Secret evidence can be used to justify whatever whims the gatekeepers of that evidence wish to pursue politically.
If anything should be learned from the Iraq debacle, it's that.
If anything should be learned from the Iraq debacle, it's that.
Not sure if you heard the news, but Bush quickly invaded Iraq. I think it's safe to assume he was taken seriously.
> which may explain why some US citizen boycotted French products after we said we would create a worldwide axis against war.
Some US citizens just like to complain about foreigners to be more patriotic (as if that would help). I would doubt most people could explain anything about french foreign policy.
I didn't think Saddam was a serious threat to the west at the time, but the relentless hype did make me think it over one night: what if? And then I saw that anything asymmetrical he could do would quickly result in his destruction. Even if he had all the dirty weapons possible at his disposal, he wouldn't have been able to use them.
And, of course, what came out later makes governmental prognostications now from secret evidence almost impossible to believe. Western governments, in particular US and UK, lost their credibility. Secret evidence is used for political purposes, not for security. The case for covert interception of communications is severely weakened. Probably even our security is damaged.