Two posts, one from Barry Finn (27 Jan 09 - 07:48 PM) and one from Bobert (27 Jan 09 - 06:38 PM), that make me wonder exactly what planet they were on over the period of time in question. But there again, I believe that irrespective of what either reads, they only ever isolate and take away the bits they want to, the bits that pander to their own particular bias.

I'll respond to Barry's offering first:

That Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, was evaluated as potentially posing the greatest threat to the United States of America is undeniable, it is a matter of record, as is the fact that this evaluation was made public on the 17th January, 1998. The nature of the threat was clearly detailed and described as follows:

1.      A regime that was hostile to the United States of America
2.      A regime that possessed WMD, WMD material, WMD technology
3.      A regime that had links to, sympathetic to and was a sponsor of an international terrorist organisation, or organisations that were hostile towards the United States of America
4.      A regime that would be capable of passing WMD, WMD material, WMD technology to an international terrorist group that was hostile towards the United States of America.

The template for this appraisal was formed on Iraq/Saddam's intransigence in complying with the terms of the Safwan Agreements and resulting UN Resolution requirements and his total lack of co-operation with the United Nations UNSCOM Inspectors. So here clearly was a nation governed by a regime that was hostile to the United States of America - that takes care of No. 1 above. It was known to have WMD, WMD material, WMD technology and had a proven track record of using them - that takes care of No. 2 above. Iraq under Saddam Hussein trained, financed and supported terrorist organisations based abroad to attack Israel - that takes care of No. 3 above. Would that regime then be willing and capable of passing on that technology, or capability to a terrorist group in order to attack the United States of America, harm its interests or its allies - You tell me, it is a judgement call, but fast forward to 11th September, 2001 and take note of the fact that Saddam Hussein was the only world leader who applauded the attacks carried out that day, then I don't think that Bill Clinton's security advisors had it wrong - That takes care of No. 4 above. Now add to all of that the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre, which illustrated the vulnerability of the US to asymmetric attack.

The Clinton administration was extremely ineffective in their response to this threat, there was no great effort made to involve the UN in enforcing Iraqi compliance to the disarmament programmes required under the terms of UN Resolutions 678 or 687, both of which have been in the public domain since being passed by the Security Council of the United Nations, so I am rather puzzled that Barry Finn attempts to tell us that those requirements were "secret" or kept "private" - They weren't Barry they were there for all the world to read, as were the arguments for "Regime Change in Iraq" outlined in Clinton's Iraq Bill passed in the summer of 1998 which placed regime change in Iraq as a cornerstone of official US foreign policy in the middle-east - Now then Barry don't try and tell me that that was kept "private", because it wasn't, again, it was out there for all the world to read and remember and take note of this Barry all this was is in 1998.