[spacefreak]

A good article on Kay's findings (and lack thereof). Recommended reading for all.

Ex-Inspector Says CIA Missed Disarray in Iraqi Arms Program

user: macnn
password: macnn

[Zimphire]

Ahh.. a bit more clearer it seems.

[kindbud]

Finally.

Conclusive proof that Dubya was right all along.

I'd hate to be an anti-Bush peacenik right about now (or any other time).

[AKcrab]

I see it conclusive proof that weapon inspections by the UN and sanctions were working much better than the U.S. believed.

[Zimphire]

I would say 12 years of Iraq's noncompliance isn't very good for UN's defense that their way was "working"

It was just buying Saddam more time.

[kindbud]

If, in 11 more years, Bush fails to find WMD - then can we say his efforts just needed more time to work?


this peacenik *SMACKDOWN* was brought to you by Spliffdaddy.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by kindbud:
If, in 11 more years, Bush fails to find WMD - then can we say his efforts just needed more time to work?

No see, we give the UN 12 years, and then STILL complain it's not enough.

Bush only got 1 week before the zealot fanboys started hissing and honking.

"Only if they gave the UN more time.."

As if 12 years wasn't enough for ANYONE.

[perryp]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
As if 12 years wasn't enough for ANYONE.

What would you know you fat cvnt? (personal attacks are acceptable!)

[kvm_mkdb]

[Ayelbourne]

The inspector, David A. Kay, who led the government's efforts to find evidence of Iraq's illicit weapons programs until he resigned on Friday, said the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies did not realize that Iraqi scientists had presented ambitious but fanciful weapons programs to Mr. Hussein and had then used the money for other purposes.

Telling the head office what they want to hear... that almost never happens!

"I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction," Dr. Kay said. "We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on.

"I think they gradually reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990's. Somewhere in the mid-1990's, the large chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated."

Don't tell me, tell Powell. He's the guy with the Keynote slideshow.

Dr. Kay said he believed that Iraq was a danger to the world, but not the same threat that the Bush administration publicly detailed.

"We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq," he said. "And now we know that there was little control over Iraq's weapons capabilities. I think it shows that Iraq was a very dangerous place. The country had the technology, the ability to produce, and there were terrorist groups passing through the country — and no central control."

This may turn out to be true, but at this point in the drama, I am taking "We Know" statements from the Bush administration with somewhat more than a grain of salt.

He said it now appeared that Iraq had abandoned the production of illicit weapons and largely eliminated its stockpiles in the 1990's in large part because of Baghdad's concerns about the United Nations weapons inspection process. He said Iraqi scientists and documents show that Baghdad was far more concerned about United Nations inspections than Washington had ever realized.

"The Iraqis say that they believed that Unscom was more effective, and they didn't want to get caught," Dr. Kay said, using an acronym for the inspection program, the United Nations Special Commission.

Didn't they know that the UN is an impotent and outdated organisation?

"We found nothing on Niger," Dr. Kay said. He added that there was evidence that someone did approach the Iraqis claiming to be able to sell uranium and diamonds from another African country, but apparently nothing came of the approach. The original reports on Niger have been found to be based on forged documents, and the Bush administration has since backed away from its initial assertions.

Which is getting to be something of a habit for them lately, I must admit...

Dr. Kay added that there was now a consensus within the United States intelligence community that mobile trailers found in Iraq and initially thought to be laboratories for biological weapons were actually designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons, or perhaps to produce rocket fuel. While using the trailers for such purposes seems bizarre, Dr. Kay said, "Iraq was doing a lot of nonsensical things" under Mr. Hussein.

Weather balloons, eh? After publically pointing to those trailers and saying "We found the weapons of mass destruction.", President Bush must feel a bit like a someone who reported a UFO back in the 1940's, only to have the Air Force debunk it.

Dr. Kay said interviews with senior officers of the Special Republican Guards, Mr. Hussein's most elite units, had suggested that prewar intelligence reports were wrong in warning that these units had chemical weapons and would use them against American forces as they closed in on Baghdad.

The former Iraqi officers reported that no Special Republican Guard units had chemical or biological weapons, he said. But all of the officers believed that some other Special Republican Guard unit had chemical weapons.

"They all said they didn't have it, but they thought other units had it," Dr. Kay said. He said it appeared they were the victims of a disinformation campaign orchestrated by Mr. Hussein.

