[secretagent]

The author has already given his answer:

...The multitudes killed by Saddam would still be dead, but this war has not resurrected them. If he had resumed his massacres, the world could have debated the wisdom of threatening force on honest humanitarian grounds rather than trumped-up charges about WMDs.

He has a valid point. Bush did not allege a current massacre in Iraq as a reason for invasion. With that criterion, Bush would have picked the Congo first.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" Bush did not allege a current massacre in Iraq as a reason for invasion."

From his State of The Union, Jan 28,2003:

"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

Sounds like mass murder to me.And it continued until just before the war began. From Sunspot.org, June 9,2003

" SALMAN PAK, Iraq - As survivors desperate for news of missing relatives looked on, a big yellow backhoe methodically cut a trench in the sandy dirt, bringing up two more bodies yesterday.

It was a small recovery for a hot morning's work, but it did not deter Sheik Khadim Fartousi, leader of an Islamic charity, who told reporters that they were standing on a mass grave - the site where some of the last executions of political prisoners of Saddam Hussein's regime took place.

Fartousi said four busloads of political prisoners were brought to this area near the infamous Salman Pak training camp and chemical weapons facility and executed in April, only five days before U.S. forces took nearby Baghdad. Information about the executions came from witnesses and former employees of the Iraqi intelligence service, he said."

[section9]

...The multitudes killed by Saddam would still be dead, but this war has not resurrected them. If he had resumed his massacres, the world could have debated the wisdom of threatening force on honest humanitarian grounds rather than trumped-up charges about WMDs.

He has a valid point. Bush did not allege a current massacre in Iraq as a reason for invasion. With that criterion, Bush would have picked the Congo first.

No, he has no point at all. Here's why. People in the world, and people on the left in particular, don't give a rat's flying ass how many innocent Iraqis were butchered by Saddam. They didn't care in the past, and they don't really care now. They wouldn't care in the future.

No one cares about the Congo. No one cared about Cambodia. No one cared about the Great Terror in Russia. What makes this writer think that people would care about Saddam enough to threaten force?

They wouldn't have. This writer knows that, but he is not intellectually honest enough to admit it. George Bush was, however. Saddam's contempt for the rights of his people was one of the stated reasons for going to war. Nobody was listening that part of the speech, I guess.

Be Seeing You,

Chris