Which Is It?
President Bush continues to maintain that the choice to avoid war belonged to Saddam Hussein alone. All he had to do was abide by the UN resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction and other things. But surely Bush is not being honest here. He now defends the war on the grounds that not only did Saddam have the capability to build weapons, but that he was a brutal dictator, a financier of Palestinian terrorism, and the obstacle to democracy in the Middle East. Had Saddam fulfilled the UN resolutions to the letter he’d still be in power, a brutal dictator, a financier of terrorism, and an obstacle to democracy. Does that matter to President Bush or not? Was war in the cards no matter what Saddam did about the alleged weapons?
comments powered by Disqus
Jason Pappas - 2/10/2004
The UN resolutions were crucial. The rest is true about Saudi Arabia even if not to the same degree. Similar can be said about Iran. Although I'd suspect most supporters of the war hoped Iraq was just a prelude to "regime change" in Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Let's watch Kerry; he could make Saudi Arabia the next target to get the war vote. That switch could take Bush by surprise and wouldn't hurt Kerry's support among Bush haters. There have been stranger changes in politics before!
- Historian Fernando Prado on quest to find remains of Cervantes
- Historian shines a light on the dark heart of Australia's nationhood
- Female historian says human rights museum censored her
- Japanese historians slam sex-slave apology review
- Stephanie Coontz: "Marriages require much more maturity than they once did."