AND HE SHALL BE JUDGED

[WIP]

GQ Magazine published an article recently that others, besides their gay and metrosexual core audience will find of interest. Robert Draper, author of Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush, spent the last year interviewing a number of former Bush staffers who blame the rush to war on the scheming of Donald Rumsfeld:

AND HE SHALL BE JUDGED

Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld has always answered his detractors by claiming that history will one day judge him kindly. But as he waits for that day, a new group of critics—his administration peers—are suddenly speaking out for the first time. What they’re saying? It isn’t pretty

This is the most interesting factoid in the lengthy article:

The Scripture-adorned cover sheets illustrate one specific complaint I heard again and again: that Rumsfeld’s tactics—such as playing a religious angle with the president—often ran counter to sound decision-making and could, occasionally, compromise the administration’s best interests. In the case of the sheets, publicly flaunting his own religious views was not at all the SecDef’s style—“Rumsfeld was old-fashioned that way,” Shaffer acknowledged when I contacted him about the briefings—but it was decidedly Bush’s style, and Rumsfeld likely saw the Scriptures as a way of making a personal connection with a president who frequently quoted the Bible. No matter that, if leaked, the images would reinforce impressions that the administration was embarking on a religious war and could escalate tensions with the Muslim world. The sheets were not Rumsfeld’s direct invention—and he could thus distance himself from them, should that prove necessary.

Still, the sheer cunning of pairing unsentimental intelligence with religious righteousness bore the signature of one man: Donald Rumsfeld. And as historians slog through the smoke and mirrors of his tenure, they may find that Rumsfeld’s most enduring legacy will be the damage he did to Bush’s.

http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_9217

So, they are contending that Rummy used Bush's simple-minded religious faith as a tool to motivate him towards an invasion strategy! But this theory of simpleton Bush being a dupe or patsy for the evil Rumsfeld and Cheney machinations, doesn't fit what other people have said about George Bush -- claiming that his father's failure to take out Saddam cost him the opportunity for re-election, and that he was going to be a "wartime" president, according to Mickey Herzkowitz, a former Houston Chronicle sports reporter. A higher placed witness, who claims that Bush was planning an Iraq invasion from the time he took office was Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil.

Now that the knives are out, it should be fascinating to see how much inside information emerges about the Bush Administration shenanigans while in office. No doubt, some of their motivation is not just about protecting their legacies -- many of these people are staring at war crimes charges from either U.S. or even international courts; so they want to take a little pre-emptive action, in case Obama caves on his promise to let bygones be bygones and allows real investigations of the rush to war and the use of torture.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Now that the knives are out, it should be fascinating to see how much inside information emerges about the Bush Administration shenanigans while in office. No doubt, some of their motivation is not just about protecting their legacies -- many of these people are staring at war crimes charges from either U.S. or even international courts; so they want to take a little pre-emptive action, in case Obama caves on his promise to let bygones be bygones and allows real investigations of the rush to war and the use of torture.

Nonsense...there will be no "war crimes" charges...at least not until PM Chretien, PM Schroeder, PM Blair, PM Chirac, and President Clinton are so charged. I think it just bugs so many that Dubya and Company get to march off into the sunset, just like those who have done so before.

War and torture make fine bedfellows, but not prosecutions, especially if you win the war.

[sharkman]

Gee, I thought they already had this nailed, and W went to war over oil. Oh wait, that isn't it. It was revenge over the attack on his father by one S. Hussien. Or was it Israel? The balance of power in the M.E.? The left has come up with so much nonsense you'd think they might have learned something by now. Apparently not.

So now, instead of Cheney pulling the strings, we find IT WAS RUMSFIELD! That dirty no good low down yellow bellied sap sucker got Bush to do his bidding by merely inserting bible verses into his notes, and Bush would do whatever he said, eh?(So why did he stop there? Why not get W to give him a raise? Put a outdoor pool in the back yard? The man obviously was aiming too low.) Good grief. The left is getting pretty desperate.

Or maybe just crazy like a fox. I note with interest that this story came out after Nancy Pelosi got busted for lying on whether she knew and consented to waterboarding AKA torturing souls. Say, this couldn't be just an attempt to divert attention away from San Fran Nan, could it? Not like they haven't done worse before.

At any rate, it humors me to think that one D. Rumsfield could fool Bush into taking the nation to war. So let's think this out. He must have been working overtime inserting scripture verses into the info that congress read too, right? And the Senate? Regardless of everyone's religious status, Rummy spiked their drinks or something and got them to sign off on this grand conspiracy. Riiiiiight.

