if bush KNEW no wmds, he would have attacked anyway

[unblock]

is there really any doubt? the wmd issue was always just cover. a snow job to obscure the crass reality that the invasion was about "finishing" gulf war i and seizing oil. but the real reasons wouldn't sell, so they came up with the wmd crap.

so the problem is that the snow job is unravelling. (hmm, snow doesn't unravel ... does a snow job melt?)

but the reality is that if everybody KNEW that there were no wmd, and they didn't try this particular snow job, the would have simply come up with a different snow job and invaded anyway.


the big lie was not the the snow job turned out to be false. the big lie was that the rationale given for invasion was a snow job.

[hippiechick]

1. Of course he would have ...

The rationale changed by the week ... first it was WMD's, then it was 'terra connections' ... then it was 'liberating the Iraqi people' ... KKKarl just latched on to whatever excuse polled the most support with the paranoiac Murkans' at the time.

Now it's coming back to bite them in the ass. And I hope it's got T-Rex sized chompers.


:hippie:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

2. PNAC, and Paul O'Neill's Evidence

Paul O'Neill said that the administration was intent on invading Iraq when they took office. There was also a map drawn up showing Iraq's oil fields.

There are still dummies who watch Faux News and think they found WMDs, but I think most Americans now know the truth...

[Jacobin]

3. A pretext is just that, a pretext

WMD didn't matter, they were only important to justify a war to help Israel get rid of a neighbor it didn't like, steal oil for corporate america, enrich Halliburton, Carlyle Group, et al, divert attention from Smirk's disasterous reign, avenge Smirk's father in some infantile fashion, and make him feel important, as if he were a "war time pretzledent".

They knew they could spin horseshit into gold chains with the media on their side, so it didn't matter what they did or how they did it.

They are arrogant and believe they are immune to public opinion.

November 2004 will tell the tale.

[Papa]

4. Didnt Wolfowitz say WMD's was what everyone could agree on?

I thought someone said something like that. There was a big hub-bub about it when he said it.

[Vitruvius]

5. Bu$h KNEW Saddam had no WMDs; otherwise he wouldn't have DARED attack

because Saddam would have used the WMDs on our troops or on our homeland or on Israel.

North Korea has WMDs -- and look how gentle & careful Bu$h is being with them.

Bu$h only attacks people who can't fight back -- e.g. people with no WMDs. The WMD rationale for war was a phony from the beginning..

Vitruvius

P.S: Under international law, any nation is entitled to build any weapon they please -- including WMDs; international law only regulates how weapons are not used; it does NOT restrict what weapons a sovereign nation can build.

The only exception is if a nation has signed a treaty or an armistice wherein it renounces some weapons. Iraq was under restrictions from the first Gulf War -- and indeed had no WMDs.

Which, I suspect, is why George Bu$h the first did not have the US Army attempt to take Baghdad in the first Gulf War; Saddam still had the CBWs that the Reagan-Bu$h administration sold them. By the second Gulf War, Saddam no longer had those weapons, and Bu$h II felt free to have the Army conquer all of Iraq.

[rhino91063]

6. What do you mean "if"?

bush always knew there were no WMDs. His plan was that things would be so great in Iraq after he conquered it, everyone would forget about them. Instead the peasants didn't like their new king, our boys are stuck in a hell whole and people what to know why. So now he is stucking trying to produce or explain the WMDs that he thought would become a non issue.