Whilst at the same time, Mr. Hussein was labouring under a disinformation campaign orchestrated by his scientists... sounds like the biggest threat present in Iraq was the rising level of internal bullsh*t.

"I think that the system should have a way for an analyst to say, `I don't have enough information to make a judgment,' " Dr. Kay said. "There is really not a way to do that under the current system."

He added that while the analysts included caveats on their reports, those passages "tended to drop off as the reports would go up the food chain" inside the government.

As a result, virtually everyone in the United States intelligence community during both the Clinton and the current Bush administrations thought Iraq still had the illicit weapons, he said. And the government became a victim of its own certainty.

See quote #1.

"Alarm bells should have gone off when everyone believes the same thing," Dr. Kay said. "No one stood up and said, `Let's examine the footings for these conclusions.' I think you ought to have a place for contrarian views in the system."

Agreed. Good advice for any time or situation.

Dr. Kay also said he never felt pressed by the Bush administration to shape his own reports on the status of Iraq's weapons. He said that in a White House meeting with Mr. Bush last August, the president urged him to uncover what really happened.

"The only comment I ever had from the president was to find the truth," Dr. Kay said. "I never got any pressure to find a certain outcome."

This may indeed be true, but he states earlier that analysts' findings were modified on the way to the White House, so the end result was the same. It might have been a good idea to sort it all out before launching a pre-emptive war. The president - any president - needs to verify the truth before leading the nation into active war, not after.

Where does the buck stop these days? Apparently, much lower down the "food chain".

[villalobos]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
A good article on Kay's findings (and lack thereof). Recommended reading for all.

Ex-Inspector Says CIA Missed Disarray in Iraqi Arms Program

user: macnn
password: macnn

Just shows that Bush was as much disconnected from the reality in Irak as Saddam himself. And both provoked the death of thousands of Irakis through their uneducated and misinformed actions. Yeah, makes things real clearer......

Gotta love this quote

'He said it now appeared that Iraq had abandoned the production of illicit weapons and largely eliminated its stockpiles in the 1990's in large part because of Baghdad's concerns about the United Nations weapons inspection process. He said Iraqi scientists and documents show that Baghdad was far more concerned about United Nations inspections than Washington had ever realized.'

Ladies and Gentlemen, the UN inpections were working. Too bad nobody in the US cares about a lying president.

villa

[villalobos]

Oh yeah and that one too.

'In addition, Dr. Kay said, it is now clear that an American bombing campaign against Iraq in 1998 destroyed much of the remaining infrastructure in chemical weapons programs.'

So much for Clinton not doing anything about the problem..... Sounds like the kiss of death for Bush...

villa

[Lerkfish]

you could have just posted in my previous thread on the same exact story.

interesting how our takes on the same story are 180 degrees opposite.


spinning, spinning, spinning, keep on spinnning.....

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you could have just posted in my previous thread on the same exact story.

interesting how our takes on the same story are 180 degrees opposite.

Perhaps it's because I posted the story with no partisan hackery or "Bush lied and is making Kay cover it up"-type preamble.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by villalobos:
Too bad nobody in the US cares about a lying president.

If the President was so corrupt and bent on lying, he would also be corrupt enough to plant WMD materials.

Dr. Kay also said he never felt pressed by the Bush administration to shape his own reports on the status of Iraq's weapons. He said that in a White House meeting with Mr. Bush last August, the president urged him to uncover what really happened.

"The only comment I ever had from the president was to find the truth," Dr. Kay said. "I never got any pressure to find a certain outcome."

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:

It was never about Iraq being an imminent threat, ready to attack the US at a moment's notice, and you know it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have conveniently left out this quote...

"We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq," he said. "And now we know that there was little control over Iraq's weapons capabilities. I think it shows that Iraq was a very dangerous place. The country had the technology, the ability to produce, and there were terrorist groups passing through the country — and no central control."

See, folks, you can't have it both ways. You can't sit here and say that "These Kay statements are the gospel" because they suit your theories while ignoring or dismissing other Kay statements because they may alter or contradict your theories.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Perhaps it's because I posted the story with no partisan hackery or "Bush lied and is making Kay cover it up"-type preamble.

regardless, this thread is redundant and should have been locked by the mods....


but, hey...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It was never about Iraq being an imminent threat, ready to attack the US at a moment's notice, and you know it.

well, that's revisionist, and qualifies as spin.....

sorry, I meant "partisan hackery"

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Perhaps it's because I posted the story with no partisan hackery or "Bush lied and is making Kay cover it up"-type preamble.