[Smallc]

PM Schroeder

PM Chirac

[Topaz]

Nonsense...there will be no "war crimes" charges...at least not until PM Chretien, PM Schroeder, PM Blair, PM Chirac, and President Clinton are so charged. I think it just bugs so many that Dubya and Company get to march off into the sunset, just like those who have done so before.

War and torture make fine bedfellows, but not prosecutions, especially if you win the war.

That's the problem right there! These leaders know that they would probably NOT be charged with anything wrong by the leader following them! It a double-standard for leaders and its time we end this practice by starting with the Bush gang and throw them ALL in jail.

[Topaz]

I read O'Neils book, and he stated at the first meeting with Bush and his gang, they talked about going into Iraq before 9/11 happened. When they started to feel O'Neil was against it, they would change the topic or wouldn't say anything when he came into they room. It wasn't just Rummy, but Cheney, Wolfman etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's the problem right there! These leaders know that they would probably NOT be charged with anything wrong by the leader following them! It a double-standard for leaders and its time we end this practice by starting with the Bush gang and throw them ALL in jail.

Not bloody likely....the USA is not even a signatory to the ICC (Rome Statute). Chretien, Clinton and others would have to go to The Hague first (for Kosovo, Sudan, etc.)

[bush_cheney2004]

I read O'Neils book, and he stated at the first meeting with Bush and his gang, they talked about going into Iraq before 9/11 happened. When they started to feel O'Neil was against it, they would change the topic or wouldn't say anything when he came into they room. It wasn't just Rummy, but Cheney, Wolfman etc.

Clue: The United States of America and The United Kingdom were kicking Iraq's ass six ways to Sunday since 1991.

[Oleg Bach]

Clue: The United States of America and The United Kingdom were kicking Iraq's ass six ways to Sunday since 1991.

It's still amuzing the Saddam actually thought that he was part of this mafia club - when he invaded Kuait - he really thought he had the mobs blessing - Then they double crossed him while he exited - trustingly leaving the Rebublican guard out in the open - to be sprayed like bugs from the air - He was not expecting that....as for the United Kingdom - the old school guys still think of themselves as imperialists.

[WIP]

Nonsense...there will be no "war crimes" charges...at least not until PM Chretien, PM Schroeder, PM Blair, PM Chirac, and President Clinton are so charged. I think it just bugs so many that Dubya and Company get to march off into the sunset, just like those who have done so before.

Anyone for blame-shifting?

No harm done as long as there were accomplices I suppose! But, was Blair and other allies aware of lies and deception used to bring them onboard, such as suppressing information that revealed the Yellow-cake uranium story was a fraud? Were allies duped into supporting the Iraq Invasion for same reasons that most Americans were: they assumed their government was telling them the truth?

War and torture make fine bedfellows, but not prosecutions, especially if you win the war.

So, your personal philosophy is the ends justify the means? How do you square this Might makes right ethos with your other hobby horse - claiming concern for the life of the fetus? Shouldn't women also be able to justify abortion based on that ends-justify-the-means reasoning at a personal level?

[WIP]

So now, instead of Cheney pulling the strings, we find IT WAS RUMSFIELD!

That point was already made in the opening post? The fascination is observing the principle "no honour among thieves" being put into practice, as Bush's legacy builders look for scapegoats to shift all of the blame on for everything that went wrong.

[bush_cheney2004]

Anyone for blame-shifting?

No harm done as long as there were accomplices I suppose! But, was Blair and other allies aware of lies and deception used to bring them onboard, such as suppressing information that revealed the Yellow-cake uranium story was a fraud? Were allies duped into supporting the Iraq Invasion for same reasons that most Americans were: they assumed their government was telling them the truth?

That's not the point at all....you are being hopelessly inconsistent when it comes to metering out charges of "war crimes". The USA and UK strangled Iraq for 12 years as a matter of official policy that stemmed from the Gulf War. The "invasion" would have happened even if "most Americans" didn't agree.

So, your personal philosophy is the ends justify the means? How do you square this Might makes right ethos with your other hobby horse - claiming concern for the life of the fetus? Shouldn't women also be able to justify abortion based on that ends-justify-the-means reasoning at a personal level?

I don't give a rat's ass about the life of a fetus, but I do care about intellectual and logical consistency, something you don't value so much. My only purpose in bleating about abortion is to bolster the very position you rail against depending on the very fickle political context. However, I do avoid stepping on ants during my noon walk in the park.

