Bush's Morals are Top Notch!

on Nov 07, 2004

I don't know about anyone else, but I think it's pretty IMMORAL what is happening over in Iraq. Thousands have died over what? FUCKING OIL

Let's be calm and logic here. First of all, Bush was not for oil. We can talk about it another day. Just a short proof. If all he is for oil, then why doesn't he invade Saudi and Kuwait instead. If all he is for oil why doesn't he divide Iraqi into three countries: Kurd, Shite and Sunni. Because all the oil are under Kurdish and southern Iraqi.

Now, let me address your question for thousands have died idea. What do you propose George Bush do? IN 2002, Bush has the choice of invade Iraq and take Saddam out, continue the oil sanction as Clinton did, or lift the oil sanction. Forget about the national security argument for a second. Do you know vastly more Iraqis die during the oil sanction than the Iraqi invasion? Do you know the oil sanction starve 5000-6000 Iraqi children to death per month? In case you don't believe me I will give you a few links. These are not some made up numbers by some crazy organizations. These organizations are well-reconginized, including UN.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/jerges.htm
http://www.arab-american-affairs.net/archives/UNICEF.htm

In fact, these numbers are recongnized by the Clinton adminstration. As to 1996, a million Iraqi children was killed because of the oil sanction, as to 2001, about 2 millions got killed. And we are only talking about children under five. The number is be much higher when adults are included.

In 1996 then-UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, in reference to years of U.S.-led economic sanctions against Iraq, “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

To which Ambassador Albright responded, “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”

So Clinton believe having a million Iraqi children dead is worth it. Although I never figure what is "it". What are we or Iraqis gainning? Was there a goal?

The third option is by far the most bloody. Lifting oil sanction and keeping Saddam in power is just unimaginable. Millions of millions of Iraqi was killed because of Saddam and Iraqis know that. That is why poll after poll showed that Iraqis think the US invasion is justified. Just think to yourself, how bad the situation in Iraq has to get, for a group of people prefer an invasion.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/01/election.virtual.vote.reut/index.html

The Iraq issue was never a choice between war and peace. It was a choice between war and something much worse. For you all who oppose the war, you have to ask yourself what other alternative choices is there. Why didn't you protest and scream during the most bloody part (oil sanction) of the conflict. If you don't have an alternative plan and simply say you are against the war, then effectively you are saying "I am for the oil sanction". Then I shall say, shame on you.

2

Dr Guy

on Nov 08, 2004

Guess you forgot about the 18th amendment? The 16th? The 22nd? Not a very good history scholar, are you?

3

Deference

on Nov 08, 2004

Guess you forgot about the 18th amendment? The 16th? The 22nd? Not a very good history scholar, are you?

Hmm...the 16th amendment allowed the government to institiute payroll taxes, and the 22nd created presidential term limits, the 18th amendment was repealed. Far cries from an amendment defining a civil liberty for two different groups of people, aren't able to pick very apt examples, are you?

Do you know the oil sanction starve 5000-6000 Iraqi children to death per month?

This was the fault of Saddam, a guy Rumsfield gave 60 billion in food and arms (chemical weapons at that) to in 1982. Today, instead of letting the senile dictator die off, we bleed our treasury dry bombing the infrastructure of Iraq to smithereens only to rebuild it. Bush was against such "Nation Building" debating against Al Gore, but now he believes it the right thing to do, I don't. I feel betrayed by the juggled reasons given for invading Iraq and think it highly immoral to spend American money and lives on a venture with no tangible benefit to us. Those cheering "Yeah Iraq!" are duped or knowingly defending Bush's giant achilles heel.

4

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 08, 2004

This was the fault of Saddam, a guy Rumsfield gave 60 billion in food and arms (chemical weapons at that) to in 1982. Today, instead of letting the senile dictator die off, we bleed our treasury dry bombing the infrastructure of Iraq to smithereens only to rebuild it. Bush was against such "Nation Building" debating against Al Gore, but now he believes it the right thing to do, I don't. I feel betrayed by the juggled reasons given for invading Iraq and think it highly immoral to spend American money and lives on a venture with no tangible benefit to us. Those cheering "Yeah Iraq!" are duped or knowingly defending Bush's giant achilles heel.

