Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
Actually, genocide and WMD's were both part of the original reasoning.
Remember? Saddam was a ruthless dictator that didn't hesitate to use WMD's against his own countrymen for genocide.
Now, the 9/11 commission has vindicated Bush. It says that Saddam indeed planned to restart his WMD programs as soon as the international heat went away -- which if countries like France and other critics of the war had their way, it would have.
Dems are standing on one SMALL part of the 9/11 report that favors them to call Bush a liar. When taken in context, we can say with a pretty high degree of certainty that a catastrophe was prevented.
After all, part of the Bush doctrine is being proactive rather than reactive when combating terrorism. Based on that, his and the legislature's decision to go into Iraq was a sound one.
|
Hey I look at the 9/11 commision as actually decrediting many of the arguements, especially the constant attacks against the UN inspectors and sanctions... well to me it looks like that the inspectors and sanctions were efffectinve in conrolling or limiting Saddam's access to WMD capability... ie. no imminent threat as was touted at the UN.
My arguement was that Iraq was much further down on the list of horrifying or frightening regimes... at least compared to say North Korea... a country ruled by a leader that makes Saddam look like a boy-scout by comparsion, and with a much greater capacity to supply other "rogue" nations or groups with WMD capabilities.