Something on this thread smells like stale urine.

True. However, by the time Bush was making the case for regime, the evidence on which all of those people had based that conclusion had been cast into serious doubt, if not completely disproven. And even after the inspectors went in and cast further doubt on the evidence—they found nothing, remember?—Bush continued to present the case to the American people as a slam dunk, a case of incontrovertible fact.

But I suppose Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jaques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, the UN inspectors, Tony Blair, John Kerry, William Cohen, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, George Tenet, Joseph Lieberman, Joseph Biden, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright would have done exactly the same thing in Bush’s shoes, and gone ahead and invaded Iraq anyway.

At least I think that’s what you’re saying.

My head hurts.

I think you reasoning would prove that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jaques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, the UN inspectors, Tony Blair, John Kerry, William Cohen, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, George Tenet, Joseph Lieberman, Joseph Biden, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright and assorted others were all irrational hawks.

All concluded that Saddam had WMD programs BEFORE G.W. Bush was president and presumably had the ability to work his wicked seductive delusions upon them.

Or is the question one of becoming anticipatorily duped?

I don’t know if hp examined the issue at the time, but if so, I suspect he concluded that Saddam had indeed invaded Kuwait.

To those who supported the war, the best way you can atone for it is to boycott Rupert Murdoch’s media, to vote the war criminals out, and to be deeply, deeply suspicious of politicians who try to manipulate your patriotism and your fears.

Did you, by any chance, undertake a similar course of study at the time of the first Gulf War, and did you, by any chance, conclude that, at that time, Western intelligence agencies had grossly underestimated Iraq’s WMD capabilities? I mean, before everyone else discovered the same thing?

If so, perhaps the C.I.A. (or somebody) should hire you.

If not, perhaps not.

In other words, I was right.

My question is, how is this possible? To go by what I keep hearing from the pro-war apologists, a rational person would not have come to the same conclusion I did. And yet I was right on all the facts, and all the rational people were wrong. Was it merely a lucky guess on my part? Because it didn’t feel like a guess; it felt like a reasoned, informed conclusion. How is it possible that my delusions correspond to reality, and the hawks’ reasoned analyses correspond to fantasy?

No, I did actually say “intimidate,” as part of “dismantle, intimidate, browbeat and circumvent.” So “intimidate” wasn’t the silly part. Try again.

(Hint #2: the phrase “bureaucracy and intelligence community” might not be simply interchangeable with a specific agency you mentioned in your post.)

Yea you didn’t actually say intimidate. Heck you didn’t even type it but you did type browbeat and circumvent its own intelligence community.

Pardon me if I summarized that as intimidate. What ever was I thinking? How horrible unfair of me.

Here’s a little hint: ask yourself where I said, above, that “Bush needed to intimidate the CIA into believe that Saddam had . . . serious stuff.” If you don’t see that phrase or its equivalent anywhere, take a deep breath ask yourself if maybe you should be asking me more specifically what I meant instead of kicking over a convenient straw man. Who knows, if you do this I might even give you some links! You like links, don’t you?

The notion that Bush needed to intimidate the CIA int believing that Saddam had a lot f serious stuff doesn’t pass the laugh test. Not CT’s lame and over used laugh test but a real laugh test.

And finally provide the fing link. No? Didn’t think so troll.

The above statement is so fraught with illogic and problems of its evidence that I would not say it. How would I know that he knew that something was not? What would evidence of that look like?

My position is that WMD were not part of the thinking behind the policy, they were merely part of selling the policy. The actions of this administration bear that out, so I don’t need to speculate about what they believed, nor do I need to whine about tone. Being familiar with the subject means that I don’t have to change it.

Oh, and when we ever get around to investigating the role of the OSP and INC, I will be very interested to see what Mr. Lederer has to say.

In the meantime, those responsible for what’s happened in Iraq must be punished. For now, that’s what’s wrong with our systems.
.