Perhaps it's because David Kay only found what - at best - could be called circumstantial evidence. And who is he, anyway? Not an expert in WMDs, not a scientist: he's a propagandist.

Not even 1% of what was claimed about Iraq turned out to be true. Not only the war, but the genocidal sanctions all these years before it were based on false assertions. Bush lied, Clinton lied, Bush lied.

You keep spinning.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by villalobos:
So much for Clinton not doing anything about the problem.

No one ever said he didn't do anything about the problem. We know he bombed (although without Congressional or UN approval), and we know he made regimes change the official policy of the US - the one that Bush carried out.

However, even Clinton himself didn't think he had done enough. Otherwise, he wouldn't have stated in Portugal in October that he was "absolutely convinced" Saddam had WMD right up until the ousting of Saddam from power.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
No one ever said he didn't do anything about the problem. We know he bombed (although without Congressional or UN approval), and we know he made regimes change the official policy of the US - the one that Bush carried out.

However, even Clinton himself didn't think he had done enough. Otherwise, he wouldn't have stated in Portugal in October that he was "absolutely convinced" Saddam had WMD right up until the ousting of Saddam from power.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Not only the war, but the genocidal sanctions all these years before it were based on false assertions. Bush lied, Clinton lied, Bush lied.

You keep spinning.

I am citing facts. You are the one spinning, champ.

You may want to talk to the UN about those sanctions, and their unanimous finding that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687".

[theolein]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It was never about Iraq being an imminent threat, ready to attack the US at a moment's notice, and you know it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have conveniently left out this quote...

...

This is clearly not true, and if you like, I'll dig up both the comments made by, amongst others, yourself and your president at the time. I also have a choice quote by CRASHHARDDRIVE where he tries to explain how Iraq is a dangerous threat to the US. I also have press quotes bookmarked from early last year where a large perecntage of the American population believed that Saddam Hussein had missiles aimed at the USA.

You may not want to remember that, but that doesn't change the fact that it was so.

This *Smackdown* delivered to you by Theolein.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I am citing facts. You are the one spinning, champ.

You may want to talk to the UN about those sanctions, and their unanimous finding that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687".

sigh...we've been through this before.

Bush lied because he stated he had ironclad intelligence of the existence and whereabouts of WMDs and stated Iraq needed to be invaded because the threat of terrorist attack from Iraq was imminent, and connected Iraq to Al Queda.

Hell, even the Bush administration now admits the "16 words" were inaccurate, though they scapegoated the intelligence community for it.

when will you face facts and move on?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by theolein:
This is clearly not true, and if you like, I'll dig up both the comments made by, amongst others, yourself and your president at the time. I also have a choice quote by CRASHHARDDRIVE where he tries to explain how Iraq is a dangerous threat to the US. I also have press quotes bookmarked from early last year where a large perecntage of the American population believed that Saddam Hussein had missiles aimed at the USA.

You may not want to remember that, but that doesn't change the fact that it was so.

This *Smackdown* delivered to you by Theolein.

It never ceases to amaze me how some continue to delude themselves with outright and transparent revisionism.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I am citing facts. You are the one spinning, champ.

You are citing words, Dory.

I'm citing facts.

And he fact is that there are no WMDs and there is no proof any existed for years.

The world is the totality of facts (Wittgenstein)

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
And he fact is that there are no WMDs and there is no proof any existed for years.

And now we finally all know.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And now we finally all know.

10,000 Iraqi civilian deaths and hundreds of american troop deaths later, yeah, we all finally know Bush lied.

was the cost worth it?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by theolein:
This is clearly not true, and if you like, I'll dig up both the comments made by, amongst others, yourself and your president at the time. I also have a choice quote by CRASHHARDDRIVE where he tries to explain how Iraq is a dangerous threat to the US. I also have press quotes bookmarked from early last year where a large perecntage of the American population believed that Saddam Hussein had missiles aimed at the USA.

While digging up your quotes, don't forget this Bush gem from the 2003 State of the Union:

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
While digging up your quotes, don't forget this Bush gem from the 2003 State of the Union:

what's amazing is that you think this validates your point.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


10,000 Iraqi civilian deaths and hundreds of american troop deaths later, yeah, we all finally know Bush lied.

was the cost worth it?

"Shoot first, ask questions later."

It was in self-defense, dammit!

Saddam?

