Quote:
|
Originally Posted by superart
OK, I'll grant you that its very possible that we did indeed believe that sadam had WMD's
However, i still doubt that Iraqi liberty was verry high on the list. If it was, why would they beat arround he bush the way they did. First it was terrorism connections, ten WMD, then when that didn't pan out they started tooting the liberty horn. Just sems very shady to me.
|
You can read the
National Security Strategy for yourself. This is the source document driving our foreign policy right now, both in terms of diplomatic goals and military operations.
I think that part of the problem that all administrations face is that the issues and strategies are very complex. When you’re the guy in the hot seat you may have a set of analysts telling you there is a
high probability that he has WMD, We
think he has connections to terrorist because money is being funneled to the PLO, Saddam has violated the cease-fire and fired on our aircraft for the last 10 years. Finally the National Security Strategy call for spreading democracy in order to foster long term stability....What to do you do as President, if you take out Saddam no one will really miss him, some might complain but deep down everyone would like to see him gone. On the other hand if he does have WMD and there is an attack using WMD, the American People will be asking for your resignation at best, more than likely they will want a piece of your ass. So you error on the side of taking out Saddam and give the one simple reason for going to war. However, it was not the only one but it is easier to get the people to rally around one idea rather than a multitude of probabilities.