First of all, if you want to blame the 6000 children deaths per month to Saddam, why can't I also blame the Iraqis deaths during the Iraq invasion on Saddam? Why do you shift blame for one but not the other. Can I just say Saddam asks for the invasion because he broke the cease-fire agreement for 12 years. The argument is the same for both cases, Clinton stated that Saddam did not follow through the cease-fire agreement, so we continue the oil sanction, Bush said Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement, thus we invade Iraq and remove Saddam. Don't tell me the deaths due to oil sanction is Saddam's fault and the death due to Iraq invasion is Bush's fault because that is plain illogical. It is one thing to disagree, it is another to be completely illogical. Look, the point is that if we continue the oil sanction, more Iraqi will die and we had a choice of ending it or continuing it. You have to ask yourself the question: why do Iraqis prefer the invasion over oil sanction, and why Iraqis support a Bush reelection. Saddam isn't going to die anytime soon. Not for another 10 years or so. 10 more years of oil sanction is that what you proposed here? 2 millions more children's lifes. Am I missing your argument? What happen when his son take over? The story doesn't end when Saddam dies of old age.

Rumsfeld didn't give him chemical weapons. US didn't give Saddam any weapons. You must be a wacko to say that. That is no evidence of anything like that. Haven't you noticed that all Saddam's weapons are Russian made? T-60, T-74 tanks, MiG planes and AK74 and AK47. Where is the US weapons you claimed? I don't see any F-14,15 planes or M1A1 tanks. What happened in 1980 is that Rumsfeld bought a message to Saddam that if Saddam would stop using chemical weapons on Iranians then maybe US can than aid Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War. Most importantly, we are talking today. We are talking what is: worse an invasion or oil sanction. Whatever happened during the Reagan or Clinton adminstration, we still have to make a choice now. Yestersday mistake does not prevent us from making the right choice today. Just because we attacked German and Japan during WW2, doesn't mean we have to continue in attacking them. Just because Clinton continues 12 years oil sanctions, doesn't mean we continue it.

We bleed out treasure dry? What are you talking about? Watch too much bin Laden's tape, huh? Do you have any sense of US economy? During WW2, we allocated more than 25% of our GDP in the war effort. Today we spent 1% of our GDP. This is the cheapest large scale invasion USA has spent in history. If anything, I complain that we are not spending enough. If you buy into the Osmo bin Laden video tape argument of "bleeding" our treasure dry then I am very sorry to hear that. Because the math doesn't add up. We can easily spend 25 times more money and survive.

Why don't you believe in nation building? So you think the nation building in Japan, Korea, German are all failures? You think after we invaded Afghansitan and took out Taliban we should just leave -- what if another factor like Taliban take over? What good a invasion is, if the same hostile government replace the previous one. Unless, you are arguing that we should have never attacked bin Laden and Taliban. Once an invasion occur, nation building is nesscary.

5

JE0192

on Nov 08, 2004

US didn't give Saddam any weapons. You must be a wacko to say that.

During the Iran-Iraq war, the united states were supplying arms to Iran (Iran-Contra scandal), while they were aggressively bitching at everyone else to stop selling weapons to them. However, the CIA gave the Iraqi government intelligence information throughout the war via the Saudis and trade credits and dropped any objections for countries like France to sell them weapons. (Link)

As for the WMD, many Americans companies (and in part, the American government) were essential in the creation of Iraq’s arsenal. That is, according to your own government :

United States export policy toward Iraq prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait : hearing before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Second Congress, second session, on did U.S. exports aid Iraq's military capabilities and did the administration accurately disclose its licensing of dual use exports to Iraq? : October 27, 1992.
• Publisher: Washington : U.S. G.P.O. : For sale by the U.S. G.P.O., Supt. of Docs., Congressional Sales Office, 1992 [i.e. 1993]
• ISBN: 0160402301

6

Deference

on Nov 08, 2004

Thanx, J.E., from saving me the time explaining that and for providing a credible source link.

ChemicalKinetics, I like your reasoned post...let me reply later...

