Obama does not only deserve credit for having the foresight to predict the outcome of the war, he deserves credit for looking at the available intelligence being presented and seeing through the holes and flaws in it, and for being skeptical.

Yes, he does. And he was right.

However, in fairness to those that believed their were WMDs, there's the other side of the coin. Yes, the evidence was ambiguous...but that goes both ways (there wasn't clear proof that Iraq did NOT have WMD and did NOT pose an immediate threat). In fact, one must remember that Hussein had invaded Kuwait and started the Gulf War a little more than 10 years previous and had continually defied the sanctions that had been imposed against it ever since (with Hussein acting consistently belligerent towards the US).  Hussein and Iraq had effectively poisoned any "benefit of the doubt" they could expect at that point. Plus...covert intelligence is often not going to be cut and dry (and is often ambiguous). And the Bush Administration was not yet the joke it is today. 2002 was a year past 9/11 and Bush had very high approval ratings and his handling of the tragedy was still being praised. So many people still trusted the Bush Administration...not only that, but took into account that not only Bush, but also the Clinton Administration believed they had WMDs. And to top it all off, Colin Powell was still one of the most trusted men in America at that point (at least to me he was). And he was constantly and publicy insisting that they KNEW Iraq and Hussein had WMDs and were a threat.

Those were the factors that led me to believe that Saddam and Iraq were immediate threats...and I was in favor of invading. That said, I can admit that I was wrong. Dead wrong. I learned a valuable lesson about trusting politicians...ANY politicians. And when it comes to war, the US has now lost any it's "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to international action. And rightfully so.

"Based on the intelligence provided to Congress, going to war was the correct choice, making Obama's foresight faulty there as well."

Strange how different that all was when viewed from Europe. The US allies in NATO, when invited to participate in what was to be the coalition of the willing, were not convinced by the publicly available intelligence that kept being pushed (considering it unreliable) and even the top secret "we've got great intelligence, honest" meetings failed to convince. 

We, as a mere public,  were in fact quite surprised that no-one in congress seemed to call him on any of it.

Even the hesitant backing that Bush got here was based on the presumption (false as it turns out) that Bush was going to use the "war" mandate and the coalition to strongarm Saddam Hussein into letting the weapons inspectors finish their job, not actually go in.

The flaws in the available intelligence were discussed openly in the European press long before Bush sent in the troops, which is why so many were opposed to the war.  The fact that these misgivings were not so prominently voiced in the US may be what makes some people think that there was no way of knowing that the intelligence was false.  

But of course, you may have been distracted by the "the French are cowards" chant.

I would like to confirm that on the french side, there were reports in newspapers and TV news that the American governement was not listening when the French governement was saying that according to its secret agencies sources, there was not such things as WMDs. And those appeared before the invasion. So yes, this is why the Frenchs were against it.

Of course, it is so much fun to rename food and create boycotting ads...

Hey, who listens to the French? You should have told us you DID have evidence...then we would have backed off.

I kid, I kid... ;-)

Hey, who listens to the French?

 Freedom Fries!!! are yummy! LOL

Jason:

Joel is a stand up guy, in spite of his preference for Satan's college hoops team :o)

As for the war here's my story and take -- as most know, I voted for Bush in 2000, and though he wasn't my guy ideally (I prefered McCain) and prior to 9/11, I disagreed with him for certain domestic policies (specifically the rebate checks which I thought were a political gimmick and a wasteful use of the surplus) I thought he'd be a generally good president.  After his seven minute delay with the kids on 9/11 I had some reservations, but by the 13th when he was at Ground Zero, I felt he'd started to help us back on our feet.  I fully supported our going into Afghanastan (and still think it was the right thing to do).  But then in the state of the Union he mentioned the "Axis of Evil" implicating the North Korea, Iraq and Iran as though they were joint actors.  That set my spider-sense off.

By the time the lead up to the war had started, I didn't (yet) believe that the administration would "lie" but I didn't feel there was sufficent evidence to go to war (add to the fact that this invasions would fly against all principles of the Just War theory/doctrine).  So I was opposed.  What shocked me was the number of prominent democrats who were not similarly opposed, like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.  If little old me, a republican, found reasons to pause on the march to war why didn't the leaders of the opposition party?  Republican congressmen and senators blindly following the administration is not acceptable, but its understandable.  Democrats doing so, as the opposition party, is incomprehensible. 

The reason so many democrats bought into the war, I suspect but admittedly cannot prove, is because they didn't want to be labeled unpatriotic.  It might hurt their chances in re-elections or, for some, presidential elections.  And that was what I have since found most contemptable.  If you support the war because you believed the information was sufficent, or if you support it because you buy the retcon that it "takes the war on terror to the terrorists" I can understand (albeit disagree) and respect your position.  But if you didn't stand against the war for political reasons and now decry the war, well I have not interest in such politicians decrying the Bush Administration when they empowered the adminstration.

Hey, who listens to the French?

Jean Girard: My name is Jean Girard and I am a racing-car driver just like you except I am from Formula Un. I am the greatest one in the whole world. I have been following your career with great interest, Monsieur Bobby.
Ricky Bobby: I can't understand a word you've said the whole time.
Cal Naughton, Jr.: Did you eat some peanut butter or something?
Ricky Bobby: Yeah, you sound like a dog with peanut butter on the roof of your mouth
Jean Girard: I think what you are hearing is my accent. I am French.
Ricky Bobby: You say you're French?
Jean Girard: Oui.
[sounds like 'We']
Ricky Bobby: We? No, we are not French. We're American, because you're in America, okay? Greatest country on the planet
Jean Girard: Well, what have you given the world apart from George Bush, Cheerios, and the ThighMaster?
Ricky Bobby: Chinese food?
Cal Naughton, Jr.: Chinese food.
Jean Girard: That's from China.
Ricky Bobby: Pizza.
Jean Girard: Italy.
Cal Naughton, Jr.: Chimichanga.
Jean Girard: Mexico.
Ricky Bobby: Really, smarty-pants? What did French land give us?
Jean Girard: We invented democracy, existentialism, and the ménage à trois.
Herschell: Yeah? Well we invented the missionary position... You're welcome. 
Cal Naughton, Jr.: Those are three pretty good things.
Ricky Bobby: Hey.
Cal Naughton, Jr.: Well that last one's pretty cool.