Originally posted by Patrick:
I disagree with the fact that we entered Iraq to get WMDs, not to end genocide. One has to read the Resolutions to see that Bush wanted to go into Iraq for genocide. Now that we know Iraq had no WMDs, Bush is trying to use genocide as the excuse. He cannot switch it. He said WMD and like I said, someone must have read the Resolutions to find that genocide was happening.
Bush, despite what you say,always included genocide as one of the reasons to enter Iraq. Here are some excerpts from the presidents speeches in the lead up to Iraq.
Bush to the United Nations, September 12 2002-
"Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit "extremely grave violations" of human rights and that the regime's repression is "all pervasive." Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents -- all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. "
Bush, February 26 2003-
"The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us."
Once again Pat, why was it wrong for Bush to free the Iraqi people, while at the same time it is wrong for him to not go into the Sudan?