7

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 08, 2004

During the Iran-Iraq war, the united states were supplying arms to Iran (Iran-Contra conflict), while they were aggressively bitching at everyone else to stop selling weapons to them. However, the CIA gave the Iraqi government intelligence information throughout the war via the Saudis and trade credits and dropped any objections for countries like France to sell them weapons. (Link)

As for the WMD, many Americans companies (and in part, the American government) were essential in the creation of Iraq’s arsenal. That is, according to your own government :

Yes, American did supply arms to Iran, but in very small quality. No one will state that Iranian weapons existed because of American. Probably more French weapons there. During Iran-Iraq war, almost everyone is involved somehow and almost everyone deny it. Remember that Iraq is the country which owed the most foreign debt? Why do you think Iraq own money? Because a bunch of other countries paied for its war with Iran.
http://www.jubileeiraq.org/debt_today.htm

If you look at I don't deny America government is involved in siding with Iraq more than Iran. USA has shared with Iraq on missile deliveray technology and Russia has taught them chemical and biological weapons. French has its share. I don't think any country can claim clean here, and I don't think one has to. I deny that we sell them weapons, which is what someone claimed without any fact. By the way, I think we are getting a bit off topic here. My original point is about today Iraq Invasion. Again just because we attacked German during WW1 and WW2, doesn't mean we have to continue to attack them. Political climate changes. During Iraq and Iran war, most country rather Iraq wins. End of question. Same thing why we side with China during Cold War against Russia because Russia was a greater threat. If people have to ask the simplest foreign polcy rule, then I am sorry. You might well ask why we were close with Communist China during Cold War.

8

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 08, 2004

Thanx, J.E., from saving me the time explaining that and for providing a credible source link.

ChemicalKinetics, I like your reasoned post...let me reply later...

Hmm, I don't and haven't denied we have sided with Iraq. I only disagree with you on "we sell them arms". Technically, we didn't. And more countries help Iraq than us. If you look at the debt Iraq owe other countries during the Iran-Iraq War, you will see. Even if you think we made a mistake there by siding with Iran, that does not change the fact that oil sanction is bloodier than invasion. So, our decision between oil sanction versus invasion should not depend on 1980. By the way, I would really like to read your next post, but I am going to work now, so I might not able to read it in several hours, or maybe not even today. Best.

9

JE0192

on Nov 08, 2004

Technically, we didn't.

Russia has taught them chemical and biological weapons.

Here's a statement from Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez at the hearing noted in Reply #5 :

"I will now quickly summarize some of the additional evidence that reveals that
the United States helped to enhance Iraq’s military capability.

U.N. inspectors have identified dozens of U.S. firms, some that received U.S.
export licenses, that supplied Iraq with equipment used in missile programs and
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

The Reagan and Bush Administrations together approved over 80 export licenses
for equipment shipped directly to the Iraqi Air Force and other branches of the
Iraqi military. Fifteen of the licenses were approved by the Bush
Administration.

The Reagan and Bush Administrations issued 15 licenses for the sale of U.S.
munitions equipment to Iraq. Three of those licenses were approved by the Bush
Administration.

The Reagan and Bush Administrations approved dozens of export licenses or the
sale of equipment to over a half a dozen Iraqi end users despite CIA reports
identifying the end users as major weapons manufacturing facilities. (see
Appendix)

A March 1990 General Accounting Office report found that the Reagan
Administration had approved 16 export licenses for Iraq's primary missile
research center called SAAD 16.

Several current and former government officials from the Department of Defense,
the Commerce Department and the Customs service have testified during the past
two years that U.S. firms enhanced Iraq's conventional and nonconventional
military capability. (see Appendix)

Dozens of U.S. firms participated in Petrochemical Complex II, many with export
licenses, which provided Iraq with the capability to produce ethylene oxide, a
major ingredient in fuel air explosives bombs as well as being a precursor for
certain chemical weapons. PC-2 was also a major front for the procurement of
Super Gun components. (see Appendix)

The Commerce Department approved a license for Iraqi front company Matrix
Churchill despite a plethora of CIA reports showing that the firm was part of
Iraq's nuclear procurement network and despite ample evidence showing that the
listed end user of the technology, a firm called Techcorp, was in charge of
Iraq's ballistic missile an secret nuclear weapons program. (see Appendix)

The Export-Import Bank financed the sale of U.S. equipment to several Iraqi
weapons complexes, the Condor II ballistic missile program, and Iraq's covert
nuclear weapons program. The Export-Import Bank financed the sale of armored
ambulances and communications equipment directly to the Iraqi military. (see
Appendix)

In 1986 and 1987 two Iraqi scientists were permitted to visit the Los Alamos
National Laboratory, a major U.S. nuclear weapons facility. Incredibly, in 1989
three employees of Iraq’s main explosives factory, called Al Qaqaa, were
permitted to attend U.S. government sponsored seminar on nuclear weapons
detonation. (See Appendix)

Contrary to the President's report to Congress and his recent public
pronouncements, there is an overwhelming body of evidence that clearly shows
the Bush Administration made a conscious decision to enhance Iraq's military
capability. That policy is best illustrated by the export licenses granted to
Gerald Bull's Space Research Corporation.

