Or that 2 liter bottles of anthrax aren't just lying around waiting to be planted.

You're telling me that the US or British government couldn't get their hands on any?

I wouldn't be surprised if we actually did find WMD, but were unable run around screaming "i told you so" because we'd surely be accused by the entire world of planting them ourselves.

If Blair and Bush did not make the WMD stories up, then the intelligence they received was either lousy or tampered with. Over 600 Americans are dead (and several dozen Brits) because of their decision to go to war over WMD. And the cost to taxpayers is in the hundreds of billions of dollarts.

Has anyone been fired for this intelligence fiasco? The lack of concern in this administration for why the intelligence was so far off suggests that they do not really care about it. I think they only used the WMD as a reason to sell the war to the publoc and once they got the war, they lost interest in the WMD.

The WMD issue was solid and needed resolving. However, it was not the only reason for going to war. The true reason is that Saddam was in constant breach of UN resolutions, and "final consequences" had to be administered.

I too am a bit mad that Bush sold the war on WMD. I felt we could have dealt a real blow to the UN (to reform it properly) by emphasizing the need to enforce resolutions. With force if necessary.

But remember, had many countries agreed with us, this could have ended more diplomatically. Or an invasion to remove Saddam could have been a simple move like removing Charles Taylor. But big names like France & Russia resisted us. Why? They had dirty hands that would get exposed to the world once we went in and read a few papers laying around.

Dirty dirty laundry everywhere. So diplomacy failed not because of us, but because of corrupt world leaders.

Scott:

If the true reason for the invasion is that Iraq continually violated UN resolutions, then Bush was very wrong to sell the war to the public based on WMD posession. Also, it seems unlikely that America would have been sold on fighting a war based solely on enforcing UN resolutions. Therefore the tactic of selling the war on WMD possession appears to be a tactic to drag the country into a war they would not otherwise have supported.

Funny, I can quote the words with which President Bush sold the war. In his 2002 speech before the UN:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/bush.transcript/

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear to him and to all, and he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations. He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge, by his deceptions and by his cruelties, Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities, which the council said threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights and that the regime's repression is all-pervasive.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise.

Last year, the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini and Armeni nationals remain unaccounted for; more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council through Resolution 687 demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.

Iraq's regime agreed that broke this promise.

In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections.

Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with scud warheads, aerial bombs and aircraft spray tanks.

U.N. inspectors
Who?
U.N. inspectors
Who?
U.N. inspectors
Who?
U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

Whose intelligence?

The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations, and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspector set foot in Iraq -- four years for the Iraqi regime to plan and to build and to test behind the cloak of secrecy. We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left?

The history, the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein regime is a grave and gathering danger.

The United States help found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective and respectful and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime.

Why are some people in this country on the other side? Cause some people:

"In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials."

Some people took the cash, and traded peace for oil.

Other people:

"We must stand up for our security and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand...."

"And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well. "

But they, like the American Left, took the money.

Also, it seems unlikely that America would have been sold on fighting a war based solely on enforcing UN resolutions.
Then how would one explain the first Gulf War, the one that enforced all of the UN resolutions and didn't go a step further?
Let me guess....underfunding of the military in the Bush 41 administration?

Ochhisms:

I am an American and live in the United States. I do not care much about UN Resolutions. I care about what is in the interests of my country. Bush talked about the need to rid Iraq of WMD. It was the WMD story that sold the war to the American people. I think very few Americans could give a sh*t about enforcing a UN Resolution.

The first Gulf War had nothing to do with enforcing a UN Resolution. That was only the legal pretext for fighting a war that the leaders of the US and the UK believed was in their interest. Countries fight wars to pursue what their leadership believe is in their interests. They do not fight to enforce resolutions made by a bunch of corrupt foreign diplomats.

The WMD story was something that scared Americans. It made the Iraq invasion something that seemed to be in their interests. Enforcing UN Resolutions, liberating the Iraqis, pumping oil may all have been other goals of this administration, but the American people would not have bought into the war if it was not for the WMD story. And having had them in the past is not the same as having them now. The fact that the American people were sold on a war to remove WMD that are no where to be found is a real scandal for the Bush administration.

Dan

I notice an absence of quotes by President Bush "talk[ing] about the need to rid Iraq of WMD."

You'd think you could find at least one, if indeed they are so plentiful.

If the first Gulf War was fought for America's interests and not to enforce UN resolutions...why did the US Army ever withdraw from the Kuwaiti oil fields?

Occhisms:

Here is one website with lots of quotes from the Bush Administration playing up the Iraqi WMD threat:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0825bush.htm

My recollection is that the Bush administration was playing up the WMD angle to sell the war. The UN resolutions were simply legal cover.

And about the Gulf War. First, why would it be in America's interests to occupy Kuwaiti oil fields once they were restored to the Kuwaitis? Second, I do not believe that America ever pulled out of Kuwait. I believe we have kept a military presence there ever since the Gulf War.

Dan