You keep saying had. He had them. Yes. He had them in the 80s - maybe the early 90s. It`s a long time since Iran and the Kurds. He didn`t have them when we invaded and deposed him. The UN inspector said they could find no WMDs. Our own military could find no WMDs. It`s common knowledge he had
WMDs, but it`s also pretty clear that had
was the key word on the eve of our invasion. When we began the current invasion that led to his arrest, we couldn`t say, "He has WMDs." It was had
even then. So no disagreements there. He had them. Just not recently. To say he hid them or had them destroyed just in the nick of time is no argument. The burden of proof is on the accuser. If WMDs are found, then I`ll concede that Bush wasn`t lying about his cause for war.
We cite Saddam`s relationship with Al Qaeda as a rally point for the war. They weren`t friends. Saddam was an athiest. Al Qaeda are Islamic extremists. They hated each other. Having a brutal athiest dictatorship in the Middle East was great for keeping all the brutal Islamic dictatorships from getting too powerful. It`s a shame our little frankenstein monster in the middle east turned on us. We were so kind as to support his brutality so that he`d fight Iran for us. Where`d it all go wrong? We created Saddam. We were Saddam`s buddy until he got oil greedy. His genocides were kosher when he was doing our dirty work against Iran for us. We can`t use those arguments as a call for war in this decade.
When have we not supported justice? When we tortured captives. That`s not justice. That`s the opposite of justice. The Spanish Inquisition amongst other instances proved that you can get no reliable confession under torture. In fact, torture all but destroys the use of said suspect`s testimony in court. I suspect quite a few inmates will be released guilty, because they were subjected to illegal torture. You think right and wrong varies depending on who you`re dealing with. I disagree. I disagree with torture.
I disagree with extraordinary rendition (the best way to get some torture done, for leaders without the spine to say, "we torture"), which is not only just as wrong, but cowardly to boot. If the president is into warcrimes, he should commit them himself, not hire them out to nations still stuck in barbarism. At least with waterboarding, crucifixion and what have you, Bush eventually figured the last part out. American soldiers can torture as well as any other.
As for evidence, I believe Obama just released a bunch of documents to that effect. I can post evidence later, but I`d have to look it up. Besides, if they were debating whether waterboarding is torture, and admitting they do that, the proof of torture comes as soon as an attorney general gets the balls to make a decision. If you want to press the point, I`ll dig around news archives till I can find what I`m referring to. I believe the current Attorney General said it is torture. Then, there was an article not too long ago about a captive who died by crucifixion, having been hoisted onto a wall till he asphyxiated. And we can`t forget Abu Ghraib. It`s hard to believe such an act started from the bottom up. Just because the policy for handling such embarrassments is to courtmartial a few privates and leave the higherups blameless, doesn`t mean they are. The whole war in Iraq has been a PR nightmare if anything.
If you think it`s ok to violate certain, I believe, inalienable rights, then that`s your belief. I can`t change that. I`m a proponent of always doing what`s right, even when it`s not convenient. I think we need to lead by example. Two wrongs don`t make a right.
Making limitless possibilities much more limited.