Did we sell Iraq bombs? Maybe not-but it is clear that we sold Iraq the
equipment and know-how needed to make conventional weapons, and equipment that
was clearly useful in developing nuclear bombs and long-range ballistic
missiles.

It is also quite clear that from day one it has been the policy of the highest
levels of the Bush Administration to mislead the Congress and more importantly
the public into thinking that our government played no role in arming Iraq.
Given this attitude I can only conclude that we have not yet learned from our
mistakes."

10

Deference

on Nov 08, 2004

First of all, if you want to blame the 6000 children deaths per month to Saddam, why can't I also blame the Iraqis deaths during the Iraq invasion on Saddam?

I blame the deaths in Iraq on the dictator who starved his people and failed to provide them with food though it was available through the oil for food program Saddam abused. You are aware of this. You are also aware that though there are people in Darfur suffering humanitarian neglect:

Most recently and still ongoing is the carnage in Darfur, the western-most region of the African country Sudan. An estimated one million blacks have been uprooted from their land, whole masses raped and massacred, their villages razed and their crops and livestock plundered. As many as 200,000 have sought refuge in neighbouring Chad, itself pressed for resources; many more Sudanese face death by starvation or disease.

http://www.herald.ns.ca/cgi-bin/home/displaystory?2004/10/28+166.raw+WhatsUp+2004/11/03

...the Bush administration does not talk about events in Sudan. Why? Maybe we don't have any strategic interest there, why won't Bush simply come clean with the real reasons as to why we're in the Middle East and provide tangible reason for Americans?
There are other similar problems in many nations like Sudan, but the security risks developing in Iran and N. Korea pose even more direct threats to the U.S. . The Bush foreign policy has not been consistant. Even if America did act as world policeman, the massive exodus of American taxpayer dollars would drive us further into debt then we already are. The question then must be asked, why attack Iraq? Since immediate threat of WMD's washed out, "liberating the people" was offered as an excuse and was wrapped in "war on terror" paper, though Saddam had zilch to do with 9 / 11 despite attempts by the administration to link it.

Finally, why do care about the Iraqi's so much? Do you play ball with them? Do you know their language? Do you barbecue with them? No. I would infer you're simply defending Pres. Bush's sacred cow. Why must anyone defend it, though? Isn't it the "right" thing to do? Americans are paying a price with their lives, our debt is increasing as the 200 billion allocated for Iraq burns away and Bush asks for another 70 billion here and there. It's imporatant to be critical of the cost of any war, especially one so unjustified.

11

COL Gene

on Nov 08, 2004

Let me chime in about Saint George.

First the Bush admin cut the funding for home heating assistance while cutting taxes for the wealthy who need no help.

He underfunded his own "No child left behind" by $24 Billion (Below his own target levels)

He sent National Guard troops into Iraq without radios, body armor or armored vehicles ( Not part of the famous $87 Billion. It was before that)

He did not send the number of troops that were needed and as a result hundreds of Ameicans have died because we did not secure the country. We did not prevent terrorists from comming across the borders; we did not secure the Amo dunps and the terrorists help them selves to use it and kill our troops with the explosives. We did not secure the populated areas that fester with anti U.S. terrorists that kill our troops every day. Saint George turned a $125 billion Surplus into a $450 billion dollar deficit that our greadchildren will be repaying. If you wnat to have documented the great efforts of George W. read, "Four More For George W?" You can see what readres have to say about it on www.amazon.com.

