We went to war over THIS?

hardly justifies war

Did you read the article or just the highlights that I have posted. There is an interesting section that Powell wrote that answers your question...Please don't rely on my interpretations of an article, please read it thouroughly and base your thoughts on it. That's why I bother making a link.

Link to Times article

So, Kay is either a liar, or doesn't have his own facts straight as the times article contradicts what Kay is quoted to have said to "The Sunday Telegraph" of London.

If only Saddam had let the inspectors do this job before the war, the whole issue could have been avoided.

They were doing the job, McG.

The moron in chief would have none of it -- remember????

Didn't let the inspectors do their job? Not according to Kay

NYT 1/26/04

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.

Link to Times article

Besides, McG, Bush et al don't bother using WMDs as the rationale for the war anymore. Now it's "Saddam was a threat (of some sort) to the US and had to go."

It's all very simple when you view the world the George Bush way!

"Evil chemistry and evil biology": that's exactly what I thought sometimes ages back at school :wink:


SOURCE

Perhaps putting this in a dialogue format will help to explain the administration's logic:

Bush: Saddam was an imminent threat to the U.S. That's why we had to invade.
US: Why was he an imminent threat?
B: Because he had weapons of mass destruction.
US: That's clearly not true. Even your own weapons inspector now says that there were no WMDs.
B: But Saddam had weapons programs.
US: He didn't even have those: Kay said so.
B: Well, he had programs-related activities.
US: What are those?
B: I have no clue, but they could have been sold or given to Al Qaida.
US: Saddam had no ties to Al Qaida. Your own administration has admitted as much.
B: I didn't say "Al Qaida;" that's revisionist history! I said "terrorists." And those terrorists were directly threatening the US.
US: With weapons of mass destruction program-related activities?
B: That's right. So we had to invade Iraq right away.
US: To stop him from killing Americans with "program-related activities"?
B: No, stupid, to keep him from killing his own people!
US: How was that an imminent threat to Americans?
B: Have you no compassion? Would you prefer to have Saddam still in power, killing his people by the hundreds?
US: As opposed to Iraqis killing off Americans in one and twos?
B: That's why we had to invade right away, to save the Iraqis.
US: I don't recall the Iraqis asking us to invade.
B: Of course not. We had a mandate from the international community.
US: The international community?
B: Yes, Saddam was defying several UN mandates, and that destabilized the entire region.
US: So we invaded in defiance of the UN to enforce its mandates?
B: And to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of Al Qaida.
US: What weapons of mass destruction?
B: I told you: the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had aimed at every taxpaying mother and child in the United States.
US: But he didn't have any WMDs. Even your own weapons inspector now says that there were no WMDs....

Repeat ad infinitum, ad nauseum

Ashcroft is the Bush Administration's Frankenstein monster. Except he's real. "Evil chemistry" and "evil biology"? Oh, brother...

Looks like the humanitarian argument is in the trash:



U.K. AFP via Yahoo!

Saddam's atrocities were and on going feature of his regime, and as David Kay notes in his Times interview the regime was spinning out of control. I don't think Human Rights Watch should be in the business of establishing levels of acceptable atrocities. If Bush had any morally justifiable reason for invading Iraq it was a humanitarian one. But humanitarian concerns as a basis for a foreign policy was something he and his neocon cohorts consistently distained.

Morals, ethics?
The Neo Fascists scoff at these words in their deeds.
Reagan, Bush 1, Rummy didn't have any qualms about dealing with Saddam.

This cover-up is getting to almost humorous, if it were not so freakin' pathetic. Now it's the CIA's fault. What a crock of sheeit!!!

I've been listening to BBC reports of your New Hampshire primaries. Sounds like the democrats are on a roll. Up till now I gave them no chance. Resigned to 4 more years of Mr Bush strutting his stuff.

But I learn 35 million Americans live in poverty. In the worlds richest, most powerful most aggressive most debt ridden country...that's enough reason for America's sake.

Now please listen for one moment. I dont have a vote in November. So I'm asking you, no pleading with you for my sake no ordering you GET RID OF THIS ADMINISTRATION, or Pistof and I will be seriously

35 Million In Poverty
3 Million unemployed and thousands of bankruptcies. Most American don't care about the poor or the Working Poor. They might be worried about their own jobs, though.

All it will take is one strike from Al Q. and elections will be indefinetly postponed, marital law declared.

If the Neo Fascist get another term America will be a 3rd World Dictatorship. Yeah, that woul piss me off!!!

All it will take is one strike from Al Q. and elections will be indefinetly postponed, marital law declared.


you really believe that?

.

I'm thinking you meant "martial" law, not "marital" law,


although .....


.... this administration is attempting to write new MARITAL law as a means of securing the bigot vote, which they percieve to be larger than the fair-minded people vote.

.

White males (of which I am one) make up a approximately one third of the electorate and also form a major portion of Bush's electoral base. The macho strut plays well among this group. A lot of Bush's decisions and public pronouncements can be explained in terms of keeping this group happy.

.

Acquink: Do you believe the majority of white males are in favor of denying civil rights to gay people, including the right to marry the person he/she loves?

Being a white male does not necessarily imply having one's masculinity threatened by people with different sexual orientation, does it ?

I guess I believe bigotry comes in all shapes and sizes, and I would noit single out white males at the target of Bush's pandering to bigots.

If you look at the polls, apparently yes.

I'm in a university environment in the northeast, so I in no way can present myself as an authority on "white males" as a national phenomena. But, if I listen locally (Connecticut) to the chatter about Bush, the flight suit image and the "bring em' on" swagger resonates among the pickup truck crowed.