Not quite enough there...
This presumes that everything with Saddam was under control just so long as there was no direct Saddam-Al Qaeda link. This isn't true. Saddam's continued defiance, financing of terror, and the breakdown of containment were longstanding problems. Remember, the Clinton administration seriously discussed an invasion of Iraq in 1998 when Iraq tossed the US inspectors, well before Al Qaeda had moved up the threat ladder to #1. It should have happened then. I think if it had happened then, 9/11 would have been averted because OBL would have changed his mind about the nature of his enemy. He would have geared up for a guerilla war in Iraq instead, as he's doing now.
But it makes a great veil for this administration to further expand it's tentacles
This is the thing that gets me. To my eyes, the administration is obviously acting out of fear of a repeat of 9/11, and a worse one. Love or hate what they're doing, that's their motivation. If you believe that it's all a ruse, then you have to come up with an alternate motivation, and "expand their tentacles" is frankly pretty lame. Do they expand their tentacles before or after the black helicopters of the UN fly in? If Cheney wanted to give some money to his oil buddies, it would have been a whole lot simpler to lift the sanctions on Saddam and throw them the business. They would have cleaned up.
Niddal in Baghdad? so what? there are 5million other people in Baghdad as well.
Hey, when one of world's leading terrorist bigwigs just 'happens' to spend his 'retirement' in the capital of a certain police state, I don't consider it a coincidence, you know? Guys like that don't move in without the intelligence service's okay.
btw, should we have invaded Saudi Arabia first? The evidence sure appears to be more damming in their case
So it is. But we couldn't invade Saudi Arabia, for all kinds of reasons. So we are trying to pressure them instead.
Obviously,imo the arguements here would never hold up in a court of law
Arguments based on intelligence rarely do, even when you are willing to destroy your intelligence sources by making them public.
Probably explains the lack of global support in this campaign.
There are much simpler explanations for that too, like cui bono? Who was paying the costs of the previous policy, and who was reaping the benefits? Who was being the most threatened by the new situation? Hint: a) the US, b) not the US, c) the US |