12

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 08, 2004

U.N. inspectors have identified dozens of U.S. firms, some that received U.S.
export licenses, that supplied Iraq with equipment used in missile programs and
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

That will be a tough one. Because US never has a biological weapon program known. I am not saying it doesn't. I am saying that no one has ever proved USA has a biological weapon program. It is tough to say exactly what Gonzalez means or the UN means by supply equipment. If they mean US companies sell them toilet paper to help their biological and nuclear weapon programs that is definite true. As for the claim that US sell nuclear technology to Iraq, that is pretty much ridiculous. People has yet to show US sell nuclear technolgy to Israel and somehow we sell nuclear weapons and technology to Iraq? US has yet to sell his closet ally like Japan and Korea nuclear weapons. I really doubt the nuclear part. If he means US sell them actual chemical and nuclear weapons, that is next to impossible. I like to answer more of your claims, but most of those claims are not proven yet. Those are allegation without proofs, so it is a I say you say situation.

13

shawnee89

on Nov 08, 2004

COL Gene you just so happen to forget one small tiny detail in your point. John Kerry is the one who voted AGAINST sending the body armor AT ALL!

"Saint George turned a $125 billion Surplus into a $450 billion dollar deficit that our greadchildren will be repaying"

Well DUH!! What do think september 11 did?

14

COL Gene

on Nov 08, 2004

Evan Trivett

The lack of money to fund the equipment for the National Guard units took place long before the $87 Billion Vote. In addition, the $ 87 Billion was approved!

Bush was running a deficit before 9/11 and the largest element in the debt this year is the Tax Cuts $ 270 billion per the Congressional Budget Ofice. It is our policy not 9/11 that is responsible for MOST of the debt. During the past 24 years (since 1980) we have had a substantial deficit during 21 of the past 24 years. We took the deficit from $909 Billion in 1980 to $7.5 Trillion this year. It is the policy of cutting federal revenue by the tax cuts and increasing spending. What Bush needs in one of those credit companies that help people become debt free. We are borrowing money so we can give the wealthiest 2% of Americans large tax cuts.. The VP's tax cut was estimated at $300,000 this year!

15

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 08, 2004

I blame the deaths in Iraq on the dictator who starved his people and failed to provide them with food though it was available through the oil for food program Saddam abused. You are aware of this. You are also aware that though there are people in Darfur suffering humanitarian neglect:

Most recently and still ongoing is the carnage in Darfur, the western-most region of the African country Sudan. An estimated one million blacks have been uprooted from their land, whole masses raped and massacred, their villages razed and their crops and livestock plundered. As many as 200,000 have sought refuge in neighbouring Chad, itself pressed for resources; many more Sudanese face death by starvation or disease.

You actually cannot shift all the blame to Saddam for the starvation in Iraq. You can only do that if Saddam is going to starve his people regardless of the oil sanction in hold or not. Only in such case, USA is not part of the reason for starvation in Iraq. However, we do know Iraqis were not starving prior to the oil sanction. If you insist it is Saddam's fault for not providing his people with food. So why can't you blame the dictator for blenching the cease-fire agreement which lead to the invasion?

I am sorry the Darfur argument doesn't buy you anything. It doesn't show the invasion is wrong. Let me try to explain in a very simple way. If you and I hang out in downtown, and we walked by a donation center for funding poor kids back to school and I gave $100. Then you tell me there are people dying in Africa and that the inability to go to school is minor in comparsion. What you said is very true, but that does make my act of donation wrong.

Yes, there are many people dying in the world, and we are not as consistency as we can be, but the the act of Iraq invasion is best to compare to its own oil sanction, not to another country. Moreover, this is more than just having starving people. In one case, we are not the cause, in the other case, we are part of the situation and one of our foot is already in (Iraq). Because we put up an oil sanction in Iraq. We are directly or indirectly starving the people there. Imagine this situation, a robber and you have a huge fight and you have beaten him. In turn, this person agreed that he will turn over all his knives and guns to you, but he has yet to do so. Now, you are holding him hostage in his house. Unless he turns over his weapons you won't let him leave his house. He insists on holding to his weapons, he hasn't left his house, and his children and wife are starving. This is a situation you are directly involved. That is not the same as someone two blocks away starving. You may say it is the robber's fault for not turning in the weapons to you, but you are part of this picture. USA was part of the reason Iraqis were starving. Iraqis were starving because 1) Saddam didn't use the oil-for-food money to buy food, and 2) there is a oil sanction. Either one of them lifted would have eased the starvation. So, we were part of the equation, right? If I say 1 + 2 = 3. 3 is a result of 2 and 1. If Iraq children starve because of oil sanction and Saddam, then we are part of the problem

