The only thing missing here, and quite glaringly so, is "He had weapons." I guess Bush, too, has given up on that one.

It's too bad Bush couldn't have articulated the "threat" like he did this morning back in the days during the run-up to the "liberation" instead of telling us that the sky was falling. I think Congress, the U.N. and the world would have appreciated it.

So how did you think the rest of the interview went?

If this is all Bush could come up with for why to go to war with Iraq, the guy should be impeached (and convicted).

Dan, in Iraq we setting a precedent. That's the reason for us being there. It might not be a precedent you’re comfortable with, and I can respect that. But from my reading this administration been much more honest about everything than has it’s opponents. The administration has been wrong plenty of times, and it needs to held accountable for the mistakes, but for context twisting and revisionist history you’ve got to look at the opposition for the state of the art.

I can not understand how the fact that Saddam had these weapons can be up for debate. He used these weapons, therefore he had them. Did he destroy them? Maybe. But he chose to play games with the UN inspectors and never prove (as he was supposed to) that he had destroyed them. The other completely fascinating thing to me is that no one seems to be considering the more obvious answer: that Saddam sold/gave away these weapons to other countries or terrorist groups. He had the weapons, he now doesn't- let's do the math. I'm surprised that you, Dan, are so comfortable trusting Saddam. Realistically, don't you think it's a problem that we haven't found weapons that everyone knows existed?

Rick, I didn't see the interview. I just read the transcript. I'm going to try to catch a replay or get it from my school's library.

Mark:

The precedent seems to be invading countries under false pretenses.

Kashei:

Where are the WMD? What was Hussein's threat to the U.S.? So what if he had a few WMD over a decade ago. There does not seem to be any evidence at all that he had them as of March 2003, nor does it appear that he threatened the U.S. I think that either there was a massive intelligence failure or that intelligence was manipulated or a combination of both. Someone should be fired or go to jail for what went on. Whether Bush should be in jail or fired is an open question, but his indifference towards the truth makes me think jail is where he should be.

Dan

Dan, your questioninig of the threat to the US from Saddam is valid. It is a pretty fair question back in March of 2003 and today. Yet many who think like you wanted a classic Hollywood version of the threat revealed - something akin to cutting the camera away from the Bruce Willis protagonist to the terrorists, whereby we hear their every conversation and see the evil plot. Did we really expect Saddam to declare war on us? Openly, in English, in those exact words?

America has been building a case against this madman for years, a case with far more evidence than WMD. It is true that the WMD focus may have been a tactical bad move by Bush, but this does not in any way whatsoever negate the other numerous and horrible things Saddam has done.

And back to the threat. A threat is no longer defined by Soviet ICBMs pointed at us from 90 miles away in Cuba. That was then, this way now.

Another key point many people miss is the universal pervasiveness of America in the world - what Bush routinely calls "America's Interests." Many on the Left like to call this Oil, but we have far greater interests abroad, such as human rights watchers, AIDs doctors, clinics, businesses, diplomacy venues, etc. It is these very interests that were receiving the most threats. And our interests are America.

Let me repeat: Our interests abroad are America.

Refusing to help protect those interests and encouraging attacks on those interests was evidenced by Saddam. He continued to try to obtain WMDs. Evidence even from David Kayt shows this. If it were not for US efforts and international efforts to stop him, he would have had them. But the fact remains, he would try and try and try again.

Like a rapist released after serving 30 years, Saddam would rape again. What Bush in effect was doing was enacting a version of 3-strikes and you're out. Saddam had more than 3 strikes, lots more.

That's what this is all about. Redefining Threat. A dictator engaged in repeated horrendous and criminal behavior that shows no signs whatsoever of changing must be considered a threat, and must be taken out. It was done diplomatically, Saddam was given warning, and he met his fate.

Nicely done Scott S.

Scott:

Attempting to acquire WMD is not the same as possessing them. We were not really threatened by Iraq in March 2003 when the U.S. launched a war against Iraq. What was the threat that Iraq posed to America? If Iraq backed terrorists against the U.S., that would have been an issue. But no one has shown that Iraq ever did that.

America was sttacked by Al Qaeda which should be our government's main concern. Instead, the U.S. is bogged down in Iraq for who knows how long and at what cost.

Dan

Scott, great comment.

Dan, the pretenses weren't false. Saddam agreed to cooperate with weapons inspectors after his little land grab for Kuwait and he didn’t. (BTW, why is it only people who’s last name is Bush get accused of being motivated only by oil?) We didn’t know the state of Iraq’s arsenal, and Saddam made sure that we stayed in the dark, presumably because he liked everyone thinking that there was, in fact, a pistol in his pocket, and no, he wasn’t necessarily happy to see us.

Here’s the precedent, simplified: Declare yourself an enemy of the United States and you will be treated as a real threat. Stop being a threat, or your country will be forcibly reformed and you will be found in a hole. If 9/11 taught us anything, it should have been that it is dangerous for a country to consider itself immune from attack by killer squirrels. I think Bush gets that. And since no Democrat still in the race seems to, I’m voting Bush in the fall.