"HE'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!"

*BLAM!*

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
what's amazing is that you think this validates your point.

It surprises you that he's confused by hot air/shiny objects?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by perryp:
What would you know you fat cvnt? (personal attacks are acceptable!)

Wow I am a cvnt now. Here let me start a thread called "fat cvnt" and whine.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If the President was so corrupt and bent on lying, he would also be corrupt enough to plant WMD materials.

Nu uh! Bush is too st000puid to do thaaaaaaaaaaaat.

He is so stupid, he has tons of people FOOOLED!


Heh

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
regardless, this thread is redundant and should have been locked by the mods....


but, hey...

Lerk your spin thread was redundant. Where was the lock?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


10,000 Iraqi civilian deaths and hundreds of american troop deaths later, yeah, we all finally know Bush lied.

was the cost worth it?

Yes yes it was. It was worth it JUST TO SAVE THE IRAQI PEOPLE FROM A EVIL DICTATOR.

Now go swing around that Maypole and declare yourself a lover of humanity.

You are rapidly losing it.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It was never about Iraq being an imminent threat, ready to attack the US at a moment's notice, and you know it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have conveniently left out this quote...

Umm, I didn't leave out that quote. I cited it and commented on it. Check my post again, please.

And as for "It was never about Iraq being an imminent threat, ready to attack the US at a moment's notice, and you know it.", you are berating the wrong person(s).

Originally posted by spacefreak:
See, folks, you can't have it both ways. You can't sit here and say that "These Kay statements are the gospel" because they suit your theories while ignoring or dismissing other Kay statements because they may alter or contradict your theories.

I don't think "these Kay statements are gospel". I don't have a theory for them to suit. I am of the opinion that more time should have been taken to sort out the intelligence and be certain before extreme action was taken, and on this point, Kay and I seem to be in agreement.

I also remember how there was "very compelling" evidence that unfortunately could not be made public. At this point, I am forced to wonder if that "compelling evidence" even existed. If it does, now would be a good time to trot it out.

Please don't paint me with your Lerk brush. How would you know what I think if you don't ask?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Please don't paint me with your Lerk brush.

Yeah space, that was kind of a low blow.

[dialo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes yes it was. It was worth it JUST TO SAVE THE IRAQI PEOPLE FROM A EVIL DICTATOR.

Now go swing around that Maypole and declare yourself a lover of humanity.

You are rapidly losing it.

HRW has a detailed discussion demonstrating why this is narrow-minded and wrong.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dialo:
HRW has a detailed discussion demonstrating why this is narrow-minded and wrong.

What is? Maypole spinning or saving the people of Iraq?
Linkage?

[dialo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
See, folks, you can't have it both ways. You can't sit here and say that "These Kay statements are the gospel" because they suit your theories while ignoring or dismissing other Kay statements because they may alter or contradict your theories.

Apparently you missed the significance of this. Kay has been hyping the Iraq threat for years, so when such are big supported of the 'Iraq absolutely has large WMD' clique says the evidence doesn't support that belief, it's pretty much solid. Hell, it was already solid and even that couldn't convince him, so considering his statements, it's all pretty much dead.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Please don't paint me with your Lerk brush. How would you know what I think if you don't ask?

"Lerk brush"???

[Lerkfish]

today's story is even more interesting. It appears they are seriously going to scapegoat the intel community completely.

of note in the article:

When asked Tuesday by reporters about Kay's assertions, Bush didn't say that the banned weapons would eventually be discovered: "We know from years of intelligence -- not only our own intelligence services, but other intelligence gathering organizations -- that he had weapons -- after all, he used them."

Intelligence officials say the probe will take time, and plenty of work lies ahead. Kay and others have blamed looting immediately after the war on the difficulties in painting a picture. But Kay also has said that flawed intelligence from 1998 forward -- when United Nations inspectors withdrew from Iraq -- contributed to the mistakes.

Last February, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Council that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed "real and present dangers."

This weekend, Powell began to backpedal, saying the United States thought Saddam had banned weapons, but "we had questions that needed to be answered."

"backpedal". Interesting word choice.

and...

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said his committee has finished a draft report on its inquiry into the prewar intelligence and plans to get it to members next week.

He said it appears the problem is with some intelligence agencies and not the policy-makers. "Anyone who believes otherwise has not done their homework and certainly was not listening to Dr. Kay," he said.

I think we can expect the intel community to retaliate by leaking sensitive material implicating the Bush administration within a week.

