But in the actual 2003, inspectors were uncovering no evidence that Saddam had WMDs. You can look at the NTI reports for yourself. Or you just look at what Pete quoted in comment #52. That fits any definition of “progress” by inspectors.

And of course they were finding no evidence of WMDs. We now know he had no WMDs. I accept that we know it now, conclusively, in a way we didn’t in 2003. Just as I accept that we can now go back and look at the actual record to find where mistakes were made.

Anyone can argue in favor of the war, even now. And this discussion isn’t even about the war–it’s about Romney. I don’t see how anyone can argue that Romney was factually correct–or that he shouldn’t know the facts better.

Their administration was full of PNAC signatories of the letter sent to Clinton urging him to use force to remove Saddam. So the weapons were just an excuse.

But they seem to have been moving in that direction, and as long as progress was being made, it’s difficult (impossible) to support an attack.

Yes, they had been “making progress” for over a decade. “unfettered” access was a condition of the 1991 ceasefire (UNSCR 687), an agreement which Iraq violated every provision. Note that the UNSC demanded and Iraq AGREED to provide unfettered access immediately and provide full accountings of all it’s WMD-related activities within 45 days.

A decade later and Iraq still hadn’t complied. Usually when a country violates a ceasefire it signed, the ceasefire is null-and-void. Even so, I thought the attack in 2003 was a bad idea – I would have preferred to wait for a true cassis belli – something Saddam was sure to provide sooner or later given his nature.

So tell me, how many more years of “progress” would have been required before more aggressive action was justified?

UN inspectors never had “completely unfettered access.”

But they seem to have been moving in that direction, and as long as progress was being made, it’s difficult (impossible) to support an attack. From the NTI chronology:

7 March 2003
In a report to the UN Security Council, the IAEA states that in recent weeks Iraq has provided it with considerable documentation related to issues of particular concern. The report also says IAEA inspectors have concluded that it is unlikely Iraq sought high-strength aluminum tubes for a centrifuge program, as the Bush administration claims. With regard to Iraq’s efforts to import high-strength permanent magnets or develop the capability to produce them indigenously, the IAEA concludes none of the magnets or magnet production plans that Iraq has declared could be used specifically in a centrifuge magnetic bearing. The report notes, however, that Iraq does possess the technical know-how and capability to manufacture magnets suitable for enrichment centrifuges, and therefore the IAEA plans to continue monitoring developments in this area. In terms of uranium acquisition, the IAEA has concluded that controversial documents purportedly proving Iraq tried to acquire enriched uranium from Niger are inauthentic. The IAEA report also states that there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities at Iraqi facilities identified in satellite imagery as having been reconstructed or newly built, and there is no sign of other proscribed nuclear-related activities at IAEA inspected sites.
—”The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update,” International Atomic Energy Agency at the Meeting of the United Nations Security Council, 7 March 2003.

Which is what I did at the time. And I found myself wondering why, if we’re sure Saddam has weapons and even know where they are, are the inspectors coming up without nothing despite completely unfettered access?

As has been stated and shown many times, UN inspectors never had “completely unfettered access.”

The future decision to be made is whether Romney should be the President.

His comments at the debate are current data to used in making that future decision.

Romney wasn’t speaking in March 2003. He was speaking in June 2007.

So you really have to leave out what we know now and look at the facts as they were known in early 2003.

Which is what I did at the time. And I found myself wondering why, if we’re sure Saddam has weapons and even know where they are, are the inspectors coming up without nothing despite completely unfettered access?

It was a reasonable question with a likely answer. And it cemented my opposition to the war.

One could say it was a “slam dunk” but that’s a term that was being abused at the time.

Why defend Romney for twisting or omitting facts to make his argument?

I understand that, since he’s running for the Republican nomination, Romney can’t say he fell for a pile of you know what. But does he have to make the pile bigger?

I’m not above the fray, Steve. I’m hip deep in it.

As I said on another thread, I think the choice to invade in 2003 was at least six months premature and I would have gone with the inspectors as a ramped up inspection regime that I called “coercive inspections” before invading.

