Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, December 4, 2008 07:51 AM

  Odd claim

  "Second, when you say "forged documents," do you even know what is being referred to? I am not talking about the forged Italian documents regarding yellowcake from Niger. I am talking about THIS:

  http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1008766.html"

  That's an odd claim, moonbat, since none of the justifications the Bush administration used prior to the invasion included the claim that Saddam was complicit in 9/11.

  In "Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire," historian Niall Ferguson outlined the Bush administration’s justifications for invading Iraq:

  1. Iraq had consistently failed to comply with UNSC resolutions and might—no one could of course be sure, precisely because of Iraqi noncooperation—have retained or recovered the capability to use or to export chemical or biological weapons.

  2. Saddam was a bloody tyrant who had committed crimes against hu-manity, if not outright genocide.

  3. The overthrow of Saddam might help to break the gridlock of the Middle East peace process by sending an unequivocal signal of hos-tility to any regime that defied the United States—pour encourager les autres, as much as to get rid of Saddam himself.

  4. Creating a democratic Iraq might also begin a wholesale “transfor-mation of the Middle East” (in the words of Condoleezza Rice), with Iraq once again setting an example for the other Arab states.

  5. Controlling Iraq might create alternative bases for U.S. troops in the Middle East, allowing them to leave Saudi Arabia (and thereby meeting at least one of the radical Islamists’ demands.)

  There was no claim that Saddam was complicit in 9/11.

  —Groenhagen Read Groenhagen's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel