[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

According to everyone with knowledge, the first break in the case that led to Bin Laden's death, was intelligence obtained from Khalid Shiek Mohammed after he was waterboarded at Guantanimo Bay.

What about the people with "knowledge" that have said we got much of this intel before he was water boarded?

Now, no one can prove that we wouldn't have gotten the information, eventually, from other means. But the fact is, the first break was the revelation of the identity of an Al Queda courier, and KSM only gave that up after he was waterboarded.

The reports actually indicate he gave false information when being water boarded.

I believe they didn't learn of the couriers identity until 2006 and his location until 2009.

Bush established the waterboarding aproach, and he set up the terrorist facility at Guantanimo. Obama is on record as being vehemently opposed to both of these things.

Actually, it was used hundreds of years before Bush. The Spanish Inquisition, Khmer Rouge etc.. have all been big fans of the technique.

Bush and other western leaders gave Saddam Hussein all kinds of chances to avoid war (I had ample reason to follow these events pretty closely). All Saddam had to do was comply with the UN resolutions which ended the first Gulf War, another war of aggression which Saddam initiated by the way.

Well...

That we fired the first shot in Iraq iasn't necessarily the same thing as saying that we started the war (no one who has ever been in close-quarter combat would ever say there's any reason to ever let someone else fire the first shot). Hussein kept kicking out the weapons inspectors, and in my opinion, it seems like the prudent thing would be to assume that he was trying to hide something.

We've beaten this horse to death, but the fact is that after some time (yes they misled at first) Hans Blix was reporting back to the UN that Saddam was indeed starting to cooperate and they were still finding nothing. The Duelfer report confirmed this.

The justification Powell presented to the UN has been reduced to nearly a joke.

Very few people spoke against that war until it became politically convenient. What do you think of liberal politicians who voted to support the war initially, and then when public opinion eroded, these same politicians started acting like they were always opposed to it? If that's not a slap in the face to people like me who bled over there, and officers like me who lost kids under our command (I lost 2), I don't know what is.

Mainstream support for the war eroded because the justification for the war fell apart and the Administration's efforts to "market" the war were exposed.

Bush's inner circle had a transformational strategy for the Middle East that was radically liberal and 9/11 gave them the opening. Most of the quotes I've read (Like the often quoted out of context Hillary Clinton speech) agreed Saddam was a problem but stopped short of unilateral action.

Some politicians have voiced regret over their initial support of the war, but they were also being led by the marketing effort. I'm sure some didn't do their own work and deserve criticism.

I'd note that President Obama opposed it from the start but after being elected didn't rush the withdrawal his base wanted and instead has looked after the safety of our troops and stability of the region.

-spence