“. . .we went in to Iraq with the best info we had at the time.” THE BEST INFO? What do you mean by that, praytell? Shortly before the US invaded Iraq, the UN uncovered crude forgeries used by the Bush administration to justify its immoral and unjust war. Did these forgeries give the Bush administration or the US Congress any pause? Hardly! The administration had to hurry up and attack, before its case totally unraveled. For the warmongering Bush administration to use the greatest military power in the world to attack an impoverished and disarmed third world country on false pretenses is the ultimate betrayal of any kind of trust.

Here are some brief snippets gathered from initial searching:
1989

In March, the CIA director reported to Congress that Iraq was the largest chemical weapons producer in the world.

The State Dept reported that Iraq continued to develop chemical and biological weapons, as well as new missiles

The Bush administration that year approved dozens of export licenses for sophisticated dual-use equipment to Iraq’s weapons ministry.

In October, international banks cut off all loans to Iraq. The Bush administration responded by issuing National Security Directive 26, which mandated closer links with Iraq, and included a $1 billion loan guarantee.

This loan guarantee freed up cash for Iraq to buy and develop WMDs.

This directive was suspended only on August 2, 1990, the day Iraq invaded Kuwait.

1990

Between July 18 and August 1 (the day before the invasion), the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology sales to Iraq’s weapons ministry and to weapons labs that were known to have worked on biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

I can’t rely much on memory, since I wasn’t paying much attention to this kind of thing at the time, but there appears to be evidence that we were supporting him to some degree right up until the invasion.

My point is primarily that we were involved with supporting Saddam and Iraq during the period when they *were* actually employing chemical weapons, and ironically enough then turned around 20 years later and invaded them on an accusation of the same, which by this point was false.

The infamous and often referenced Halabja attacks, in which Saddam viciously used chemical weapons on his own people, occurred in 1988, after which we continued to support, supply, and fund him for two years. Now we come back and point to that act as evidence of his being an “imminent threat”. If he is a terrorist for doing this, then what does that make us (by the administration’s own standards) for supporting him?

More info: (on earlier relations)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

I’m not suggesting that it was the same type of situation, just illustrating that it’s not a black and white issue. Even if they knowingly allowed them to be in their country, it still doesn’t mean they had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Don’t forget that we had a hand in arming and working with both bin Laden and Saddam when it suited us (as puppets to fight against the Soviets and Iran, respectively). As I’ve said before, does that make us an accomplice to what they did later, since we helped them become who they are now?

You can’t have it both ways. If Iraq is to accept blame for at some point in the past being friendly with al Qaeda, then the US must accept the same level of blame maintaining a much more active relationship (including providing arms) to both bin Laden and Saddam.

http://tinyurl.com/cven8

A laundry list of other things which I would also agree are bad doesn’t in any way negate my original point, which is that what we’ve done and are doing now is bad. You are pulling the same old stuff, trying to change the subject and point the finger elsewhere instead of addressing the issue. That’s like if we’re walking down the street and I see someone beating the crap out of someone else, and yell out for them to stop, and you then telling me to shut up, because someone got beat up on that same corner last week and the week before.

As for “going into Iraq with the best info we had at the time”, that has been proven to be incorrect, as I elaborated on in my previous comment; since you admit that you didn’t read it, it doesn’t seem to be very logical to post a reply to something you haven’t read. Intelligence officials presented evidence against our case and they were ignored and told to find what the administration wanted them to find.

Sure, there are lots of other secondary reasons for going in that the administration has promoted (after the fact) to being primary reasons - none of which would have sealed the deal (with congress nor the American people) at the time, and the administration knew it, which is why they needed the scare tactic WMD story.

One such secondary reason often cited is the UN resolutions. Our selective enforcement of UN resolutions is probably a big enough subject for it’s own post, but suffice it to say that the evidence definitely points towards extreme prejudice in our choice of who we invade over violations of U.N. resolutions. Not to mention the hypocrisy of ignoring most U.N. member states’ opinion on the matter of our invasion, while at the same time conveniently claiming to be carrying out the invasion for the sake of enforcing their resolution.

In addition, despite U.S. efforts to veto almost every U.N. resolution against Israel, who also stockpiles WMDs and abuses and persecutes whole sections of their society, Israel has still somehow managed to get many U.N. sanctions against their internationally recognized bad behavior. Why is the U.S. not adamantly enforcing international law in this case, if you claim that it is right for us to do so in Iraq?

Dont get all excited, I didn’t read your posts as I dont have enough time.
Where is all the decrying of clinton’s fake war with kosovo when he and monica were in the 0ral office?
wag the dog is what it is…
how about the massive chinese in africa?
How about the UN Oil for food scam outcry? you have to be angry about that ripoff, that involves many poor people who are hungry, while the bsers were talking the big game they lined their pockets, why no intense demand of investigation of Kofi and his son( the Newest Billionaire - the poor kid from africa strikes it rich ).
The outcry selection, especially in the media in the us smacks so much of hypocracy.

I think we went in to Irag with the best info we had at the time. Including the backing of the UN resolutions, until France and Germany wanted to cover their buns due the Fact they were doing brisk business with Sssssadam.

I will comment on tech or other.
That is all I am out of here on the politico bickering, so you will have the last word on this JB - have fun.