My List of DU'ers WHO DID NOT BELIEVE Bush LIES about Invading Iraq!

[stevenleser]

4. Me. And I have proof!

http://www.network54.com/Forum/142834/message/1047272702/Reasons+for+attacking+Iraq+exposed+as+lies%2C+lies+and+damned+lies

Reasons for attacking Iraq exposed as lies, lies and damned lies
March 9, 2003
Steven H. Leser

Two days ago, the top two UN Weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei talked of "substantial measure(s) of disarmament" across Iraqi weapons programs. ElBaradei's report thoroughly debunked charges of Iraqis using aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons use and that after "thorough analysis, the International Atomic Energy Agency has concluded, with the concurrence of ourside experts, that documents which form the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic...we have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded." The AP article discussing the report ran the headline, "BLIX: Iraq Actively Cooperating to Disarm"

So, there you have it. Iraq is now cooperating. They are destroying missiles, their scientists are disclosing all in interviews and it seems they were not working anywhere near as intently as we were led to believe to develop nuclear weapons. So, we're not going to war, right?

Wrong.

In perhaps the most stunning display that all we have been told regarding why we are going to war against Iraq is total balderdash, Colin Powell and Dubya are indicating war is right around the corner, if not that plans are being stepped up. The fact is, once Dubya was elected, nothing was going to stop him from invading Iraq. It might be for the oil, it might be to avenge the attempt on his daddy, it might be to finish his daddy's unfinished business after the first Gulf War. Whatever the reasons, they have nothing to do with protecting anyone else against Iraq, and the reasons have nothing to do with terrorism. That much is now abundantly clear.

What does this tell us about the people who are leading our country? It tells us that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell and Rumsfeld are willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people and put hundreds of thousands of our men and women in uniform in harms way to prosecute a war against a nation that does not present a clear and present danger to the US or our allies. In short, when they give the "Go ahead" they will be committing mass murder and genocide. I have written articles critical of the war in the past, but characterized these people (Bush, et. al) of being confused, wrong, or stupid as was my belief at the time. They may still be all those things, but I also now believe they know full well that to wage war now against Iraq is morally bankrupt, corrupt and criminal. Bush and any Bush administration official who stands by the pResident on this issue after the war begins should be impeached and sent to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Am I being too strong? I don't think so. Our Constitution talks about the inalienable rights of all people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. War and killing go completely contrary to those basic rights, and it is because of this that past great leaders of our country have established terms like "Clear and Present Danger" to put a moral qualification as to what kind of threat another nation has to pose to us or our allies before we can morally resort to war. A proposed war against Iraq barely had a whiff of such justification before the latest weapons inspectors report. Now, any hint of justification is gone. Americans of all parties, backgrounds, religions and ideologies need to rise up in protest against this war, because once it starts, whatever else this war costs, it will cost us our national honor.