OK, in reading the article, I find just as much misinformation as the author claims Bush put forth. First, the article states that Bush insinuated that Saddam has nukes. Bush never said that. The statement "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised" does not strictly mean nukes. Nukes are the most devastating weapons ever created. The term "some of the most" implies other weapons, including biological and chemical weapons, which I think you can consider some of the most devastating. If you don't think they are devastating, ask the Kurds, Iranians, and the Iraqi troops who mustard gassed themselves when they used them on themselves.
As far as the terrorist link, I will admit that is weak. Bush is stuck in the rut of thought that he has to link Saddam to terrorism in order for the American people to support the war. I think that is false, as the hawks of the country will support the war link or not. Anyone who makes up their mind on the war based only on Saddam link, or lack there of to terrorism, has to do a little more research on the issue for themselves. That said, I think it is entirely possible that the Bush administration has knowledge of links, and are conceiling the evidence for strategic purposes. Obviously they shouldn't put all their cards on the table. Remember when it was leaked to the media that american intelligence was tracking bin-Laden in Afganistan through the use of his satelite phone? What happened then? You guessed it, he stopped using the phone and we lost track of him. Obviously there could be other scenarios where information release would be detrimental to the cause.
As far as his claims on democracy in the region, I don't think any one person can tell the future crystal clear. He may sincerely hold out hope that by installing a democratic government in Iraq, it will spread. I don't think a beurocratic report "proves" that hope false.
As far as his veto of the international criminal court, would you seriously like to subject our military leaders to a court we have no control over? Good God is that idea insane.
The theory that this war is going to start a nuclear arms race is rediculous. Where's the proof to that assertion, or should we just take this writers conjectures as facts? That sounds more than a little hipocritical considering the thrust of this article.
As to the whole "unprovoked attack" notion, I belive we are justified in enforcing the terms of the cease fire from the Gulf War. I think we have ample evidence that Saddam has no intention of disarming (funny how Saddam was destroying his al-Samoud missles, but yet just this week he seems to have some ready to fire).
Of course we have think think critically about anything we hear. No one should believe anything from the Government, the press, their parents, teachers, friends or anyone else without thinking and researching for themselves.
|