Replies

The WMD question is NOT a dead horse. No one who values justice or freedom would let it die. We still need to know did the president lie to us or was he fooled by his advisors? If the second, why are they still around?

When did it become a legitmate question IF Hussein had WMDs?

Because prior to 9-11, there were very few people on the planet, outside of Scott Ritter, who didn't believe and state for the record that Iraq was in posession of WMDs.

How did it come to be that a large majority (roughly 70%) actually believed that Saddam planned the 9/11 attacks?

Hussein was horribly defeated and embarassed in Kuwait. He attempted to assassinate GHW Bush. He pays the families of suidice bombers in Israel. He was hip-deep in sponsoring terrorism for years.

Why is it so hard to make the connection?

There is no way that removing a bad guy dictator in another nation, that was no threat to us was justified.

Repeating that, no matter how often, will not make it true.

If we buy that as justification, we need to expect another dozen or so wars of invasion in the second term.

The recent actions of Qadaffi says you are wrong.

I think that Mike makes the same mistake that Greeley and a lot of other people make: Like the firebombing of Tokyo, they look at this war in a vacuum as if nothing happened before and we just attacked Japan or Iraq because we felt like it. It's the same way with the A-bomb - a lot of people are not intellectually capable of drawing the line from Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima.

Why is it so hard to make the connection?

Because there is no connection. To the contrary, we knew that Osama hated Hussein. He was not sufficiently devoted to Islam. He ran a secular nation with only minor accomodations to Islamic leaders. To presume a partnership was stupid. In fact, none was claimed. There was just skillful speech to imply while leaving the out-"I never said that".

When did it become a legitmate question IF Hussein had WMDs?

It is extremely appropriate to ask that question, since there is where the potential admistration lies exist. Frankly, I do not think that the war would have been legitimate even if he did openly have WMDs. Unless there was a realistic reason to believe that he was preparing to use them (or do you think that he was going to hand them over to his enemy to use?)If mere possession of WMDs justifies war, then when are we invading Pakistan, India and North Korea?

One more point-In 1945, we signed a treaty, the UN charter, where every member nation undertook NOT to attack any other member nation with only two exceptions-self defense or the direction of the security council. This war violated that treaty obligation. (The UN security council did NOT authorize the use of force. All the resolutions were orders to Hussein. When the force question was put to the Security Council, it FAILED, and it did not take a veto. The USA withdrew the request when they realized that it was going to get only 4 of 15 votes.