[lbo-talk] I don't get it...

[RE]

Whether or not Iraq had WMDs was the frame maintained by the warmongers, who
were looking for *any* evidence that would represent a "breach," supposedly
justifying invasion.  I worry that we're too focused on the apparent absence
of WMDs; recall how Hitchens last week was trying to mine the flower garden
discoveries for whitewash, and there's more of that to come.  Sabotage of UN
inspections, both before and after the war, should be a note that gets
pounded on in conjunction with unmasking the WMD fabrications.  Carrol's
point -- essentially arguing for a recognition of state sovereignty in all
its perversity -- is legitimate, but concedes far too much, because Iraq had
yielded its sovereignty (the only aspect of this mess that provides a shred
of legitimacy to the prewar maneuvers of Bush and Blair).
Randy


> Bush: "And we gave him a chance to let the inspectors in, and he wouldn't
> let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided
> to remove him from power."
>
> Henwood: Didn't let the inspectors in, eh? That is not quite how Observer
(or
> Hans Blix) recalls events.
>