We know what he did to his own people- heck I've known that longer than the Republicans, who were kissing him not so long ago because he was our Friend in the ME who didn't like Iran (the enemy of our enemy)- but then I read Mother Jones and they had a cover issue on the gassed Kurds, and you probably missed that issue. Be that as it may, what a leader does to his own people is not a justification for the unilateral action of our country to invade another country, so that's an unrelated issue.
The reason we invaded (at least the way it was sold to the US people)- was that Iraq posed a danger to the US. If it did not pose a danger, and it appears it did not (though it sure does now, thank you Mr. Bush), then the justification for the war was very shaky. Hence my question to YOU about the connection with 9/11- and I understand why you are evasive. No one wants to have to revisit a poor call on bad data. If Saddam was terrorizing Iraq or Iran(for example) is that really a reason for the US to unilaterally invade?
What you have done in your post is a classic example of the bait and switch rhetoric we have seen from the right. The right sold this war based on American security, because the AMerican people were afraid, and scared people believe almost anything - for a little while- but that is wearing off. We have known for a long long time what Saddam did to his own people- and it was fine with us when he was a thorn in the side of Iran. So don't go wringing your hands about what Saddam did to his own people, and think I believe that this gives any leader of the US any moral authority to invade, because that is just stupid.
And he doesn't need to be "blameless"- what you really need to explain is how anything in your mess of a hand wringing post gives us any right to invade a country, completely screw it up, and spin it to the verge of civil war. Got an answer for that? |
