Also, speaking of disinformation, northern Iraq is where the Kurds live. That’s also the about the only set of people who are unambiguously better off now, after the invasion. The same ones protected by the no-fly zone before Saddam fell. Etc.

I still don’t think I’d say Hitler’s motivations were entirely (or even predominantly) religious in nature. And still the point remains: rational concepts like mutually assured destruction aren’t as effective on people who willingly blow themselves up on a daily basis. It’s a little like threatening to shoot someone who’s suicidal.

Please note carefully what I stated. The “diplopatic” trip to Niger – the chosen diplomat also being Iraq’s nuclear lead – is not dubious, it happened.

A lot has been made over a forged uranium agreement document, but the bottom line is honest people can’t let anti-war and anti-Bush instanity get in the way of good sense.

A forged document that pops up doesn’t mean anything more than someone is able to forge a document, and so badly in this case it could never have been expected to pass scrutiny.

It also has no bearing on a visit to Niger by Iraq’s nuclear point man. It was the absurdity of how a fake piece of paper cleared Saddam’s good name that prompted journalist like Christopher Hitchens to explore the facts. One of his pieces can be seen at http://www.slate.com/id/2139609

Fact: Wissam al-Zahawie was Iraq’s nuclear lead for years and did vivist Niger in 1999 for a supposed diplomatic mission.
Fact: Asside from goats and cowpeas, uranium is the only thing Niger has that anyone would want.
Fact: Niger was Iraq’s yellowcake supplier through the 1980s.
Fact: Iraq having no nuclear energy program, the only logical use for the material is for weapons.
Fact: Anyone who looks at the above four facts and dismisses them as meaningless, is a fool.

al-Zahawie’s trip in 1999 raised eyebrows with Italian, French and British intelligence services. Mind you, there was no knowledge of a uranium deal, just obvious and justified suspicion. News of the visit was passed on to the U.S. from the British. Bush quoted the British report, which concluded there was only one reason why Iraq’s nuclear point man would be visiting a country known only for its uranium (I know, how silly of the British).

Well, then a forged document shows up later? Intersting. Wonder what use there might be for a (horribly crude) forged document showing a yellowcake deal between Iraq and Niger? Can’t imagine why anyone would want to create disinformation, can you?

How easily are people chased off the path of common sense? Quite easily, it seems, if it helps continue an anti-war narrative. Follow the money, friends. The fake document, so poorly forged, proved to be good for what, exactly? Don’t be saps.

The bottom line is even if the document was a bad attempt by Italian intelligence to nail the coffin shut on Saddam, it doesn’t take away from what is too obvious: Iraq bought uranium from Niger in the past, and after losing its hudrends of tons of yellowcake to inspectors after the Gulf War, it chose from everyone at Iraq’s disposal to send al-Zahawie to Niger on a “diplomatic” mission. Give me a break.

From my perspective, if it was intelligence boneheads trying to do a good deed for the world by framing Saddam (thanks alot you guys, you suck at forgery, it is a bit like tossing a bloody glove in O.J.’s yard just to help things along a bit. The crude and all-too convenient “plant” undermined the case, which along with other crude attempts to nail the coffin on the former ball player, resulted in aquittal.

Also, note that I pointed out al Qaeda training camps “were” in Iraq (northern Iraq, to be specific). Saddam said he either didn’t know about them or could do nothing about them, but believe what you will.

The most I can give you is that he didn’t have a problem with terrorists operating out of his country, as it is difficult to believe the Butcher of Baghdad was too timid to expell them.

Another Hanlon’s Razor thing. Clinton needed to look tough, and wanted an excuse to do something. More, Kuwait has a history of fabricating claims against enemies like Iraq (the incubators story, for example), and had a motive to keep relations between the US and Iraq as bad as possible. Doesn’t even have to be a deliberate conspiracy, just people seeing what they want to see.

Not that I even disagree with striking at Iraq on reasonable suspicion. (I didn’t say that the evidence was “worthless”, just inconclusive.) But blowing up a building or two seems more reasonable than wholescale invasion.

It’s not that getting rid of Saddam wasn’t a good thing. It’s that it’s not clear that that good was worth the cost that’s been (and is being) paid in lives and limbs and money.

Mr. Ingles,

You are making the assumption that nefarious despots the world over are rational actors. That’s a dangerous assumption to base policy upon if you happen to be wrong. That’s the assumption everyone made of Hitler before, and even during the beginning of, WWII (spare me a rant about comparing Ahmadinejad to Hitler – I didn’t. This is an illustrative example). Indeed, Pat Buchanan has just penned a book using that fundamental assumption of Hitler, and arguing that WWII could have been completely avoided had Britain ceded Poland instead of giving them a war guarantee. The reality is that Hitler had national expansion and eugenics in mind 15 years earlier when he wrote Mein Kampf. While some – maybe even the majority – of Islamic dictators and governments may not be “true believers” (Saddam Hussein certainly wasn’t deeply religious – at least not until it came execution time and he played the martyr gig), some of them are, and it’s important to keep in mind that their motivations may not be based on well-reasoned positions grounded in a humanistic reality. And even the ones who aren’t religious wackbags rule over people who largely are, so they also have political motivations – Saddam Hussein was a good example. You don’t necessarily need to be religious to be mentally ill and make irrational decisions (Hitler was a good example).

So what policy are you suggesting President Clinton wanted to implement? This was his “baby.”

Are you suggesting that Clinton wanted an excuse for a military strike on Iraq? Was Clinton seeing what he wanted to see? Just what kind of president will it take to accurately assess the evils of our enemies? How much investigating safisfies? How much evidence must there be when even confessions don’t matter anymore?

The intelligence findings and assessments (not just by this country or limited to the assissnation plot) but most other intelligence agencies around the world, considered Saddam a threat or potential threat, including a WMD threat. The reason is simple: He had and used such weapons in the past and he did not or would not prove compliance required under the terms of the ceasefire agreement.

Assassination attempts, threats of terrorist actions against the U.S., sending your nuclear point man on a dipolmatic mission to Niger, having al Qaeda training camps on your soil, providing medical aide and comfort to one of the world’s most wanted terrorists, funding terrorism and all manner of other things, including the oil for food scandal with the UN asside, the bottom line is Saddam violated the terms of a ceasefire at a particularly bad time in history. And for those who don’t know, a return to firing is the usual consequence of a ceasefire violation.

Saddam was too evil, had too much of a grudge, was far too capable and wealthy to ignore, particularly when his non compliance with more than a dozen UN mandates signaled that he had no interest in establishing a relationship of trust with the world.

Saddam blew it. He could have complied. He could have left Iraq when it came down to that option. He and his two rotten son’s are dead and the world is safe from all the evil (evidenced by their history) they would have carried out.

And by the way, the primary evidence that the Bush assissnation plot was fabricated is the lack of evidence/documentation in the Iraqi archives. But Saddam also didn’t document the destruction of a lot of his WMDs, it seems, so why is anyone surprised?

It also is ludicrous to make the case that all the physical evidence, the confessions and testimony are worthless unless we find in the Iraqi archives a piece of paper signed by Saddam to carry out the deed.

The specific evils used to justify the invasion of Iraq – the assassination plot, the allegations of ties to al Qaeda, etc. – turn out not to have much foundation. I don’t think it was a ‘conspiracy’ on the part of the Bush administration. I think that they had a policy they’d wanted to implement for a while, and they saw the evidence they wanted to see that backed up the version of reality they wanted, and ignored the rest of the evidence. I think it’s the perfect kind of chin for Hanlon’s Razor.