
Originally Posted by
alan
....and considering the terrorist threat at the time, Saddam's refusal to comply with UN sanctions, his firing upon aircraft attempting to enforce the no-fly zone, and the very real possibility that he may partner with Al-Qaeda in their joint efforts against the west, the Bush administration simply made a false claim in order to justify an invasion? That there was no compelling reason to take force to ensure that terrorists did not get their hands on whatever weapons he may have at his disposal and to ensure that he would not initiate further force against the western forces tasked with enforcing the UN's sanctions?
We know that he was warned as far back as the above Clinton speech what the consequences of those actions would be, and yet it's still a simple matter of "Bush lied, people died"?
If you were in charge and believed the truism of "the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction", what would you have done?