[WIP]

That's not the point at all....you are being hopelessly inconsistent when it comes to metering out charges of "war crimes". The USA and UK strangled Iraq for 12 years as a matter of official policy that stemmed from the Gulf War. The "invasion" would have happened even if "most Americans" didn't agree.

So now I'm supposed to believe you gave a rat's ass about Iraqi civilians suffering under U.N. sanctions! And that simple fact means your charge that the sanctions were a war crime is just another ruse! They were officially imposed by the U.N. Security Council -- so exactly who would have been prosecuting a war crime under this scenario?

I don't give a rat's ass about the life of a fetus,

I suspected as much, but this admission means you are not an honest debater, since you have no conviction behind the issues you argue for! Are all of your arguments for rhetorical purposes only?

but I do care about intellectual and logical consistency, something you don't value so much. My only purpose in bleating about abortion is to bolster the very position you rail against depending on the very fickle political context.

What a load of crap here! You "bleat" about abortion, not because of any moral convictions or real concerns, but because you have such little respect for stakes involved in this debate, that it is just a cheap parlour game to you! If my logic is inconsistent, point out where this is so, rather than pretending to care about issues you don't give a "rat's ass" about.

If you knew anything about the abortion issue, you would understand why this issue is so difficult. The underlying dispute is regarding determining a point when a new life is to be awarded personal rights, especially the right to life, which by default has to override the the privacy rights and freedoms of the mother.

There are not many pro choice supporters who will advocate free access to abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy -- when higher brain function and connections are being made between the Cortex and Thalamus that make it possible to sense pain and discomfort. At the late stage, most pro choice supporters will only support third trimester abortions if there are clear medical complications that risk the mother's health or indicate severe birth defects.

On the other hand, so called pro-lifers, who claim that life must be protected from the point of conception, make exceptions for a number of situations like: endangering the mother's life, severe birth defects, and even cases of rape and incest. Aside from these, nonCatholic anti-abortionists are almost unanimously approving of oral contraceptives, even though they can often prevent an embryo from implanting in the mother's uterus -- that's killing the baby according to the fanatical definition of pro life zealots! So why do they have nothing to say about the Pill? It's not so simple if you stop to think about it!

[bush_cheney2004]

So now I'm supposed to believe you gave a rat's ass about Iraqi civilians suffering under U.N. sanctions! And that simple fact means your charge that the sanctions were a war crime is just another ruse! They were officially imposed by the U.N. Security Council -- so exactly who would have been prosecuting a war crime under this scenario?

Many UK/USA actions in Iraq were not sanctioned by the UN, notably no-fly zones and Operation Desert Fox.

Moreover, the "war crimes" dance easily involves NATO and actions against Serbia, if one wishes to play that game in a fair minded way.

I suspected as much, but this admission means you are not an honest debater, since you have no conviction behind the issues you argue for! Are all of your arguments for rhetorical purposes only?

My only purpose is to portray as foolish and inconsistent the moral convictions that you choose to champion. Busting your balls is just a bonus.

What a load of crap here! You "bleat" about abortion, not because of any moral convictions or real concerns, but because you have such little respect for stakes involved in this debate, that it is just a cheap parlour game to you! If my logic is inconsistent, point out where this is so, rather than pretending to care about issues you don't give a "rat's ass" about.

I already have pointed this out several times....you just don't like it. You don't like the messy inconsistencies of a tangled morality mixed with political ideology....in a foreign country...no less. So you toss around terms like "war crimes" without really knowing the technical elements of such an offense by treaty, let alone the practical implications for any government's administration and foreign policy...past, present, or future.

If you knew anything about the abortion issue, you would understand why this issue is so difficult. The underlying dispute is regarding determining a point when a new life is to be awarded personal rights, especially the right to life, which by default has to override the the privacy rights and freedoms of the mother.

Not in Canada.....you can legally slay 'em right up to birth. The issue has been legally settled in Canuckistan.

Whatsa matta...can't sleep nights?

There are not many pro choice supporters who will advocate free access to abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy -- when higher brain function and connections are being made between the Cortex and Thalamus that make it possible to sense pain and discomfort. At the late stage, most pro choice supporters will only support third trimester abortions if there are clear medical complications that risk the mother's health or indicate severe birth defects.

See above....and there are many feminists who must defend such a position because of the obvious implications on restrictions advancing with medical technology for viability.

....So why do they have nothing to say about the Pill? It's not so simple if you stop to think about it!

