With all due respect...

Submitted by Platosearwax (Norway), Jun 3, 2003 at 09:50

...this sounds like hindsight to me. I don't remember hearing this as one of the main reasons to depose Saddam. Why wasn't this stressed in Bush's most recent State of the Union address, rather than what was stressed in that speech (and in so many others): threat from WMD. And if what you say above was the reason, why did the US need any approval or help from anyone at all? Seems it was nothing more than a contract dispute between two parties.

Personally, I think the whole thing could have been justified on humanitarian grounds, or even the grounds you lay out here. The Bush administration chose to emphasize WMD and threat more than any other reason so its backward justifications ring a little hollow.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".