and everyone thought that invading Iraq would be a massive mistake .
Everyone? Watch what these Democrats have to say on the issue below:
YouTube - Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)
the whole "Pottery Barn Rule" brought up by Powell -- until Bush came along and fabricated a sense of crisis and urgency around Saddam Hussein.
Colin Powell supported the use of military force to remove Saddam from power in 2002, and has continued to support removing Saddam from power to this day. In an interview with Barbara Walters in 1995, Colin Powel said the following about using military force to remove Saddam from power:
"when the President says it was not tolerable for Saddam to remain in defiance of UN Security Council Resolutions, I am right there with him on the use of military force"
he was as much of an angel in 2002 as he was in 1998 or in 1995. all that changed was a massive tragedy in New York that was exploited by the Bush administration who also sought to fabricate intelligence
Why do you think the Iraq Liberation Act was passed in 1998? Why do you think Bill Clinton said the following on December 16, 1998?
"The hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that THREAT, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors."
President Bill Clinton - December 16, 1998
A lot more had changed between 1995 and 2002. The sanctions and weapons embargo had completely fallen apart by 2002. There was literally no monitering or inspections at all along the entire Syrian/Iraqi border by the summer of 2002. UN inspectors were kicked out of the country in 1998 after having been harrassed and prevented from doing much of anything in the 18 months prior to that point. Plenty of changes that impact the security situation, the question is are some people willing to read, understand, and acknowledge these basic facts.
through WMDs or the torture of detainees to admit to the non-existent link between Saddam and Al Qaeda -- that would justify the invasion to the American public and to world opinion.
Polls done of the American people on the question of removing Saddam from power from 1991 to 2001 as well as from 2001 to 2003 shows that the majority of Americans supported using military force to remove Saddam from power.
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/06/26/rel7c.pdf page 5
it's quite clear by the administration's actions that they were enormously insecure about their rationale for invasion. after all, if they were so secure, why the massive intelligence failure?
Intelligence "failures" are very common. Just take a look at the intelligence about Iraq's WMD's prior to the 1991 Gulf War and what was found out after the 1991 war.
The issue is not actually the intelligence, but the Saddam regime's compliance. Intelligence because of its nature can always be debated, what was not debatable was Saddam's failure to comply with the resolutions and the Gulf War Ceacefire agreement he signed.
While certain WMD's of Saddam's were not found, there was no firm evidence that such WMD had been dismantled or completely disposed of by Saddam, only theory's as to what might of happened. In addition, WMD related programs that were in violation of the resolutions were found after the war.
why the need to make Saddam and his weapons out to be a threat to people living in the US?
It was already widely acknowledged by the security community long before Bush ever became President that Sarin Gas and Anthrax could be smuggled into the country and used against the civilian population and cause enormous loss of life. To downplay or completely ignore such threats, especially in the wake of 9/11 would have been irresponsible.
it's because no one ever wanted to invade to begin with. because it was a bad idea.
Actually, the Clinton Administration and Bush Administration disagree with you on that point. It was the Clinton administration that made regime change in Iraq US policy. It was the Bush administration that successfuly changed the regime in Iraq. Clinton's statement on December 16, 1998 was correct.
now, some will say that either you invade, or you let Saddam ride a tank into Jerusalem and capture the Saudi oil fields. but that's a false choice. that's bad thinking.
The wrong policy would have been if the United States did not respond with force until Saddam was actually doing what he did in 1991, moving his military into neighboring countries, etc. The Policy of the United States and the world community since 1991 has been to have a policy in place to PREVENT those events from ever happening again, meaning the line in the sand is no longer the border of another country, but Saddam's compliance with disarmament and other issues related to the security of the region. Military action was used by both the Clinton and Bush administrations with this in mind. Both administrations came to the conclusion that the only way to achieve US security objectives in the region was by removing Saddam from power.
and it was a bad idea because of what we've seen unfold since 2003.
The number of people that think it would have been a better idea to let Saddam stay in power gets smaller every day.