It is very simple if stop to think about it. I am not confused by your self imposed moral conflict. The Pill is far more liberating to women than the right to abortions.

[WIP]

Many UK/USA actions in Iraq were not sanctioned by the UN, notably no-fly zones and Operation Desert Fox.

And that qualifies them for a warcrimes charge?

Moreover, the "war crimes" dance easily involves NATO and actions against Serbia, if one wishes to play that game in a fair minded way.

May very well be true, but Serbia was behind so many atrocities on so many fronts that they didn't have the opportunity to charge others with war crimes. There was a strong case that Milosevic was a war criminal, but the case against the U.S. and NATO could not be based on anything they did on the ground, since it was entirely an aerial operation -- so it would be hard to make a case that crimes were committed against civilians, unless there is proof that they were deliberately targeted and not near any military or strategic installations. And I don't recall any charges that the U.S. set up secret prisons where they tortured captives during that war.

My only purpose is to portray as foolish and inconsistent the moral convictions that you choose to champion. Busting your balls is just a bonus.

Your just busting your own balls, since you haven't taken enough time to learn the issue. Put it simply: if you can't take the time to make the case that an embryo or fetus is a person, with personal rights that supersede the mother's interests, your baby-killing accusations have no merit!

But, this is a strange issue to use for rhetorical purposes. This puts whatever moral values you do have into question. Why would you claim abortion is murder if you either don't believe it, or don't care whether or not it is murder?

I already have pointed this out several times....you just don't like it. You don't like the messy inconsistencies of a tangled morality mixed with political ideology....in a foreign country...no less. So you toss around terms like "war crimes" without really knowing the technical elements of such an offense by treaty, let alone the practical implications for any government's administration and foreign policy...past, present, or future.

Well, let's start with those technical elements. Does the use of torture constitute a war crime?

Not in Canada.....you can legally slay 'em right up to birth. The issue has been legally settled in Canuckistan.

Whatsa matta...can't sleep nights?

Here you go, lying again! Awhile back, you were the one who provided me a link to information on Canadian women having to travel to the U.S. to seek third trimester abortions - because the procedure is not available in most of Canada. Legal access is meaningless, if there is no practical availability, and you would have remembered this I suppose, except for the fact that you don't give a "rat's ass" about the abortion issue!

It is very simple if stop to think about it. I am not confused by your self imposed moral conflict. The Pill is far more liberating to women than the right to abortions.

Not if the woman has an unwanted pregnancy! And since the Pill is an abortifacient, the extreme antiabortion fanatics have to oppose its use to be consistent with their ideology that a fertilized egg is a person to be guaranteed a right to be born.

[bush_cheney2004]

And that qualifies them for a warcrimes charge?

Of course...in the Bizzarro world of war crimes for political attention. What...Iraqi civilains only count as war crimes victims when it's Bush/Cheney?

May very well be true, but Serbia was behind so many atrocities on so many fronts that they didn't have the opportunity to charge others with war crimes.

Correct...which is why Chirac or Clinton or the Bushes will never be so charged. Not even for crimes against the peace.

There was a strong case that Milosevic was a war criminal, but the case against the U.S. and NATO could not be based on anything they did on the ground, since it was entirely an aerial operation -- so it would be hard to make a case that crimes were committed against civilians, unless there is proof that they were deliberately targeted and not near any military or strategic installations. And I don't recall any charges that the U.S. set up secret prisons where they tortured captives during that war.

Not so secret...see "rendition". It is interesting that you think war crimes cannot/ did not come from the 79 day air campaign. Serbia would disagree.

Your just busting your own balls, since you haven't taken enough time to learn the issue. Put it simply: if you can't take the time to make the case that an embryo or fetus is a person, with personal rights that supersede the mother's interests, your baby-killing accusations have no merit!

Not in Canada for sure....but I don't live in Canada. Many Americans can recognize baby killin' for what it is, and the socio-economic reasons it exists.

But, this is a strange issue to use for rhetorical purposes. This puts whatever moral values you do have into question. Why would you claim abortion is murder if you either don't believe it, or don't care whether or not it is murder?

I never claimed abortion is murder....not in legal terms. It just plain old killin' exercised by the power / choice to do so. Very congruent in my amoral world....but disturbing to wacked out moralists who want their cake and kill it too.

Well, let's start with those technical elements. Does the use of torture constitute a war crime?

Maybe...depends on who wins the war.

