(a) UNMOVIC publically shot down Bush’s intelligence sources on the mobile WMD trailers in February 2003, and were bringing aircraft that could monitor any suspicious movements surrounding all inspected sites. Does Bush get to be just suspicious about WMD or should he request and act only upon intelligence that was given a high degree of reliability?
(b) SH through his UN liason, offered in December 2002, to let the CIA, FBI, and US military come into Iraq to search for evidence of WMD alongside UN inspectors in the thousands, if need be to avert war. Bush rejected that offer flat out saying, let rhe UN handle it. So your suggestion that Bush could ‘reasonably conclude that UNMOVIC wasn’t up to the task’ is terribly weak and not reasonable at all, with examination of ALL that was said and done at the time.
We got our answer on that already, didn’t we? Turns out Bush preferred his own sources to reliable ones.
Perhaps he believed that no inspectors would be able to locate the Iraqi WMDs, so carefully were they hidden. Here is a New York Times editorial from 2002 that argues that exact idea. And if you believe that the weapons are being so carefully hidden as to defy inspections, then invasion is the only way to be sure that the current regime won’t use them or give them to those who would.
After all, if you’re convinced Iraq has WMDs, and they invite you in to make sure they don’t, that just means they’ve hidden them very, very well, right? And when months go by and UNMOVIC hasn’t found what you are certain must be there, the only option is war, right? Such is the grip of fallacious thinking, and confirmation bias.
So there you have it. Clearly Bush was not ‘enforcing’ or complying with the AUMF or UN Resolution 1441 which he voluntarily obligated himself to the latter by voting for it.
Bush was required by 1441 to provide all WMD intelligence to UN inspectors. So apparently you think he was not doing so.
And still it is not insane to you when Bush lied to you on March 17, 2003 when he said that war was necessary only after he tried to work with the UN but they failed, not him.
The President of the U.S. does not vote in the UN Security Council.
Bush did provide intelligence, sites identified by the CIA were inspected by UNMOVIC. On that matter and others, the UN inspectors concluded that the intelligence was incorrect. Bush disagreed on this point, embracing the doctrine that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
The link you posted from the NYTimes is dated September 2002. By January 2003, most of the opinion if concerns they posted were outdated and were being addressed by UN Res 1441 which Bush sought and got what he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully,
Just to be clear, Human Action, weren’t you in agreement with Senator Clinton that it was necessary that Iraq be verified disarmed and brought into compliance with his disarmament agreement, as opposed to John Mace’s view that he could care less if Iraq had WMD?
I referenced that article to refer to a specific mindset, that inspections would not uncover the real truth of the matter, even if well-intentioned and thorough.
That mindset was still in place in 2003, at least amongst the person empowered to decide to go to war and his inner circle.
I never thought Iraqi WMDs would be a threat to the U.S. even if they existed, but there is value in enforcing treaties and holding state actors accountable to them. It promotes the rule of law, and strong oversight can head off larger disasters (Remilitarization of the Rhineland, for instance.)
On that basis, I supported the inspection and disarmament process.
What about, in the perspective of the times in 2002, the possibility that Saddam’s suspected stockpiles could accidentally or purposely fall into the hands of terrorist groups? That was never a concern to you?
The declassified National Intelligence Estimate – the one that most elected officials did not read before voting for war – had some insights on this point.
So if you read that accurately, it means that intelligence officials were warning that attacking Iraq would make Saddam more likely to use WMD against the United States. Which is completely the opposite of the “Iraq might give WMD to Al Qaida to attack us while we sleep!” hysteria.
I take it then that you do not agree with the consensus view following 9/11 of the vast number of legislaters and the Administration as well as a solid majority of the general public, that Iraq’s possible possession of WMD needed to be eliminated even if it took regime change and war to do it. Is that correct?
I think SH’s Iraq was one of the least likely regimes to be involved in aiding terror attacks agains the US. We had him boxed in with a no fly zone an intense surveillance. I’ve been 100x more worried about Pakistan or NK than Iraq, not to mention all the ex-Soviet Republics with untested governments and access to all sorts of Cold War weaponry. I pitied the fool who had to go to Iraq for WMDs when there were soooo many other places with easy pickins.
I’ve probably linked to this poll from Oct 2002 a half dozen times over the years, and it’s interesting to see that most Americans were not fooled by W, although apparently at least one poster in this thread was.
Of particular interest:
Not Fooled by W, in 2002. They didn’t need to wait until 2003.
If only our esteemed Senators had been as wise, and had insisted on the Levin amendment.
Even so, the dominating underlying theme for the Iraq invasion war mongers was one true statement that Iraq was in defiance of international law with regard to it’s WMD disarmament obligations to the UN Security Council.
Bush and Cheney’s WHIG Labor Day start of their public conning blitz according to Andy Card about Iraq’s WMD capacity had zero to no chance of being effectively countered or stymied by defending an international outlaw. There had to be another way to stop the he’ll bent for leather drive for war that paid no heed to intelligence and known realities at that time.
If you would copy what I wrote, it might come to you… “that Iraq’s possible possession of WMD needed to be eliminated”. If I wrote, "the threat of Iraq’s possible possession of WMD needed to be eliminated"would that clear it up for you. Being accurate does require mentioning that it was not known for certain whether Iraq had WMD or not in October 2002.
It’s done in the way we have been discussing for a week or so. Completing the UN Inspection Process.