” Last night I watched Georgia and Russia go at it in a grueling fight. Girls’ beach volleyball and it was some hot. Can’t think of a much better way to settle their differences”

Speaking on the anniversary of the United States’ invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has “the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past” — looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion.

“There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction,” said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations’ chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. “We went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something” – a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the “tip of the iceberg” or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg’s past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.

Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of “critical thinking.” The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence – Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change – with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix’s team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America’s pre-emptive, unilateral actions “have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere.”

(emphasis mine)

Was Iraq in strict compliance with SC resolutions – no.

Was it evident that Iraq had no WMD – yes.

You’ve fallen for Bush propaganda Sean, Iraq was crippled and contained, there was no danger, there were alternatives to the death, destruction, and humanitarian nightmare that now exists, and, as is quite obvious now, the Bush regime was grasping at straws and (in some cases) manufacturing evidence to support what they had already decided they were going to do.

I’m afraid that the US Senate Intelligence Committee disagrees with the quotation you provided

“The Senate Intelligence Committee has found no evidence of links between the regime of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.”

The Democrats had been spouting for years about how Saddam was a big problem in Iraq and that we needed to do something about it.

They would have invaded if their weren’t so timid.

Look at the dates of the articles you posted – Feb. 2001 and Sept. 2001. When did the Whitehouse invade Iraq? 2003. The time difference allowed weapons inspectors to go in and figure out exactly what the situation was there. And again, they found what I had posted above – “captured Iraqi documents show U.S. intelligence agencies “seriously underestimated the extent of Saddam’s ties with terrorist groups of all sorts,” including al-Qaeda.”

They admitted they underestimated, but after they were able to get a good sense of what threat he posed, they took the appropriate action.

What about

FEBRUARY 23 & 24, 2001 – COLIN POWELL SAYS IRAQ IS CONTAINED: “I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box.” He added Saddam “is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors” and that “he threatens not the United States.” [Source: State Department, 2/23/01 and 2/24/01]

What about

SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 – CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED: Vice President Dick Cheney said that “Saddam Hussein is bottled up” – a confirmation of the intelligence he had received. [Source: Meet the Press, 9/16/2001]

Earlier today I heard Lowell Green spouting exactly the same propaganda FutureLeader, don’t buy into it. It’s deception designed to cover up deception and you’re doing yourself no favours by spreading it any further that it’s already gone.

To those who believe Iraqis are worse off today than they were before the US came and saved the day – read news from sources OTHER than the MSM. Why do we always hear bad news from CNN and BBC and the Globe about the Iraq war? Well, good news doesn’t sell.

Here’s a quote for you:

“Bush was even accused of lying about the presence of weapons of mass destruction, and of exaggerating Saddam’s connections to terrorist groups. He did neither.

True, U.S. forces didn’t find the WMD stockpiles that Saddam convinced the world he possessed, but they did find, in the words of Iraqi Survey Group director David Kay, “dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment.”

Moreover, Herman notes, captured Iraqi documents show U.S. intelligence agencies “seriously underestimated the extent of Saddam’s ties with terrorist groups of all sorts,” including al-Qaeda.”

Let’s take a look at that: dozens of WMD-related program ACTIVITIES. Yes, there weren’t WMD admittedly, but you need to take a look at what could have happened if they didn’t go into Iraq. Bush repeatedly gave Saddam opportunities to turn over the WMD materials as well as admit to a weapons program. Every intelligence agency in the Western world was convinced he had them. Think of the serious, serious consequences if we waited a couple more years.

Not to mention, it is just starting to come to light now that the tabloids in the US, Canada, and the UK need to fess up and admit they had overblown the war’s negative side-effects greatly.

I firmly believe Bush made the right decision and everyone who values democracy and their freedom should too. Freedom doesn’t come at a price…and history shows it certainly doesn’t come without a fight.

Sigh. Well, you’re getting BETTER at the Shlemazl thing, although you’re still way too polite.

Let’s examine our little exchance, purged of our respective bon mots and illustrative text.

I said: Gee. Isn’t there something odd about a country calling “disproportionate force”, when they’re doing it too?

You responded:Oh, YEAH? Well, Russians have done it too!

Now, in a court of law, or even a discussion with your kids, that would probably not amount to much of a rebuttal. Better would be: No, they didn’t say that. (Difficult, since they did.) Or: No, they didn’t MEAN that. (Ditto.) Or: American use of force in Iraq was NOT disproportionate, and here’s why. And so on.

Those are responses worth more than two cents. “But JIMMY did it TOO” isn’t.

Originally Posted By Kateland But why just centre out the Americans?

Far be it from me to put words in b’s mouth but given that America seems to have decided that it is the global arbitrator of right and wrong this sort of hypocrisy should be pointed out and mocked as often as it appears.

Russia is, of course, in the same boat but when it comes to condemning others in the world for what they have done or are contemplating doing I can’t think of a country that has been more vocal than America.

Well, Kateland, I guess that would be because:

a) there isn’t room or time to explore the full dimension of the entire world’s iniquity from every single point of view in every single blog post, and
b) this happens to be the story and quote that caught me eye.

Hope that’s okay.