Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scaeagles
To say war was unjusitifed on Bush's grounds and then to recite the very reason the invasion happened seems strange.
|
That's not true. All of those other reasons that could have been used to justify restarting the war existed for 13 years. The reason given for why it had to be done
now was that he
possessed the weapons and was
actively developing new weapons that we could not allow to get into the hands of terrorist organizations that wouldn't hesitate to use them.
The reasons from which Bush hung his assertion that war in 2003 was necessary were unfounded. Now, I believe that the case they'd have liked to make is very similar to the reasons I believe the war needed to be prosecuted (and would have been legally justifiable prior to 9/11 and became more imperative after) but that they
chose not to present that justification because they didn't think it would sell enough of the population. So, they
chose instead to present an imminent threat that turned out not to exist rather than the unacceptable risk that did. I have no doubt that they believed their case to be strong and valid but they were still wrong.
It is only after they failed to find the massive WMD caches they expected that the administration began to present alternate justifications and that was rightly perceived as desparation on their part, even if some of the altnerate justifications are actually pretty valid reasons.