saddam did have wmds, we know this for a fact. however he didnt have any at the time we decided to invade (unless our invading caused him to give them away in an act of desperation), and he posed virtually no threat, and certainly not the biggest. probably some of his weapons lasted into the clinton era.

iriseon,

saddam had no operational ties to al qaeda (and other forms of terrorism we dont care about as much, otherwise we wouldve invaded palestine, and other places, so you’re “he supported palestinian suicide bombers” is true, but a non-sequitor). ive read a few different stories by conservatives attempting to show that he did, but none of them were impressive in the slightest. the story usually goes “one of saddam’s officers knew someone who met someone in al qaeda once” or something like that. im sure such links exist, but they fall far far short of saying saddam had operational ties, or that they were working together, or some such thing. i’d look at a link if you have one with an argument less flimsy than that.

and by the way, i’d like to remind you that cheney was the secretary of defense during the first gulf war. he was vocally opposed to invading and deposing saddam back then, even though saddam had just committed his genocide, and just invaded neighbors. since then, we decided to ignore a local iraqi uprising after promising support (indirectly causing a massacre), starved millions of iraqis through sanctions, and now our current/recent war crimes (including torture, and the use of white phosphorous as a weapon).

tell me, iriseon, what changed in those intervening years that our policy required invading? was it worth all the millions of iraqis dead in the intervening years? what has saddam done since then? something must have occured to change cheney’s mind. i wonder if it had anything to do with the business dealings halliburton had with iraq (illegaly) during the 90s (though i dont think cheney was ceo of halliburton at the time).

Thank God for our Troops…

———————————-

All these reasons you list are easily debunked, in fact, in the commentary Mike provided he debunks some of them already. To try and rationalize a war that the neocons from the PNAC asked Clinton to launch in 1998 and wrap it around your rationale for this invasion is hopelessly naive on your part. I’m sorry you want to justify this invasion but you’re grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to legitimze the illegitimate.

All your reasoning can be deconstructed with little effort, and none of that was a factor in our decision to invade Iraq. The truth is it was a foregone conclusion, and the neocons invented the reasons that Saddam posed a “threat” by continually blathering about “WMD” that Saddam never had. The intelligence was faked.

If Clinton and company spoke of ‘WMD’ then it could have been to merely legitimize the reasons we enforced a no fly zone and kept Saddam in check, which we were doing quite nicely. But then Dumbya came along and, like a bull in china shop, threw diplomacy out the window, completely smashed the delicate vase of enthnicity that was Iraq and now we send soldiers out as moving targets to get killed daily while the designers of this ‘debacle in the desert’ can’t find their ass with both hands.

American soldiers deserve better than to die on the account of the ignorance and arrogance of the neocons. I hope the Democrats can find it within themselves to hammer out a plan to stop the bloodletting and end this foreign policy disaster of the highest order.