CNN International is broacasting Duelfer's Senate testimony right now. He comes across as a real professional.
"Saddam chose not to have weapons"
His answers to Senator Warner seem to indicate a certain friendliness to the republican cause but he also seems to be answering with scupulous respect for the actual truth.
Inescapable conclusions:
- There was no "gathering" threat.
- There was no truly compelling reason to launch the war when they did.
- Various people seriously slanted the truth. (OK, they lied).
Infered conclusions:
1. They had actually become convinced that inspections would not find anything, therefore they had to preempt the last few months of inspection.
(Pretty solid I think. Why were the supposedly 'known' locations of WMDs not secured ASAP? Why did they not prevent the looting of almost all ministries's files?)
2. They intended Iraq to turn out they way it has.
(Uncertain. It is a body blow against the aspirations of the Pan-Arad nationalists. Iraq as the new Lebanon will keep the broader area unstable, allowing no competitors to the US to emerge to regional dominance, AND keep the price of oil high. An unstable Middle-East and Central Asia keeps the fear factor high, which benefits the Republicans. Geopolitically, US forces in unstable countries on either side of Iran puts a great deal of pressure on the mullahs (or Moolahhs) and allow's us a great deal of flexibility? And, nobody is THAT incompetent! On the other hand...).
Thinking dangerous thoughts in the birthplace of democracy