>there weren't any WMDs
>because people were afraid to tell Saddam the facts, and
>that's because he was an evil baby-eating manic, so it's
>good we got rid of him, blah blah blah. But you gotta
>love the final paragraph.
The true irony has been overlooked. If there are no WMDs, then the US invasion of Iraq was based on a false premise. If the US government invaded because it thought there were WMDs, then that's because people were afraid to tell the baby-eating maniacs in the White house the facts. It seems they are still afraid to tell them the facts, unless they have been told the facts but still won't believe it.
Either way, if the illegal war on Iraq (killing and maiming thousands of innocent civilians) was justified by the fact that people were afraid to tell the government the truth, then clearly an illegal war on the US (killing and maiming thousands of innocent civilians) must be justified on the same basis. If the US can't account for the missing WMDs in Iraq then surely they ought, like Iraq, be subject to sanctions and mass murder.
Bill bartlett Bracknell Tas