...the Bush administration does not talk about events in Sudan. Why? Maybe we don't have any strategic interest there, why won't Bush simply come clean with the real reasons as to why we're in the Middle East and provide tangible reason for Americans?
There are other similar problems in many nations like Sudan, but the security risks developing in Iran and N. Korea pose even more direct threats to the U.S. . The Bush foreign policy has not been consistant. Even if America did act as world policeman, the massive exodus of American taxpayer dollars would drive us further into debt then we already are. The question then must be asked, why attack Iraq? Since immediate threat of WMD's washed out, "liberating the people" was offered as an excuse and was wrapped in "war on terror" paper, though Saddam had zilch to do with 9 / 11 despite attempts by the administration to link it.

Finally, why do care about the Iraqi's so much? Do you play ball with them? Do you know their language? Do you barbecue with them? No. I would infer you're simply defending Pres. Bush's sacred cow. Why must anyone defend it, though? Isn't it the "right" thing to do? Americans are paying a price with their lives, our debt is increasing as the 200 billion allocated for Iraq burns away and Bush asks for another 70 billion here and there. It's imporatant to be critical of the cost of any war, especially one so unjustified.

America did talk about Sudan. We are probably the most active country in bring the Sudan situation to UN table. It is the French blocking it, don't you remember? I don't think Iran is a bigger threat than Iraq. N. Korea is debatable. But one has to be practical at times. First of all, N. Korea didn't break a cease-fire agreement for 13 years. There is a big difference here. A cease-fire agreement means there was a war and because of this agreement the war is termianted. Now, by any mean, if the agreement is broken, it is reasonable to expect the war to resume. This is the defintion of a cease-fire agreement. If I bullied your spouse, and you beat me up. In turn, I promise I will never bully your spouse, but then a month later I break this "cease-fire" agreement. Do you think it is reasonable or possible for you to resume the fight again? About N. Korea, it would be pretty stupid to attack it because China will immediate back N. Korea up. It will be second Korean War only the South Korea won't be on our side. I don't think you can compare North situation with Iraq at all.

You bring up so many points that if I have to explain one by one, it will be next month. So far I have only explained two, so you have to pardon me to pick and choose some. I can answer all of them, but maybe you should tell me which one to answer.

Let me answer the question on "why do we care Iraqi so much?". I believe that come back to an earlier statement. Because we are already involved because we cannot truely believe the death has nothing to do with us. We are part of the equation. As I told you earlier that the Iraq War and Afghanistan War cause us 1% GDP, we can pay for it. We spent 25%of our GDP for WW2. If we can't, then there is a lot of explaination to be done for WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War. Those wars cost significantly more. The reason that Bush switches his agreement from possible WMD to liberating Iraqis is not what you susggested. First of all, to Bush credit, he has never stated that Saddam has WMD. He has repeatly said Saddam HAD WMD and that he possibility still has them. I don't understand why you shift the blame from Saddam to Bush. The ceasefire agreement is to have Saddam destories and accounts for his WMD, the agreement was never about USA shows Saddam has WMD. Saddam had WMD prior to the war, so the direct assumption is that if he hasn't shown that he destoryed them, he still has them. That is a reasonable assumption. That is the entire reason why Clinton put an oil sanction on him. If you insist that we knew Saddam do not have WMD and that Bush only use it as an excuse to invade Iraq. Then you have to be also fair and say that Clinton also knew Saddam has no WMD and he was starving Iraqi children for fun. Remember that UN inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998, Bush could not know any more than Clinton did. The reason the sanction is kept in place by Clinton to force Saddam to turn in his weapons, which means every president believed Saddam had WMD. Oh, by the way, let me not get lost and answer your last question: Why Bush seems to switch his argument from WMD to liberation. It actually has nothing to do we didn't find WMD as you said. It is simply because that Bush is not arguing for invasion, he is justifing the rebuilding. We are at a different phase. Imagine even if we have found tons and tons of WMD, Bush at this point of history would still to put out the liberation case to American people, why? Well, if you only want to get WMD and not liberate people, American should leave right now (despite finding or not finding WMD). What Bush is doing now is justifing rebuilding Iraq which is why he talked about liberation. The WMD argument doesn't go with rebuilding.