I agree 100% that we need to make drastic changes in our intelligence operations, and I'm not at all happy that I've not read anything that suggests we're doing it. Democrats could make hay with that and still support the policy in place. Instead they seem to want to return to a nice pre-9/11 world, where retail politics wasn’t muddled by wholesale slaughter (potential or otherwise) of Americans.

(And by the way, talking about putting Bush in jail probably isn’t the best way to make your arguments sound rational.)

Mark:

Criminals should be placed in jail and it is criminal to lead a country into a war on false premises. The president justified the war in terms of the existence of WMD that were not there.
I do not think I am nitpicking over little things. The U.S. went to war and hundreds of Americans are now dead and hundreds of billions of dollars were wasted.

And I am still waiting to hear how Iraq was a threat.

Dan

Actually, the President justified the war on the grounds of Saddam's failure to comply with a ridiculous number of UN resolutions. To repeat: the existence of the weapons wasn't the justification, the defiance of the terms of the original cease fire was the justification.

If you're going to string the man up on a technicality, at least get the technicalilty right.

Mark:

It is not a technicality. Bush started a war based on the view that Iraq had WMD.

Dan

Dan,
Take a deep breath and review the record.

1. Saddam had WMD's in the past. If he destroyed them, he decieved the world. (BTW, Hussein was then requied to prove that he had destroyed the WMD's.) Playing chicken, partially disassmbling them, or shipping them to Syria (as many now believe) does not count.
2. Saddam had a long history or working with terrorists. I don't mean just funding the PFLP or subsidizing suicide bombings in Israel. Iraq worked with Ansar Al-Islam to destroy the the Kurdish enclave. Ansar Al-Islam is affiliated with Al Queda.
3. Saddam Hussein trained terrorists, including members of the Muslim Brotherhood and islamic Jihad(the parents org of Al Qaeda) in hijaaking jets at his facility in Salman Pak.

All of the above is fact.

Some terrorist experts have gone further. Laurie Mylroi has written a book connecting Saddam Hussein to the initial WTC attack of 1993 and to 9-11.

Saddam got what he deserved.
Syria and Iran should pay attention.

Ron:

1. The weapons were no longer in Iraq so the war appears unjustified. The theory that the weapons were transported to Syria appears to be either an excuse war backers are making for not finding the weapons in Iraq and/or the start of a propaganda campaign by neoconservatives for a U.S. invasion of Syria.

2. Those organizations may be terrorist, but they do not appear to have targeted the U.S. There are many, many terrorist groups around the globe. Few pose a threat to the U.S. Most of their targets are local or regional. It is misguided for the U.S. to start wars to destroy every single terrorist group.

3. I have read some speculation about both Salman Pak and a 93 WTC connection. However, the administration has not made definitive claims about either. This is probably because there is even less evidence for those theories than the WMD claim.

I do not think that the U.S. should attack Syria or Iran. These countries are not the enemy of the United States. We should leave them alone and let them solve their own problems. A war with those countries will leave America overstretched and isolated. I do not see how that would be good for America.

Dan

Uh, I'm not sure if you heard about this thing back in 1979 where American citizens were taken hostage by revolutionaries, some of which have government positions in Iran today. And a fascist regime coming to power built around "death to America" sentiment.

Peter:

The Iranians had pretty good reasons to hate America back in 1979. The U.S. had installed the Shah and backed his oppressive government for decades. I would have hoped that more Americans would have learned their lesson back then that it is a bad idea to interfere in the affairs of other countries. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case.

Anyway, Iran may be oppressive, but it is not fascist. You should not fall into the leftist trap of calling any regime you do not like fascist.

Dan

My point was that Iran considers us an enemy. Even today, the Iranian government still shows support for Islamic terrorism. What line do they have to cross that they haven't already for you to consider them an enemy?
I'm not saying we should attack Iran (or Syria for that matter). I think there are other ways to handle the situation but it's certainly in the interest of our national as well as global security to see a regime change there.

Merriam-Webster offers this definition of fascism: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
It sounds alot like Iran to me.

Peter:

The Iranians are right to consider the U.S. an enemy. But the fault lies in mainly in the actions of the U.S. government. When the president declares them part of the Axis of Evil and threatens them, they are quite rational in regarding the Americans as their enemy. If America stopped acting like such a global bully, our country might have less enemies.

Said Dan; "The precedent seems to be invading countries under false pretenses."

Dan? The answer you're *not* looking for is called the doctrine of preeminece. It's the current National Security Stategy of these United States. You might want to check it out - if only to, you know, speak intelligently on the subject of false pretenses.

Here's your link: www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

You're Welcome.

Art:

Where in the National Security Stategy of these United States does it say that it is U.S. policy to invade countries on false pretenses?

Dan