On Sep 5, 1:16 am, Jim Logajan wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:
....

I did mean di anyone think the invasion if Iraq was a good idea at this
juncture?

I knew what you meant - sorry, was just playing games with your post.

Sadly, some people do still think it was a good idea. Mostly those
who want to see a worldwide religious war between supposed Christians
and supposed Muslims. Osama bin Laden, for instance, is no doubt
pleased a punch.


All I remember is that when the Iraq invasion was started I thought our
military would have no problem winning (but worried a great deal about a
good friend who was serving in the military at the time) - but I had this
gut feel that what was planned to happen afterword was clear as mud.

I believed they'd find WMD. My thinking was: "No way would this
administration launch a war without absolute certainty they would turn up
WMD. I mean really - if they didn't they'd be absolute toast, finished, and
kaput politically."

But no WMD were found and yet they weren't fried politically. There's a
lesson in there somewhere.

I figured that they would NOT find WMD.

First of all, I read an analysis of the evidence and agreed
with the authors that is was not persuasive.

Secondly, UNMOVIC, using helicopters, arrived at alleged WMD
sites within hours of receiving the latest US intel but found nothing.
No weapon, no factories, no residues. Many of the sites the US
claimed to be active were in the same deserted bombed out
non functional condition that they were when UNSCOM last
visited.

Third, we were caught submitting forged documents to the IAEA.
something that would plainly not have been done had there been'
real evidence.

Fourth, if Saddam Hussein really had fearsome chemical and
biological weapons the Bush administration would not have risked
massive US casualties by invading.

Any lingering doubt was gone by the time Baghdad fell. If Saddam
Hussein had any WMD, surely he would have used them by then.
What would he save them for, the next US invasion?

--

FF