Well, you sure weren’t saying that in this thread… actually, your remarks/references in this thread work to justify the opposite… What actually happened.

Has your opinion changed since that ‘other thread’ or are you just trying to segue into new position?

My statement of “facts” was about what happened and when. I never said I agreed with anyone’s why.

Your attempt to appear above the fray in saying “I never said I agreed with anyone’s why” is about as ingenuous as George Bush’s “I never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11″… Being literally correct does not make something true but, considering our previous discussions, I don’t think that’s something you’d understand.

I did goof again, I tried to engage you in a civil conversation… Too funny!

I really did want to getcha… not ‘you’ personally but your argument that “we had to do it… we had no choice”.

Well, then you goofed again, because that is so *not* my argument. As I said on another thread, I think the choice to invade in 2003 was at least six months premature and I would have gone with the inspectors as a ramped up inspection regime that I called “coercive inspections” before invading.

Maybe if you stopped assuming what my argument is and started letting me actually state it, it would be helpful.

My statement of “facts” was about what happened and when. I never said I agreed with anyone’s why.

I agree with Rudi- this administration was ginned up for war from the get-go-they had the units deployed to Kuwait to go in- regardless of what the inspectors found or didn’t find. It was more than just a case of the CIA bungling intelligence.

Remember all of the generic warnings by Homeland Security that turned out to be meaningless? How much of that was real and how much was manipulated to get the populace in a state of panic, so that they would accept the invasion?

In short, literally nothing in your attempt to “play gotcha” was accurate. Nice try. Not.

Jason,

Literally nothing was accurate is stretching it, I stand by the “Technically correct but misleading” part, but for the most part you’re right… I was playing gotcha. I really did want to getcha… not ‘you’ personally but your argument that “we had to do it… we had no choice”.

You started with, “Alot of what others are saying on this thread is shaped to push a particular conclusion. I’ll try to offer “just the facts””… And then you turn around and shape your comments to push your own conclusion by delivering only the “facts” that validate your POV.

The majority of Americans realize we were intentionally mislead about Iraq’s WMD’s and what was, and was not, known prior to our invasion of Iraq. As more and more “facts” surface from former Weapons Inspectors, and other sources, the worse the push to war looks. Then you jump in posting hand-picked “facts” saying that that’s not how it was. I’m surprised that you’re surprised at the response you’re getting.

Rudi

I’ll bet the skeletons in this administration’s closet could fill a warehouse. Maybe that’s why there are 5 million WH emails missing and Cheney won’t allow anyone to see his visitor logs. You have a very suspicious mind- but all of their secrecy and lies is bound to create more doubts. I believe it was planned on 9/12 and once it was planned -no one could stop it- like the surge. The intel was formed around the policy.
But we know from Tenet’s book that they wanted to invade Iraq even before 9/11. That was just the excuse.

Add to it the secretive nature of the WH, the insistance on loyalty when picking administrative staff (they seem to recirculate the same people) and all of those missing e-mails, and I now assume they are lying. It would be wrong to assume that now about Romney, but that answer was not an auspicious start. Either he was ill-informed , made an honest slip-up, or he’s bought into the cooked-up rationale that the WH, VP’s office and DOD gave us.

June 6, 2007 at 4:42 pm:

Jason – At what point does spin become a lie?

When you can prove intent. Simply assuming that a misstatement is intentional because the person making it belongs to a party you disagree with isn’t exactly an objective standard.

Well Jason, please tell me how one is suppossed to PROVE intent. By your standard – we might as well give up trying to sort out politicians statements. After all – everyone has a point of view and no point of view is better or worse than the next. In fact lets dump morality all together. If one cannot prove a lie, how can one prove a sin?

The Leaders We Have

By George F. Will
Tuesday, October 3, 2006; Page A17

While leading the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in the summer of 2003, David Kay received a phone call from “Scooter” Libby, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, who wanted a particular place searched: “The vice president wants to know if you’ve looked at this area. We have indications — and here are the geocoordinates — that something’s buried there.” Kay and his experts located the area on the map. It was in the middle of Lebanon.