Even if WMDs found, would it justify invading Iraq?

[kentuck]

Listening to the Bushbot from the Weekly Standard on C-SPAN, he's pretending he has found all these secret documents proving Saddam's WMDs and his intent to use them. First of all, we must assume he can read the Arabic language or perhaps he has interpreters that not even the Administration has in its fold? But what if they do find WMDs? What difference would it make? Would that make everything OK now? After all, the WMD lie was just one lie in a long line of lies.

[Daphne08]

1. I personally wouldn't trust anything from Weekly Standard

without corroborating evidence from an objective source.

I don't know about these documents, but certainly they should be translated by objective, non-partisan sources... by many objective sources.

[Radio_Guy]

2. To answer your question, no

There were no WMDs, that is a proven fact. But pretending that there were, that does not justify attacking a country and overthrowing its elected president. We aren't doing that to India, Israel, North Korea, Russia, China or any other country that has them. We had no business doing that to Iraq.

[centristo]

3. I've posted those documents before

they do not prove that Saddam was colluding with Al Qaeda, but they show Saddam was cognizant of them.

Look, Saddam would have loved to have acquired a nuclear weapon. I don't think that is a big stretch to say. However, would he have given or sold the bomb to Al Qaeda. All evidence seems to indicate that no, he wouldn't.

I thought maybe the documents were posted here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

But I don't see them. Also, the documents are transcribed into English by government translators, although the true Arabic text is also there if anyone can read it.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

4. recommended and

and kicked :kick: