Exhaustive review sponsored by the Pentagon finds NO link between Saddam, al Qaida

champ76 said
True, true, true. Links are not collaboration, but when there are links, are you allowed to suspect collaboration? And when you have been at war with a country, when the cease fire with that country has been violated numerous times, when resolution after resolution of the UN Security Council directed to that country is ignored, when you have "slam dunk" evidence of wmd's, when you are aware of links between that country and terrorist organizations, when the leader of the country with whom you have been at war is irrational and unpredictable, when you have been attacked and your primary goal is to prevent future, more horrific attacks, when you are hopeful that a stable, democratic country in the midst of the Middle East cauldron and replacement of the irrational, unpredictable leader just might lead to a more stable region, are you not allowed to make your case to go back to war with that country? Are you not allowed to make the case without being called a liar or scoundrel or BushHitler? It's perfectly fine to go back and second guess, especially in light of additional intelligence. But why must we ascribe evil, devious motives to everything the administration did? And why must people who happen to agree with the decision at the time be labeled as blind ignorant followers?

For me and many I know it's not second guessing.

We were right the first time and our position and analysis has not changed an iota since 2001, or even wavered in that time.

The idea that you paint of dutiful public servants simpy erring on the side of caution with imperfect information just doesn't add up. There is too much eveidence to the contrary of a decision that was under consideration PRIOR to 9/11 for reasons that go beyond protecting the United States from terrorism.

Too many lies told, too may bogus threats concocted out of thin air. Too much effort to create fanatastic claims of threats for there to actually be a real, credible threat of any type underneath all that.

And too many dissenting opinions ignored or silenced rather than taken on and openly debunked.

Saddam even would have accepted exile in the end. It was not a delaying tactic, it was down to the terms of his departure.

So, it wasn't about removing Saddam, it was about long term presence in Iraq on our terms, which we have numerous lengthy threads about in the archives. Simple exile followed by elections would not have allowed us to enter the country and be there today in an "enduring" fashion.