Originally posted by JaTo:
This "fact fixing" that you keep trying to hang an argument on (of which there are a decades worth) was little more than the Bush administration trying to build a case and shine evidence in a light that would get the UN behind them, as IT was the main audience that was pushing against invasion, despite decree after decree. . . . I don't like the entire "song and dance" that was given to the UN, either as invasion stood on it's own merits without having to "dress it up" . . . [for example] the insistence of Al-Qaeda and Hussein being cohorts, for one. This is the biggest piece, though by no means the only one. I don't like it and I think it was rather reckless.




You seem to agree that the Bushmen used a certain amount of deception to build support for the war. You seem to acknowledge they used some false evidence, overstated some evidence, and used the CIA as a "fall guy." Yet you seem to excuse this, since the war was a worthy cause in your opinion. Can't you see the huge moral problem with that? How can you be so blase about such a huge breach of trust by our president? How can you excuse such illegal and immoral means, even if you think the ends were worthy of support? Even if I supported the war, I would never tolerate such deception because of the long-term harm to our nation (mainly, the loss of trust in government, and the erosion of democracy).

Originally posted by JaTo:
[You] ignore a decade of deceit, subterfuge and "hide and seek" by Iraq with . . . weapons inspectors . . . it seems that some still want to pretend that the Oval Office woke up one morning, put a thumbtack on Iraq and said "Let's invade. How can we justify it?", all the while ignoring a decade of BS that was heaped up on the UN and the US by Hussein and his lackeys, and escalating efforts world-wide to gain enforcement of UN mandates. . . .



You keep excusing Bush's deceit by saying there were grounds for the war other than the false ones that Bush used to fool us. You say Saddam's violation of UN resolutions provided adequate legal grounds, so Bush cannot be blamed for starting the war. This completely igores the fact that THE UN OPPOSED THE WAR. You can't justify the war by using the UN resolutions, because the UN vehemently opposed the war. Bush lost any right to UN "cover" when the UN itself refused to approve the invasion.

Bush clings to the UN resolutions because there is no other possible legal justification for the invasion. International law (obviously) does not allow a country to start a war without UN approval just because another country is failing to disclose its weaponry. Bush acted without UN aproval and without any other legal grounds. That's called anarchy.

Originally posted by JaTo:
I swear, given the bile that crops up, sometimes it amazes me that some liberals haven't held "Free Sadam" fundraisers here Stateside and aren't pushing to have him re-instated as Dictator of Iraq...



Attaboy, JaTo. Accuse us anti-war folks of being Saddam lovers. If we are against the war, we must be for Saddam, right? We obviously cannot be good patriotic Americans if we oppose Bush's war.