|
That information is indeed awful, UT. It ought to be equally awful to people who are pro-war and people who are anti-war. The media has been corrupt (it almost always has been), and in this case biased about Saddam's offensiveness, to the detriment of the federal government's point of view. It was also biased and corrupt in support of Bush. You may be correct that it would have made it more difficult for other nations to oppose the war, and it could have cast the US in a better light. The vivid reporting of terror in Iraq might have helped persuade more people to go to war against Iraq.
Unfortunately, I don't see how it has anything to do with why I, or anyone whom I've talked to, is anti-war. It doesn't make having gone to war any better of a decision. As far as I could see, Saddam's anti-citizen stance didn't have much to do with Bush's reasons for war. Personally, what I really want to know is the real reason why Hermann went to war. I don't care how he persauded the American people to follow along. The reasons given were not convincing.
|