Bat: It seems foolish to me that any inspections of any sort would be accurate in a country controlled by an absolute dictator. To make accurate inspections, the inspectors would have to effectively run the country while they were inspecting things, and it would take more than a handful of them to do the job. I have never regarded the lefties’ belief in inspections to be well-founded.

Eighty-one Democrats in the House voted for war in Iraq

They did not vote “for war”. They voted to allow the use of force only after diplomatic means of disarming Iraq were exhausted. Have you actually read the resolution?

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that –

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;

At the time of that resolution it had been four years since Saddam Hussein had kicked out the UN weapons inspectors, and, in the wake of 9/11, people were justifiably worried that Saddam might have reconstituted his weapons programs. It was crucial to get the inspectors back in.

As a result of that congressional resolution, the UN was persuaded to pass 1441. As a result of that congressional resolution and UN 1441, Saddam allowed the inspectors back in. The inspectors received an unprecedented level of cooperation from the Iraqi regime. They were well along in verifying that Saddam’s weapons programs had NOT been reconstituted when Bush kicked them out to start his war.

There are two points to make here: First, sometimes you have to threaten war to achieve peace. By giving Bush a credible threat of war, the congress was able to convince Saddam to let the inspectors back in. The second point is that conditions changed dramatically between September, 2002 and March, 2003. By March ’03, we had evidence from the inspectors that previous fears of reconstituted weapons programs had been overblown. Also, other evidence the administration had used to promote the war had become discredited.

Let me echo Bat by saying that the threat of war is only credible when the nation has the will to use it.

You are ignoring the fact that the threat of war in this case WAS credible and it had the desired effect which was that UN 1441 was passed and Saddam let the inspectors back in.

Saddam may well have attempted to bribe a weapons inspector, but the inspector didn’t accept the bribe. Do you have any evidence that any inspectors falsified their reports or accepted money from Saddam?

How about the fact that he bribed reporters to tip him off about where the weapons inspectors were heading?

Evidence, please.

Certainly the weapons inspectors didn’t feel their work was a “canard”.

How about the fact that, at the time of invasion, Iraq was in violation of no fewer than 16 UN resolutions?

The topic is: did Saddam allow the UN Weapons Inspectors to do their job?

the Koreans were enriching uranium and building a nuclear weapons capacity right under the noses of those same inspectors

You are incorrect. The North Koreans didn’t enrich any uranium while IAEA monitoring was in place and UN weapons inspectors have never had full access to North Korea.

Second, even if there were WMDs and they were “spirited out”, then you’re saying Bush managed to lose the WMD’s in spite of his invasion and botched occupation of Iraq.

Will,

If I ever feel the need to have someone else tell me what it is I’ve said, or thought, I’ll be sure to ask. Meanwhile, however, putting your words in the mouth of someone else is not only a pathetically adolescent tactic, appealing as it does to smaller, juvenile minds, but it is also rude… offensively so.

While we can certainly agree that the Iraq war and reconstruction have not gone as smoothly as anyone would have liked, it is also true that the same could be said for the American Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I and World War II, none of which would have ever been won had your line of… ahem… “reasoning” been followed by those in charge.

It’s all well and good to criticize. That is your right. But for all the braying, whining, and carping that you and the rest of the left have done, I don’t recall even one modestly salient suggestion on how to improve the situation. Other than running away, of course.

Saddam letting the inspectors back in was a canard, and you know it.

No, as you are well aware, I don’t. I know that the inspectors were quite effective after the first gulf war, and I know that they reported a higher level of cooperation from Saddam before the Bush invasion.

Can you demonstrate why you feel the 2003 inspections were a “canard”?

Until you can demonstrate exactly what items and materials were spirited out of Iraq by truck and plane by Iraqi and Russian forces, into Syria and Iran, and until you can adequately account for the joint Iraqi/Libyan/Egyptian WMD efforts in Libya, including nuclear, your statement that “previous fears… were overblown.” is simply more dangerously delusional fluff.

First, the Bush administration agrees with the Duelfer report that there weren’t WMDs in Iraq. Second, even if there were WMDs and they were “spirited out”, then you’re saying Bush managed to lose the WMD’s in spite of his invasion and botched occupation of Iraq.

Bat: Great points, to which I would add another: Starting with Carter, and continuing through Clinton, the intel capabilities of our country were so downgraded that we really didn’t know what was going on in the ME. As such, it was criminally negligent for Clinton to ignore the terrorist threat, and absolutely necessary for George Bush to act. It would have been irresponsible for him not to, with what we knew then, especially after the terrorist attack of 9/11. The entire meme of blaming Afghanistan for 9/11, as pushed by the Dems, is ridiculous in the face of the international threat of Islamic terror.

Robert108,

An excellent point. And one completely lost on those who so fiercely espoused inspections in the first place.

The whole notion of UN/IAEA inspections had two real purposes… neither of which had anything to do with “contaning” Saddam of establishing that he was violating either the peaces Accords of the 1991 War or any of the previous 16 UN Security Council Resolutions.

The true purpose of the so-called “inspections” was to preclude any attempt to unseat Saddam, who was lavishly bribing his way out of containment. The second point was to try to garner some modest level of credibility and authority over international affairs and US foreign policy in particular for the United Nations.

Those on the left are simply enamored of the ridiculous idea that the UN is the sole source of foreign and military policy legitimacy, which is an absurd and dangerous notion on its face. One more “legacy” of our last two Democrat presidents to be overcome by those of us for whom American sovereignty is not some sort of evil phrase… like “under God.”

Steve L: I also read the entire Duelfer Report, and found the MSM’s characterization of it to be completely false. It revealed the threat of Saddam very clearly, including his desire to manipulate the UN and the media.

(S)ometimes you have to threaten war to achieve peace. By giving Bush a credible threat of war, the congress was able to convince Saddam to let the inspectors back in.

Let me echo Bat by saying that the threat of war is only credible when the nation has the will to use it. Diplomacy only works when there are consequences for not engaging in it.

The problem with people like Will is that there seems to be almost no situation where they’re willing to make those consequences a reality.

Saddam Hussein had made a mockery of international diplomatic efforts long enough.

Oh, I don’t know, maybe the fact that Saddam was using oil-for-food money to try and bribe weapons inspectors?

How about the fact that he bribed reporters to tip him off about where the weapons inspectors were heading?

How about the fact that, at the time of invasion, Iraq was in violation of no fewer than 16 UN resolutions?

How many more resolutions would Saddam have had to wipe his butt with before people like Will would finally be able to hold that man accountable?

I’d go on, but I suspect that no amount of evidence will convince Saddam-apologist Will of that dictator’s evil intent.