Oh, I certainly agree that Sadam was violating the '92 armistice (I think it was '92) and that he was past due for a lesson. My point was that the reason given for invading was wmd's and not the deposition of a dictator with a long string of human rights violations. I don't think that I recall his human rights record brought up once in the wind up to the war, it may have been mentioned in passing, but was by no means the argument for engagement, nor was it reported about by the major news stations.
The point that I was trying to make was that this whole line of reasoning about deposing a brutal dictator, while true, is spin. The bushies realized that they weren't going to find wmd's (and that there was too much attention there to sneak in some) so they fell back on what was left. Suddenly no one mentioned wmd's any more and it was all about the human rights.
It was about as funny and frustrating as watching CNN try to be objective and not sensational. It was like watching CNN go from the "yay! war!" mentality, through "we're looking for and will find wmd's", to "what were you thinking?".
Much like CNN's about face, it seems like people are too willing to forget that the initial reason for the invasion was shown wrong, indeed that there seemed to be little convincing evidence along those lines to begin with. I agree that it wasn't Bush himself who made the call, he's a puppet anyway. However, I think that the administration was atrociously uncritical of the evidence brought before them. I suppose as a scientist I find it frustrating, I have to (with good reason and gladly) doubt every piece of information I receive. It must be analysed and tested for validity and to see whether it makes sense or is consistent with other data.
All the evidence that has come out leading up to and since the invasion has indcated that this administration was single-minded in their desire to invade. In time, the UN would have aided, it was just a matter of waiting. Why? Because the UN doesn't act quickly, on a single piece of evidence, or with the same agenda. Granted, the UN has had a dismal record in some places (cough--rwanda-cough), but it's still as good a platform for testing the validity of a cause. To defend your plan in front of hundreds of people, several of whom are skeptical or opposed to you to begin with forces you to present a strong and irrefutable case. The fact was that the 'immanant threat' was not shown. In time, however, the UN would have had to act to enforce its own ruling, lest others take advantage of them. But, of course, we'll never know.
In summary, no, I don't think that they lied about wmd's. I think that they misused shaky evidence and didn't check it for consistency. I suspect that they discarded evidence that suggested that there weren't wmd's (or an immanent threat), but kept positive evidence.
The point that I was trying to make was that this whole line of reasoning about deposing a brutal dictator, while true, is spin. The bushies realized that they weren't going to find wmd's (and that there was too much attention there to sneak in some) so they fell back on what was left. Suddenly no one mentioned wmd's any more and it was all about the human rights.
It was about as funny and frustrating as watching CNN try to be objective and not sensational. It was like watching CNN go from the "yay! war!" mentality, through "we're looking for and will find wmd's", to "what were you thinking?".
Much like CNN's about face, it seems like people are too willing to forget that the initial reason for the invasion was shown wrong, indeed that there seemed to be little convincing evidence along those lines to begin with. I agree that it wasn't Bush himself who made the call, he's a puppet anyway. However, I think that the administration was atrociously uncritical of the evidence brought before them. I suppose as a scientist I find it frustrating, I have to (with good reason and gladly) doubt every piece of information I receive. It must be analysed and tested for validity and to see whether it makes sense or is consistent with other data.
All the evidence that has come out leading up to and since the invasion has indcated that this administration was single-minded in their desire to invade. In time, the UN would have aided, it was just a matter of waiting. Why? Because the UN doesn't act quickly, on a single piece of evidence, or with the same agenda. Granted, the UN has had a dismal record in some places (cough--rwanda-cough), but it's still as good a platform for testing the validity of a cause. To defend your plan in front of hundreds of people, several of whom are skeptical or opposed to you to begin with forces you to present a strong and irrefutable case. The fact was that the 'immanant threat' was not shown. In time, however, the UN would have had to act to enforce its own ruling, lest others take advantage of them. But, of course, we'll never know.
In summary, no, I don't think that they lied about wmd's. I think that they misused shaky evidence and didn't check it for consistency. I suspect that they discarded evidence that suggested that there weren't wmd's (or an immanent threat), but kept positive evidence.
