weapons of mass destruction. The whole oppression of his entire counry
came up in side notes, but it was those 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000
liters of botulinum, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX gas, not to
mention that completely false "damning" report of Iraqi agents trying to
buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. Aaaaaand, don't forget that as far
as the Administration's talking points were concerned, Saddam and bin
Laden were in cahoots, Iraqi agents met with al-Qaeda operatives.
Even with the 9/11 commission saying there was no connection between
Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda, Cheney et. al. will not ever admit they
were wrong and they went to war on what is at the minimum inexcusably
shoddy intelligence, and at worse, deliberately falsified intelligence
to bolster the Administrations pre-drawn conclusions.
The ends do not justify the means - and Bush's Machiavellian march to
war can't just be brushed under the rug for the sake of letting foreign
policy bygones be bygones.
- Jim
Jim Davis wrote:
>The main problem with the moral argument is that it's not applied evenly.
>
>Yes, Iraq may be better off now, but the moral high-ground was not the
>launching point of the war: there are perhaps dozens of places that have it
>just as bad or worse and we do little or nothing there.
>
>Moral reasoning may make us feel better in the aftermath, but it was never a
>primary reason for going to war.
>
>We didn't go in to free the Iraqi people; we went in to oust Saddam. There
>is a subtle, but important difference there.
>
>Jim Davis
>
>
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
