I can respect that position. For me, personally, I'm not invested in standing firm on one particular political hill. I'm interested in understanding the truth from the evidence, and not drawing an emotional conclusion according to some ideology.
My belief is that Bush was operating from a pessimistic view of Iraq based on a very pessimistic reading of US and British intelligence. And, that is not the first time. For instance, in hindsight, US intelligence over estimated the number of Soviet nuclear missiles by a factor of 10. That is a lot of American tax dollars spent (debt actually) building and maintaining a vast nuclear stockpile that was unneccesary and destabilizing.
It is clear to me, the "Wolfowitz" group, even prior to the Bush presidency, was upset with the lack of containment and enforcement over Iraq. They are a very hawkish group, and so it is probably true that they were spoiling for a fight. I think Clinton dropped the ball in not escalating Iraq to the Security Council when UNSCOM was shut out in 1998. Had the Clintion administration kept their eye on the ball, keeping high pressure on Iraq through the UN, then maybe the war would not have happened. I'm willing to condemn the actors, and well as those who failed to act.
There is no direct evidence of Bush "lying" or being "dishonest" at this point. There is evidence of intelligence failures, and of the administration being able to extend a case against Iraq that was pretty speculative. British and American Intelligence agencies, in my opinion from looking at the evidence, did supply fairly pragmatic and logical assessments. But, they appear to have been wrong in estimating Iraq's then "current" capabilities and threat. Again, the ISG has only scratched the surface of the Iraqi WMD programs. My opinion is that they might have done about 10% of the work neccesary to expose the truth. The nature of the Iraqi regime made it very difficult to have agents in Iraq, and the only "solid" first person intelligence was from defectors who appear to have over-stated the threat as well. The programs were intentionally fragmented and made difficult to discover by the thousands of UNSCOM investigators there for the prior 12 years. Now, this fragmented puzzle is further shattered and much of the truth will probably never be discovered. I am not sad that Saddam is no longer in power, even though I disagree with the means of how that came about. If a new Iraqi government can be established that does not collapse into a civil war, then maybe history will not be so harsh with Bush and Blair.
If you view 9/11 as an act perpetuated by mercenary commandos aided by an unknown collective of Islamofacists, then I think you might get a clearer picture of what the "war on terrorism" is truly about. So who is in the collective supporting these covert violent actions against the West? We are in the right neighborhood, but are maybe off by a nation. The core of what we are fighting is there in that region, and now they have gone to Iraq to fight with us. We established the front, as it were. What is missing currently in the US or Europe are leaders who are willing to fight the war of ideas, and to take a firm ideological stand rather than a "might makes right" agenda. If Vietnam taught us anything, it was that you can win the battles, but without the war of ideas changing the way the people think, then you have lost.
My belief is that Bush was operating from a pessimistic view of Iraq based on a very pessimistic reading of US and British intelligence. And, that is not the first time. For instance, in hindsight, US intelligence over estimated the number of Soviet nuclear missiles by a factor of 10. That is a lot of American tax dollars spent (debt actually) building and maintaining a vast nuclear stockpile that was unneccesary and destabilizing.
It is clear to me, the "Wolfowitz" group, even prior to the Bush presidency, was upset with the lack of containment and enforcement over Iraq. They are a very hawkish group, and so it is probably true that they were spoiling for a fight. I think Clinton dropped the ball in not escalating Iraq to the Security Council when UNSCOM was shut out in 1998. Had the Clintion administration kept their eye on the ball, keeping high pressure on Iraq through the UN, then maybe the war would not have happened. I'm willing to condemn the actors, and well as those who failed to act.
There is no direct evidence of Bush "lying" or being "dishonest" at this point. There is evidence of intelligence failures, and of the administration being able to extend a case against Iraq that was pretty speculative. British and American Intelligence agencies, in my opinion from looking at the evidence, did supply fairly pragmatic and logical assessments. But, they appear to have been wrong in estimating Iraq's then "current" capabilities and threat. Again, the ISG has only scratched the surface of the Iraqi WMD programs. My opinion is that they might have done about 10% of the work neccesary to expose the truth. The nature of the Iraqi regime made it very difficult to have agents in Iraq, and the only "solid" first person intelligence was from defectors who appear to have over-stated the threat as well. The programs were intentionally fragmented and made difficult to discover by the thousands of UNSCOM investigators there for the prior 12 years. Now, this fragmented puzzle is further shattered and much of the truth will probably never be discovered. I am not sad that Saddam is no longer in power, even though I disagree with the means of how that came about. If a new Iraqi government can be established that does not collapse into a civil war, then maybe history will not be so harsh with Bush and Blair.
If you view 9/11 as an act perpetuated by mercenary commandos aided by an unknown collective of Islamofacists, then I think you might get a clearer picture of what the "war on terrorism" is truly about. So who is in the collective supporting these covert violent actions against the West? We are in the right neighborhood, but are maybe off by a nation. The core of what we are fighting is there in that region, and now they have gone to Iraq to fight with us. We established the front, as it were. What is missing currently in the US or Europe are leaders who are willing to fight the war of ideas, and to take a firm ideological stand rather than a "might makes right" agenda. If Vietnam taught us anything, it was that you can win the battles, but without the war of ideas changing the way the people think, then you have lost.
”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)