http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/printable505316.shtml
Isn’t this more than enough justification for going into Iraq and getting rid of Saddam? He is supporting terrorism and we said that would not be tolerated.
An unsupported statement from Donald Rumsfeld isn’t justification for anything, except maybe for Rumsfeld’s dismissal.
The statement doesn’t just come from Rumsfeld’s imagination.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html
Saddam didn’t exactly try to hide this.
From your link, the same justification would be valid for removing the Al Sa’ud and Al Thani families from power in Saudi Arabia and Qatar respectively. Your government will not do this chiefly because that particular justification, no matter what Rummy says, wasn’t the reason Iraq was invaded.
Have we entered a time warp, here. Suddenly a news report in which Rumsfeld states his sublime pot-kettle-black views - and *from a year and a half ago * - justifies . . never mind . .
Oh Please! Are you new around here or what? This has been discussed close to a million times and it is nonsense. He gave monay to the families of the Palestinian suicide bombers. So what?
He was giving money to the widows and children of the suicide bombers. So what?
The Palestinian suicide bombers were not attacking the USA they were attacking Israel. Let Israel deal with them. Or invade the Palestinian territory where the terrorists are.
This is the lamest excuse for an invasion.
Have the Palestinian terrorists stopped now? No they haven’t. Why does the USA not go directly after them? Huh? Huh?
Bush didn’t say it was a war on Al Qaeda, or a war on only those terrorist groups that attack us.
It’s a War on Terror.
And besides, Palestinian groups have been responsible for the deaths of many Americans and Europeans. They are international terrorists, they don’t just attack Israel.
Oh Please! Are you new around here or what? This has been discussed close to a million times and it is nonsense. He gave monay to the families of the Palestinian suicide bombers. So what? - Sailor
Oh please** Sailor** are you rude around here or what!
Giving money to the relatives of suicide bomers that kill innocent people is an encouragement to the courage-less bastards at best.
At worse it is an incitement for them to go fourth and kill.
Rise now from the mire of Bushbaiting Sailor. See… the real world spins about.
Sure it isn’t an indictment for drinkin’ another fifth?
IIRC, somewhere in the justification for war is the idea of a threat to US natl security. Remember? This was a war of self defense. The World’s sole remaining super power was being threatened by a country that couldn’t threaten it’s neighbors. And, as we hadn’t eliminated our imminent threat from al Qaeda, we had to go after a potential threat instead.
Milum,
Don’t you think that our national security interests should be involved when we make a decision to go to war?
It’s been a few hours now . . .
One of these double-posted OP’s has to close. As no one else has suggested which, I’ll suggest this one and invite people to post to the other, found here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=215331
Just a minute,** London_Calling**, before we retire to another thread let me wrap up some loose ends here…
Desmostylus posted…
**------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Milum
At worse it is an incitement for them to go fourth and kill.
Sure it isn’t an indictment for drinkin’ another fifth?** 
Well slap my knee, that’s a good one. Look kids,** Desmoststylus** can’t dance but he can spell.
And SimonX said ; Milum, Don’t you think that our national security interests should be involved when we make a decision to go to war?
Yes,SimonX. The security of freedom here and everywhere is threatened if a single tyrant still rules over other men here on this earth.
It was the hope of Thomas Jefferson that the people of the United States would not rest until all men were free and all tyrants were dead.
You think otherwise?
You mean the way that Ashcroft want to use “anti-terror” legislation to chase pornographers?
Or, at least, if the tyrants that the current administration does not like (as opposed to the ones it supports) still rule over other men.
(And, of course, claiming that we had to invade Iraq unilaterally in order to go to war against terrorism ignores the fact that we might have gotten the rest of the world to help us (rather than threatening and bribing a paltry couple dozen countries to send a few hundred troops) if we had not squandered all the moral capital we acquired in September, 2001, by haranguing and bullying other people and baldly lying (using stupid and transparent lies) to force an action prematurely.)
That justification is SO ridiculous that the US government has not even tried it. That should tell you how ridiculous it is. When the US went to the UN they told a bunch of fancy lies and they did not even try this one. Does that tell you something?
That somewhere, in their dark and wizened souls, there remains yet a particle of shame.
Is there a media watch organization keeping records of how the Bush Administration keeps changing their story to justify the war in Iraq.
I’m sure we could resurrect some SDMB threads on this. However, the public at large doesn’t come to the SDMB.
<freshly laundered white gloves on>
. . . I feel like a trainee traffic cop in downtown Milan . . .
<freshly laundered white gloves orf>
Moderator’s Note: Duplicate threads merged.