Here you go, lying again! Awhile back, you were the one who provided me a link to information on Canadian women having to travel to the U.S. to seek third trimester abortions - because the procedure is not available in most of Canada. Legal access is meaningless, if there is no practical availability, and you would have remembered this I suppose, except for the fact that you don't give a "rat's ass" about the abortion issue!

I only care about the abortion issue because it is your argument's Achilles Heel. Access and medical technology places the burden on other human beings when it comes to third-tri killin'....further eroding the personal liberty angle. Safe and legal abortions are an artificial "right", dependent on medical technology and skill sets.

Not if the woman has an unwanted pregnancy! And since the Pill is an abortifacient, the extreme antiabortion fanatics have to oppose its use to be consistent with their ideology that a fertilized egg is a person to be guaranteed a right to be born.

That's all well and good, but anybody who has studied the impact of birth-control pills and other contraceptive methods knows how much more important they have been to the social and economic emancipation of women. Killing unborn babies is just icing on the cake.

[Oleg Bach]

Of course...in the Bizzarro world of war crimes for political attention. What...Iraqi civilains only count as war crimes victims when it's Bush/Cheney?

Correct...which is why Chirac or Clinton or the Bushes will never be so charged. Not even for crimes against the peace.

Not so secret...see "rendition". It is interesting that you think war crimes cannot/ did not come from the 79 day air campaign. Serbia would disagree.

Not in Canada for sure....but I don't live in Canada. Many Americans can recognize baby killin' for what it is, and the socio-economic reasons it exists.

I never claimed abortion is murder....not in legal terms. It just plain old killin' exercised by the power / choice to do so. Very congruent in my amoral world....but disturbing to wacked out moralists who want their cake and kill it too.

Maybe...depends on who wins the war.

I only care about the abortion issue because it is your argument's Achilles Heel. Access and medical technology places the burden on other human beings when it comes to third-tri killin'....further eroding the personal liberty angle. Safe and legal abortions are an artificial "right", dependent on medical technology and skill sets.

That's all well and good, but anybody who has studied the impact of birth-control pills and other contraceptive methods knows how much more important they have been to the social and economic emancipation of women. Killing unborn babies is just icing on the cake.

Look at the millions dead - over the last 30 years - there are supposed to be gifted and talented people here on earth to assist in making the place better - instead the landing of the angels is aborted by those who do not want goodness to prevail - people do not get it...who are these people who were blocked from entering the world/ How many great human beings have they killed - and for what? To maintain a status quo that is an utter human failure?

[WIP]

Of course...in the Bizzarro world of war crimes for political attention. What...Iraqi civilains only count as war crimes victims when it's Bush/Cheney?

You have to prove intention to commit a crime. When the U.S. was acting under the authority of U.N. resolutions, and enforcing a No Fly Zone because of suspected war crimes against Kurds in the North, and Shias in the South, you would have some work to do to present a case that the U.S. was committing war crimes against Iraq. It's a false analogy to try to compare that situation with secret prisons and patterns of deliberate torture and abuse of detainees.

Not so secret...see "rendition". It is interesting that you think war crimes cannot/ did not come from the 79 day air campaign. Serbia would disagree.

I cannot say that they do not have a case; but their government had so much blood on their hands with deliberate collusion with death squads operated by their proxies in Bosnia, that they would have a hard time getting attention for their grievances. Although they did get recognition for Croatian war crimes during the ethnic cleansing of Eastern Croatia and Northern Bosnia.

Not in Canada for sure....but I don't live in Canada. Many Americans can recognize baby killin' for what it is, and the socio-economic reasons it exists.

No, you can't just throw out lame accusations of baby killing any more than you can make groundless accusations about war crimes against Serbians. Until you have a legal definition of personhood, with personal rights, it's empty rhetoric.....but that's what conservatives are good at I suppose.

I never claimed abortion is murder....not in legal terms. It just plain old killin' exercised by the power / choice to do so. Very congruent in my amoral world....but disturbing to wacked out moralists who want their cake and kill it too.

So you only genuflect to the abortion issue to make the religious members of the conservative movement happy! I have been suspecting for awhile now that conservative leaders are also amoral, and only make noises about faith, prayer and sanctity of life, to keep the church people happy and doing the legwork for conservative political parties.

I only care about the abortion issue because it is your argument's Achilles Heel. Access and medical technology places the burden on other human beings when it comes to third-tri killin'....further eroding the personal liberty angle. Safe and legal abortions are an artificial "right", dependent on medical technology and skill sets.

