Quote:
Originally posted by RACooper
Fine I'll take the bait... but bear with me I'm living out the song Comfortably Numb now on Codine...
If it was about Geopolitics why didn't they say that? Instead the administration tried to sell it on 9/11, WMD, genocide, freedom, democracy, etc..... but mostly WMD. Now when other countries (well most of them) voiced their concern that the arguement for WMD was exactly solid, they were critized or reviled.... I'm sorry no matter how you try and spin it the administration used WMD as their lead horse or main arguement, and now the press should be asking the questions they should have been years ago (without attacks on their patriotism or "American-ness).
|
And this is a fair point, but let's address it in two different ways:
1 - You don't feel there was the potential for some dangerous weapons systems if the Iraqi Ba'athist government was left unrestrained? I mean, between the lack of cooperation w/ the UN, and historical seeking out (and receiving) nuclear systems . . . I think that the danger was present, even if the preexisting weapons were removed or (most likely) relocated.
2 - Even if we 'sold' it as WMD-based, the geopolitical concerns alone make this a fairly justifiable course of action, no? So while the press derides the Bush administration, why not devote some time to the positives of regime change to the geopolitical texture of the region? If it would have been easy to explain this to the masses as justification by the Bush admin, surely the press will have no trouble breaking the story either . . . right?
It's pretty clear that's not going to happen . . .
-RC
--"The people is stupid." --alexander hamilton
Threaded Mode