*pulls up a chair and starts popping popcorn*

[villalobos]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I am citing facts. You are the one spinning, champ.

You may want to talk to the UN about those sanctions, and their unanimous finding that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687".

You may wanna talk to the UN who made it pretty clear that there was no need for an immediate war, and that the inspectors needed more time to evaluate whether there actually were WMDs in Irak or not. Kinda funny to hear a pro-war referring to what the UN resolution and at the same time approving that the US/UK and other warmongers deliberately ignored the fact that it did NOT condone the said war.... Apparently the inspections were working, some people actually realized that, and that it was a better idea than waging a war.
I doubt the money and effort spent in Iraq will have any positive effect in fighting terrorism : it should probably have been spent in Afghanistan instead, and other countries were terrorists are actually training... Yeah I know, it is not as glamorous and telegenic as a good ol' war, with the 'shock and awe' factor (whoever came up with that comment should be ashamed by the way), and not as good an election material.
Oh and yeah I know, no oil there.

Villa

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by villalobos:
I doubt the money and effort spent in Iraq will have any positive effect in fighting terrorism

yopu are kidding, right? if anything the us invasion of iraq has done nothing but stir up new anti-american and anti-western sentiments in the middle-east.

as soon as iraq has become an islamic republic (just like afghanistan already is), it is going to be an ideal breeding ground for countless generations of new jihad "fighters".

nope, monkeyboy and his bunch of neocon nincompoops have done their best to make the us even less popular in islamic countries than it already was. good going guys.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by villalobos:
I doubt the money and effort spent in Iraq will have any positive effect in fighting terrorism

you are kidding, right? if anything the us invasion of iraq has done nothing but stir up new anti-american and anti-western sentiments in the middle-east.

as soon as iraq has become an islamic republic (just like afghanistan already is), it is going to be an ideal breeding ground for countless generations of new jihad "fighters".

nope, monkeyboy and his bunch of neocon nincompoops have done their best to make the us even less popular in islamic countries than it already was. good going guys.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by villalobos:
You may wanna talk to the UN who made it pretty clear that there was no need for an immediate war, and that the inspectors needed more time to evaluate whether there actually were WMDs in Irak or not. Kinda funny to hear a pro-war referring to what the UN resolution and at the same time approving that the US/UK and other warmongers deliberately ignored the fact that it did NOT condone the said war.... Apparently the inspections were working, some people actually realized that, and that it was a better idea than waging a war.
I doubt the money and effort spent in Iraq will have any positive effect in fighting terrorism : it should probably have been spent in Afghanistan instead, and other countries were terrorists are actually training... Yeah I know, it is not as glamorous and telegenic as a good ol' war, with the 'shock and awe' factor (whoever came up with that comment should be ashamed by the way), and not as good an election material.
Oh and yeah I know, no oil there.

Villa

Many war supporters conveniently forget how the Bush administration hindered and then ordered out the inspectors right before the invasion, in spite of pleas from Annan and Blix to allow them to continue.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
"Lerk brush"???

Sorry, Lerkfish, nothing personal. I was just thinking of how you seem to get a generic response from Spacefreak, Kindbud and Zimphire no matter what you say or do. I felt that when Spacefreak answered my comments, he attributed some of your opinions to me, and in the manner he often uses with you. I am not a fan of the practice of lumping everyone into two simplified opposing groups, and I'd like to be considered an individual.

I apologise to you if the term was ill-chosen and hurt your feelings, as that was not my intent.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Sorry, Lerkfish, nothing personal. I was just thinking of how you seem to get a generic response from Spacefreak, Kindbud and Zimphire no matter what you say or do. I felt that when Spacefreak answered my comments, he attributed some of your opinions to me, and in the manner he often uses with you. I am not a fan of the practice of lumping everyone into two simplified opposing groups, and I'd like to be considered an individual.

I apologise to you if the term was ill-chosen and hurt your feelings, as that was not my intent.

oh, no problem, I was amused more than anything, but I wasn't entirely for sure what you meant by it (though I suspected correctly). Thanks for explaining.

I actually thought it was an appropriate term.
I think the thoughtless hounding of another poster irrelevant to the points they're making could certainly be called "Lerk-brushing".

I hereby make it so.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by villalobos:
You may wanna talk to the UN who made it pretty clear that there was no need for an immediate war...

In the case of US national security, the actual decision to go to war lies with the US.