YES. Lets focus on this instead of what Grovy said or didn´t say. The importent thing is what the prez said to defend the war and not what some goat beard growing Marylin Manson listening individual said.
What I say doesn't matter and as far as I am concerned
absolutely nothing GeeDub says matters. Never has, never will.
Actions are what count when it comes to leaders, not what you say to the press.
On a side note: I think Grovy got his ass covered here. But no matter what he do he can´t cover Georgies ass.
1 - I don't want to cover GeeDub's ass. I don't care about his ass.
2 - There's no ass-covering here, just me speaking my opinion. If others refuse to read an opinion that doesn't fit into a stock mold that's their own problem.
Reality matters and should have been explained.
It was, Bush and Blair (mostly Blair) both made outlines of the humanitarian case. It wasn't the cornerstone and it wasn't the main thrust. Choosing to focus on WMD is one's own choice. I never really gave a shit about them and don't today, even thought GeeDub tried to sell me on it.
Funny how that works.
WRT to the "the war wouldn't have happened". It's a sad world we live in when humanitarian reasons aren't compelling enough to oust a brutal dictator. A sad, self-interested world indeed.
But why in Iraq. If we can save more people in much more dire situations by focusing elsewhere, then why start a war in Iraq?
Did the world stop turning while we fought in Iraq? We don't do everything we could but it's borderline braindead to look at it in "one thing at a time" terms.
Also, we could fix the Iraq situation with war, other problems require different solutions.
And beyond that, we aren't as interested in other nations as Iraq.
Yes. Note that the US, through the UN, focused on Weapons of Mass Destruction (as you did, if you need a refresher go to the beginning of the thread) because they are threat. Not because they are environmentally unsound. Not because they ruin the decor. The are targeted because of the threat.
So if the anti-war nations didn't consider Iraq a threat why have they pushed so hard for disarmament? Because threat status has little to do with disarmament.
Groverat, check out what Wolfowitz says about your argument:
If I don't give a good goddam what the president says why would I give a shit about the Secretary of State's personal secretary has to say about what goal is worth what price?
Why would Wolfowitz's words disprove anything I say?
My backing sources are UNICEF, CASI, WHO, UN and the like. If you can find me using the administration as a source then go ahead, but until then shut the **** up with your administration bullshit.