Originally posted by Erlkonig
This goes for both questions: probably because he believed, with some justification, that inspection teams were loaded with American and British spies.
2, maybe 3 of 30+ and none of those being confirmed can't really be called 'loaded', which in turn does't really give 'some justification'. What you are speaking of did happen but is almost 'ancient history' in terms of the events we are talking about here.
Also, due to the largely baseless accusations by Iraq of what you allude to above, the inspection teams were heavily 'revamped' (curiously enough the major effect of this was to take 8 of the top 10 best WMD inspectors in terms of international opinion and have them removed from future assignments in Iraq - I'm not so sure Iraq was worried about them being spies - more likely they were opposed to them being good at their job) from 1994 onward.
So, in 2002 and 2003, when dealing with what most experts in the field of WMD non-proliferation considered to be the 'B-Team', headed by a WMD inspector characterized as a 'sweet old grandpa type that has lost a step mentally', why would Iraq still give them the run-around? The evidence given to the U.N. by the U.S. and the U.K. about Iraq's efforts to thwart the latest and much more 'friendly' WMD inspection team was refuted by no one , including Iraq.
In mid-late 2002 the ball was sqaurely in Hussein's court. He could have launched an international public affairs-type campaign that would have assured his security if he had nothing to hide. Invite Western media to accompany inspection teams, give simple evidence of destruction, or even avoid lying over things like the continued modification of missiles where the only purpose for the modification was to allow them to reach Israel. He did none of this. He's either terminally stupid, which is unlikely when you consider how long he's avoided the efforts of various groups of well motivated and intelligent individuals who were out to kill him, or there's more to the story than Howard Dean, John Kerry, and the majority of the media outlets are currently aware of.
I'd place a lot more faith in the supposedly informed/educated opinions of the 'naysayers' (especially the highly political ones) if they actually were putting their reputations on the line when they said what they said.
Kerry (D-Mass) is convinced the people of the U.S. were lied to to start a war and that there was no credible WMD threat (even though he voted for offensive military action vs. Iraq months before the speech by Bush that everyone is calling 'proof of lying' nowadays) - fine. If he's that convinced, then stake his political career on it - have him resign from all offices if he's ever proved wrong.
Hey, I know that can't and won't happen - but some people need to reduce the credibility rating of information from sources that have much to gain if they are believed.
Intelligence may have been cut-and-pasted to prove a point. That is wrong but the true ***** is that no one is going to know for sure if that happened for another 29 years probably (when the relevant raw intelligence can be vetted for FOIA release). But the claim that there were no WMD and there was no threat was contrary to what more than 'only a couple of people' believed. And Blair is also not getting a fair shake - he's been stating his #1 international relations issue is non-proliferation of WMD since the day he was selected for his job and that was well before 11SEP01.
Also, there's no 'abbreviated chain of command' to allow the President to 'cut-and-paste' intelligence to support his arguments as cleanly and secretively as some people have claimed was done. There are numerous career professionals involved in that chain of information that are loyal to the job and the U.S. as opposed to loyal to any given President. If the 'selective analysis' that some in the media say took place to the extent that they imply it did my opinion is that you would have had a resignation or two by now. Career intelligence officers distrust the motives of elected politicians and their cronies/appointees as much as they distrust the media in terms of bias.
On a side note, here's a good collection of reports on Iraq, WMD, etc.:
http://www.cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/index.htmMike/wulfie
