Ah, but if a suspect dyes his hair, grows a beard and mustache, borrows thousands of dollars in cash from friends, and updates his passport... the authorities might think he was ready to flee the country...
If you read the detailed admissions by Iraq to UNSCOM prior to their departure, you would understand that there was evidence of much unexplained chemical, and biological warfare materials. Now, after UNSCOM was stone walled ending their mission, the Iraqi's might have destroyed the materials, or they might have hidden the materials. Based on the track record of the regime, and Saddam's prior motivations, what is the logical conclusion?
BTW, it is not just the US intelligence that is being questioned here, Mr. Blair also stood behind the findings of MI6 and their reports on Iraq. The answer is IMO, either British and US intelligence is crap, or the Iraqi's security was very good. I think it is a combination of both of those. Someday the truth might be revealed, but for now the answers will be clouded by national security concerns and executive privaledges. I suspect that Bush listens to his advisors, who listen to their respective IA's - DIA, CIA, NSA, FBI and a few others.
If the prevailing mood was that Saddam was covetly rebuilding his WMD arsenal underground this time, then I could see how they might get edgy. Again, we have hashed this over on this board a ton, but I don't think many people really believed that WMD was a prime motivator for regime change in Iraq. It was on the list of evils, but the list was long.
In the US, it seems that if a nation is demonstratably evil, we as a people have little hesitency in doing something about it.
There have always been a cadre of isolationists who feel protected by the oceans, but exceptional events keep reminding us we are not safe. There is another cadre of people who would do even more, advocating more direct intervention in world trouble spots like Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, or Mozambique. Personally, I feel that is a bit of a slippery slope, as you begin to allow a national morality to drive incredible military power.
My preference is that we should primarily focus on our defense, and then to support our commitments to our allies. I am not opposed to preventive defensive measures, but I am a bit skeptical of the "Wolfowitz" doctrine as it seems idealistic and morally motivated. My view is that the American people should determine through motivating their legislators on what expeditionary missions we might undertake. I feel the focus of the current administration should be to guide the nation toward what is most beneficial for the nation first, our friends second, and the world, third. So if that means, for example, that "The Kyoto Protocol" won't work for the US, then we need to address that before it gets to treaty signing time and figure out what will work for us.
If you read the detailed admissions by Iraq to UNSCOM prior to their departure, you would understand that there was evidence of much unexplained chemical, and biological warfare materials. Now, after UNSCOM was stone walled ending their mission, the Iraqi's might have destroyed the materials, or they might have hidden the materials. Based on the track record of the regime, and Saddam's prior motivations, what is the logical conclusion?
BTW, it is not just the US intelligence that is being questioned here, Mr. Blair also stood behind the findings of MI6 and their reports on Iraq. The answer is IMO, either British and US intelligence is crap, or the Iraqi's security was very good. I think it is a combination of both of those. Someday the truth might be revealed, but for now the answers will be clouded by national security concerns and executive privaledges. I suspect that Bush listens to his advisors, who listen to their respective IA's - DIA, CIA, NSA, FBI and a few others.
If the prevailing mood was that Saddam was covetly rebuilding his WMD arsenal underground this time, then I could see how they might get edgy. Again, we have hashed this over on this board a ton, but I don't think many people really believed that WMD was a prime motivator for regime change in Iraq. It was on the list of evils, but the list was long.
In the US, it seems that if a nation is demonstratably evil, we as a people have little hesitency in doing something about it.
There have always been a cadre of isolationists who feel protected by the oceans, but exceptional events keep reminding us we are not safe. There is another cadre of people who would do even more, advocating more direct intervention in world trouble spots like Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, or Mozambique. Personally, I feel that is a bit of a slippery slope, as you begin to allow a national morality to drive incredible military power.
My preference is that we should primarily focus on our defense, and then to support our commitments to our allies. I am not opposed to preventive defensive measures, but I am a bit skeptical of the "Wolfowitz" doctrine as it seems idealistic and morally motivated. My view is that the American people should determine through motivating their legislators on what expeditionary missions we might undertake. I feel the focus of the current administration should be to guide the nation toward what is most beneficial for the nation first, our friends second, and the world, third. So if that means, for example, that "The Kyoto Protocol" won't work for the US, then we need to address that before it gets to treaty signing time and figure out what will work for us.
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.
![[Image: yVR5oE.png]](http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/329/yVR5oE.png)
![[Image: VKQ0KLG.png]](http://i.imgur.com/VKQ0KLG.png)