representing the President. If you say he does represent the President you must see in the quote the reasoning, not for a U.N. resolution, as we were well aware no such resolution could be attained, but rather the reasoning why we were invading and did so shortly thereafter.

It would be disrespectful to both the President and the Secretary of State to suggest otherwise, wouldn't it?

The comments from Powell that were posted don't have anything to do with "stockpiles" of WMDs. In fact, most of Powell's remarks have to do with non-compliance with 1441.

Every other country in the world (except Iraq) thought that Iraq had WMD. There aren't any major non-Iraqi foreign leaders who said Iraq didn't have WMD prior to the war.

Poll interpretation is difficult.

The question asked is typically something of the form, "have the benefits of war outweighed the costs?"

If we'd found out that Hussein had three tons of anthrax, a dozen mobile biological warfare labs working on weaponizing smallpox, and fifty pounds of highly enriched uranium, I think the American people would still answer an enthusiastic "yes!" in spite of all the post-war bungling. Certainly I would.

We should recall that the war itself went surprisingly painlessly. So while the chief benefit of war (defanging Iraq) didn't materialize, some lesser benefits did (Iraqis were happy, albeit only for a couple weeks). So the benefit of war was less than expected, but so was the cost, and people weren't real upset. It's only when the costs began to mount that it became not worth it.

Two more things to consider. First, there's a sizeable minority of people who will support this administration, no matter what, just as there's a sizeable (I think larger) minority who will oppose this administration, no matter what. These people aren't swayed by nuances about WMD--they parrot the party line. Secondly, there are a bunch of people who *still* believe that Iraq had WMD. Here's a poll:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqQuestionnaire4_22_04.pdf

If you believe the survey, 38% of people believed that "Iraq had actual weapons of mass destruction." That alone might be forgiveable--if you count two mustard gas shells as "having actual weapons"--but 21% believed that Iraq had nuclear weapons! (Page 2)

I don't understand these people, but anyway, their perception of the case for war didn't shift, because their perceptions of the facts didn't shift.

I can't believe you are now saying that the WMD wasn't the primary justification.

Please read the following quotes from Bush's speech on the eve of the war, and then tell me you can still say that with a straight face...

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

"...the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."

"Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. "

"It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction."

" In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. "

"In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth."

" The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now. "

If disarmament wasn't the primary justification, what the heck was the primary justification put forth by Bush?

Sorry Brad,
but yet again I must disagree with you on this topic.

The theory is that Bush "sold" intervention in Iraq based on stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

This statement is true. Bush did sell WMD as the primary reason for going into Iraq. The question is just who did he sell it to. Ordinary Americans (I have a number of freinds who fall into this category) were told quite clearly that Saddam had WMD and the US must act. They also saw Saddam and Al Qaeda linked by association time and time again in statements. Other reasons were peripheral. Americans who had the time to explore the debate would have seen the other issues, but they were in a minority (just look at the numbers who believed Saddam = AlQaeda).

Paul.

Madine,

There aren't any major non-Iraqi foreign leaders who said Iraq didn't have WMD prior to the war.

The French President on American TV (before the war) clearly stated that he had seen no proof that Saddam had WMD. He was attempting to minise the damage and hatred that his anti war stance was causing and decided that appearing live on American TV to answer questions was the best solution. He made it very clear that 1441 was not breached and that while Saddam COULD have WMD, NO proof had been seen by him.

Paul.

Not only that, but the UN weapons inspection team continually indicated that there was no evidence supporting the claims that Iraq had WMD. While WMD may not have been the only reason to get rid of Saddam, I believe it was to most ordinary American's why we were sending our troops there. It was also what was sold to the media as why we had to act now, instead of giving the weapons inspectors time to do their job.

Cherry picking quotes doesn't serve your cause well.

IF WMD stockpiles were the major reason we went to war in Iraq and the CIA report now shows that there probably were no substantial stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, then why do so many Americans favor having gone in there still?

Everyone I know who supported going in there in the first place still is glad we went in there.  Statistically, so do most Americans (other than a handful of recent polls which have to do with the occupation).

