Even the Republican controlled committee on pre-war intelligence has to admit that Bush not only fabricated connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but that he did so even though Saddam was actively pursuing Abu Musab Al Zarqawi and spurning Al Qaeda.
Further, Bush and Co. knew that the Iraq National Committee, which had a clearly vested interest in regime change, was feeding them inaccurate data about Iraq’s nuclear and biological weaponry capabilities.
Republicans tried to impeach Bill Clinton for lying about a sexual act. It seems fair to say that impeachment should be in order for someone who lies to start a war. In fact, couldn’t it be considered treason?
[Pre-emptive note: I do believe there were good reasons for wanting to oust Saddam Hussein and I can't even say absolutely that I wouldn't have supported an effort to do so had it been presented honestly for humanitarian reasons. Our history of ignoring mass human rights abuses (Rwanda? Darfur?) is sickening.]
[...] Monday is the 5th anniversary of the World Trade Center Atrocity, and Teaching for Change has resources for educators who want to help elementary and secondary level students untangle the rhetoric about terrorism [via Chris Lott]. Meg Spohn provides the link to the official 9/11 Commission report. [...]
There’s one little concept missing from the notion taht there might have been
good reasons to take out Hussein: Sovereignty.
That doesn’t mean there weren’t good reasons for his removal– they remain the same. A small, tricky, but necessary point.
The issue then becomes, what is to prevent any of us from doing something we feel for the common good? What binds us? Do we turn a blind eye to human rights abuses everywhere because of “sovereignty”? Did we do right by Rwanda, for instance?
It’s not as easy as claiming sovereignty, though that makes it easy to wriggle out of tough decisions– and taking responsibility for leaving others to suffer.
There WERE good reasons for removing Hussein from power. Whether they should have been the impetus for doing so, or not, is moot because we were never given that choice.