[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

[secretagent]

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.

They did listen to that part, and contrasted Iraq with other countries' human rights records. On human rights abuse alone, Iraq didn't rate #1.

On WMD alone, Iraq didn't rate #1.

But as to doable, in America's security interest, and probably yielding an improvement in human rights for the Iraqis over the next 5 years, yes it made some sense.