Let me give you a clue, Robert: My thesis is that WMD stockpiles were NOT the primary reason we went in there.  They were one of many reasons but they weren't the main reason.  The fact that you can cherry pick quotes doesn't prove anything other than Bush used WMD stockpiles as a reason at various points. This is particularly the case when the Kaye report has shown that Saddam had WMD programs in place still and was just waiting out the sanctions.

Solitair, are you in the United States? No. So what would you know how Bush sold the American people on? It certainly wasn't stockpiles of chemical weapons.  The US argument to the UN was primarily about Iraq's failure to comply with UN resolutions which largely revolved around WMD stockpiles.  But at tha tpoint, the US had already decided it was going to go in.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why so many millions of Americans like me supported going into Iraq in the first place and still do. I never considered WMD stockpiles to be a significant issue. Just another nail in Saddam's coffin at best.  And since I was publicly blogging back then, my writings on the subject are publicly accessible so I haven't changed my story. 

The people who were against going in are still against it and now latch onto this WMD stockpile argument. The people who were for it haven't changed their minds because WMD stockpiles were not the main issue for them.

Ok you have established a motivating reason other than wmd. That means little when there is a ton of tape from cnn fox, cbs emphasising just that. Powell went on record at the UN citing it as the reason. I taped it guy. He put ALOT of emphasis on it.

If wmd was not a primary issue, than it was misleading to let the media hype it to the degree it did. It was hyped ALOT.
Is it surprising that the left rebutted given all the attention it was given? For this you condemn?

The gap in logic widens when you take away the wmd and still make the arguement of "threat". Where is the threat? Threatening to collaborate? A shoddy human rights record is the only reason that held. It STILL didn't warrant unilateral action. It still didn't conform to any of the geneva or nuremburg agreements. The action was still taken.

So if no weapons were present how was this broke and despised dictator a danger? I know there are no weapons. I want you to tell me how Saddam becomes threatening after the sanctions.

Bush did emphasize WMD alot, but an imminent threat of stockpiled WMDs isn't the main reason most Americans supported the war in Iraq.

Draginol:
All may support it now who did then but me and of course, Lilla from Fahrenheit 9/11 and of course, about 100 congresspeople and about 25 senators. But really, when you think about it, we're a small minortiy compared to who you know.

The evolving justifications for war on Iraq developed as such:
Reason #1: This is a war on terrorism
Reason #2: They are a terrorist threat to the US and it has connections to 9-11/Al Qaeda
Reason #3: This is a humanitarian mission for democracy, freedom, and justice for the Iraqi people

Given the first two reasons, in truth, our greatest threat to national security and the country most likely to be associated with 9/11 was Saudi Arabia. What has been asked of the Bush Administration is their true INITIAL intent in attacking Iraq because the reasons they've given would have led anyone else to Saudi Arabia.

Brad,
I will at least grant that you have been consistently trying to justify the Iraq war for non WMD reasons for over a year. That's not the same as saying that this was not the original primary reason for war though. To quote you from a year ago (I would love to quote you from further back, like before the war, but the search engine only seems to show a year back)

... Bush ... assumes Iraq has WMD and calls for military force to remove Saddam for failing to comply with UN resolutions ...

This statement from you indicates that Bush's primary reasons was Saddam failing to comply with article 1441, which lo and behold was about WMD.

I will totally accept that WMD was a crap reason for war (especially with no solid proof) and that many (including myself) supported the war for other reasons.

But lets be honest here, WMD WAS the primary reason given to the American people and the world in general for war.

Paul.

Those of us in favor of military action have written the same reasons for the psat TWO years. Not just me, but pretty much every "war blogger". And WMD stockpiles were NEVER one of the major reasons.

Anyone who thought we were invading Iraq because we feared they had mustard gas or whatever has my sympathy for being clueless and having their heads in the sand.

The idea that Bush "sold" the invasion of Iraq based on false premesis to the American public is not, as you say, a myth. Nor is it wrong to surmise that the Administration pushed the idea that Iraq was an imminent threat. Might I offer some quotes --

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - President Bush. As we all know, this was not the case.

