Joe,
"Meanwhile, back at the ranch literally, the men you so blithely put your faith in aren't really trying to build a democracy, that was never their aim until the weapons of mass destruction story evaporated. They are trying, like the good oil executives that they are, to secure supplies of petroleum for the future of their industry, uh country and now are looking at Iran and, I must say, not liking what they see. tsk tsk tsk."
That's a hell of an assertion, and one that is made over and over and over. On what do you base
your opinion that the Administration's decision to go into Iraq was entirely "to secure supplies of petroleum for the future (strang emphasis on personal rather than national gain)"? Why do you so completely dismiss all of the other factors that led to our entering Iraq? How do you "know" that the President was not concerned with freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator, and "never" intended that a free and moderate democracy be built there?
You imply, as do others, that the Administration "knew" that Saddam had no WMD, but knowingly lied about the matter to the nation. How soon people forget!
For over a decade, Saddam did everything in his power to frustrate UN inspection to assure compliance with cease-fire conditions. He restricted where and when inspections could take place. It is true that the inspectors found virtually no evidence of WMD, and there was evidence that Saddam was playing a shell game on the inspectors. It was known with no doubt whatsoever that Saddam had once possessed huge stocks of chemical weapons, and had used them on defenseless civilian populations. He had spent huge sums in trying to acquire nuclear weapons (probably he only wanted nuclear weapons as a deterrent to aggressive U.S. colonialism, right?
). For decades after agreeing to divest himself of such weapons, Saddam acted in a manner that fostered the strong international belief that he still had forbidden weapons, and might still be attempting to build a nuclear program. Saddam had violated other cease-fire agreements, and even stepped up his local oppression and terror campaign, so why would he shrink from violating the agreement about scrapping weapons that he so dearly loved?
Because Congress and prior Administrations constrained the U.S. Intelligence community's development of HUMINT networks, our information was overly reliant on data collected from afar. Satellite photos showed suspicious facilities, and transfer of cargos in a secret manner. Communications intercepts were filled with oblique references that seemed to be refereing to forbidden weapon stocks, and programs of a highly suspicious nature. There was no doubt whatsoever that Saddam was concealing at least some military aircraft and missiles that were supposed to be destroyed. There was solid information that agents in Russia, Germany and France were selling products to Saddam, in violation of the cease-fire, that could be used in connection with chemical and biological weapons systems. These, and other, information strongly suggested that Saddam had WMD (I really hate that term, because it is sooo in accurate of the actual weapons being referred to) in violation of the cease-fire agreements. If you take the trouble to go back and re-read the postings on A2K prior to the "invasion", you might recall that opponents of the Administration were highly vocal in their predictions that Coalition forces would be decimated by WMD, and that the Saddam's "secret weaponry" would prolong and extend the conflict to world proportions. As it turned out, everyone, except for a few mavericks, were mistaken.
Given the weight of the evidence, it was commonly believed by this country's military/intelligence community that Saddam had and would use WMD against neighboring states, or the United States if he got the chance. There isn't a shred of evidence that the President had better information about Saddam's capabilities and intentions than the intelligence specialists who were trying to penetrate Saddam's secrecy. As it happened to turn out, Saddam had virtually no WMD. Instead of being relieved that our troops were not attacked by poison, nerve, or biological agents, the Left immediately began this campaign to distort the facts.
Its a long way from making an understandable mistake, to proof that the President to the United States knowingly lied in order to advance his personal agenda of prosecuting a war against some innocent victim.
You are correct in saying that I, nor anyone else,
knows for a certainty that the Iraqi People would prefer liberty to life under a religious dictatorship where women have no rights at all, and that a person can be killed by the mere decree of a religious leader. The Iraqi's who so courageously braved terrorist threats to vote for a democratic government might have been coerced out into the streets by our Marine storm troopers, but I don't think so. Its hard for me to believe that most of the downtrodden of the world do not yearn for freedom and control of their own destiny. Do common people prefer life in the 8th century to the comforts and benefits of living in the consumer world of the 21st? Sure its possible some do. Would you willingly give up the benefits of living in America, for life under the thumb of a Mullah, or a hard-shell Baptist preacher?
Of course, I assume that most of the world's Peoples yearn to live in liberty and free from oppression. If it were otherwise, would our borders be crowded with people trying to get into the country instead of out of it? I am not ashamed of my passion for liberty and the Constitution. I have not lost faith in our institutions, our People, or our elected leaders.
")