Considering that abortions existed on the blackmarket for decades, I'm sure there are a lot of women who would take issue with it being an artificial right.

That's all well and good, but anybody who has studied the impact of birth-control pills and other contraceptive methods knows how much more important they have been to the social and economic emancipation of women. Killing unborn babies is just icing on the cake.

Another cryptic message. What sort of "icing on the cake" are you talking about?

[bush_cheney2004]

You have to prove intention to commit a crime. When the U.S. was acting under the authority of U.N. resolutions, and enforcing a No Fly Zone because of suspected war crimes against Kurds in the North, and Shias in the South, you would have some work to do to present a case that the U.S. was committing war crimes against Iraq. It's a false analogy to try to compare that situation with secret prisons and patterns of deliberate torture and abuse of detainees.

No I wouldn't have to work hard at all, given the very same half-baked approach that you arbitrarily invoke. At the time, the US was accused of war crimes stemming from GW1 military and post war actions, including sanctions.

I cannot say that they do not have a case; but their government had so much blood on their hands with deliberate collusion with death squads operated by their proxies in Bosnia, that they would have a hard time getting attention for their grievances. Although they did get recognition for Croatian war crimes during the ethnic cleansing of Eastern Croatia and Northern Bosnia.

Correct...you cannot say.

No, you can't just throw out lame accusations of baby killing any more than you can make groundless accusations about war crimes against Serbians. Until you have a legal definition of personhood, with personal rights, it's empty rhetoric.....but that's what conservatives are good at I suppose.

I already said that....you live in Canada...where personhood is defined to exclude ANY unborn humans. I don't live in Canada.

So you only genuflect to the abortion issue to make the religious members of the conservative movement happy! I have been suspecting for awhile now that conservative leaders are also amoral, and only make noises about faith, prayer and sanctity of life, to keep the church people happy and doing the legwork for conservative political parties.

I sure hope so....that's what politics is all about. Abortion works as an issue, same as Abolition.

Considering that abortions existed on the blackmarket for decades, I'm sure there are a lot of women who would take issue with it being an artificial right.

Fine....then they can perform their own abortions...just as before if it is a "natural right". The state need not get involved.

Another cryptic message. What sort of "icing on the cake" are you talking about?

The "icing" you don't like to talk about.

[WIP]

The "icing" you don't like to talk about.

Because it is off topic in the first place! Abortion has nothing to do with the story cooked up by former Bush aides that Donald Rumsfeld used religious imagery to dupe their boss into declaring war on Iraq.

[bush_cheney2004]

Because it is off topic in the first place! Abortion has nothing to do with the story cooked up by former Bush aides that Donald Rumsfeld used religious imagery to dupe their boss into declaring war on Iraq.

How did they "dupe" Bush Sr. and Clinton? War was never declared against Iraq....how dramatic.

Edited May 25, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

The longer we venture back into the past - the more dismal the present and future will be - those that seek to punish the last administration will get so busy with this mission that their duties will become neglected - let it go...Cheney and the rest will punish themselves by breathing the breath of old age.

[scorpio]

War was never declared against Iraq....how dramatic.

Well, Americans were duped into believing mushroom clouds were imminent. But I'm very proud to report that Canada and countless other countries did not didn't buy the "big" lie. We believed the following:

"UNMOVIC led inspections of alleged chemical and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass destruction.

Based on its inspections and examinations during this time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully dismantled Iraq’s unconventional weapons program during the 1990s" Wikipedia

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, Americans were duped into believing mushroom clouds were imminent. But I'm very proud to report that Canada and countless other countries did not didn't buy the "big" lie. We believed the following:

Point of order: UNMOVIC could not resume inspections until the UK and USA went camping in Kuwait with over 200,000 troops.

Based on its inspections and examinations during this time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully dismantled Iraq’s unconventional weapons program during the 1990s" Wikipedia

Based on material breaches of GWI surrender instruments, Iraq was invaded and its ruling regime was dismantled. US Public Law from 1998 provided for the overthrow of Saddam.

Canada and countless other countries can bravely claim they were not duped even though they couldn't have done anything anyway. Hell, Canada proposed a time limit compromise that would have guaranteed an invasion...but not by Canada. Instead, PM Chretien chose to sit on the fence.

More drama.....

[scorpio]

US Public Law from 1998 provided for the overthrow of Saddam.

Kinda made my point.

Canada and countless other countries can bravely claim they were not duped even though they couldn't have done anything anyway.

Sort of like what we're doing in Afghanistan.