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." - President Bush. Once again, not true.

"The [Iraqi] report also failed to deal with issues which have arisen since 1998, including: . . . attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it." -President Bush. This fails to agknowledge the fact that the State Department labled this claim as "highly dubious" and CIA Director Tenet urged the President and National Security Advisor Rice not to use it in several memos.

"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents." - President Bush. This is highly misleading because it fails it agknowledge that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that the trailers were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

"He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them." President Bush. Let's see what CIA Director Tenet had to say about this one. "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities." - Director Tenet.

And to every, and there were several, suggestions by the Administration that there was an "imminent" threat, consult Director Tenet again. Here are some examples of those suggestions -

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." - Vice President Cheney

"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death." - President Bush

"[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq." - Sec. Rumsfeld

And Tenet says - "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

Simply put, the Administration, which did, despite your claims, base the invasion of Iraq totally upon the premis that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and could use them against the U.S. and U.S. Interests, played up the danger posed the Iraq in a misleading manner, set aside the reservations of analysts and experts from the Department of State, the CIA, the DIA, the U.S. Air Force, and several other agencies and organizations, and made a series of claims that were clearly intended to scare the American public into supporting this effort.


Now, I know you're probably thinking that that was, in fact, not the sole justification for war. Let's take a look at what International Law says about declarations of war. Internation Law, and you can look this up if you don't want to take my word for it, provides two situations in which the invasion of another nation is legal. One is that you have been openly attacked by that nation, which Iraq clearly had not done. The second is that the nation poses an immediate and grave threat to the sanctity of your own state, and that you must act preemptively to protect yourself. This is that much-touted preemption. So there were two legal avenues that could be pursued by the Bush Administration. One - somehow prove that Iraq had openly attacked the United States, or Two - Claim that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. and attack it preemptively. It is quite clear which option they chose. Hence the efforts of this Administration, despite intelligence and urging to the contrary, pushed the idea that Iraq was developing WMD.

But set that aside, and let's look only at the idea you present -- that we attacked Iraq because Saddam posed a long-term threat. If this is a basis for invasion, why have we not yet invaded North Korea? What about Iran? Libya? North Korea may, according to CIA estimates, have as many as three nuclear weapons, and North Korea also posesses weapons platforms which have the range to effectively target the U.S. mainland. One can hardly call Kim Jong Il a leader any more reasonable or sane than Hussein, perhaps even less so. Saddam never threatened to turn anything into a "lake of fire." (The North Korean Gov't threatened to turn Seoul into a "lake of fire" if provoked." What about Iran? Israel was doing a pretty good job taking care of Iraq's nuclear capabilities when they bombed the nuclear reactor there over a decade ago. Russia is building no less than seven nuclear reactors in Iran as we speak -- nevermind that Iran has a long history of anti-U.S. action, including several widely aknowledged government sanctioned acts of terrorism, including some plane hijackings. Libya had a nuclear weapons program that was far more advanced than the Iraqi equivalent, so why didn't we get them first?

Finally, your premise that had we really been wrong about Iraq the support for the war would have dropped to 10% is absurd. Support for Vietnam was higher than that, for crying out loud. People continue to support the war because first, they think removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do, regardless of the situation it was done in. They don't know much about, or care much about, or both, the foundations of international law or procedure, and they just figure that Saddam was a bad guy and it's good he's gone. That, however, is not a valid justification for war by any stretch, but most of them don't know that, or don't care that much about that. Then there are the people who think we should have gone into Iraq just to spite the UN and prove that the United States is not to be denied what it wants by anyone. There are people who support the war because they want the Iraqi people to have democracy. There are many reasons why people still support the war, but I do not think that these reasons are acceptable reasons as a basis for that war in the first place.

So, I suggest that perhaps you should take a more respectful tone towards those who disagree with you. I think if you look over my arguments you won't find them too terribly arrogant or contemptuous. Your arrogance and contempt for another argument severly undermines your own. Perhaps if you ddn't act so condescendingly I could take you more seriously.