Fathers Wiser than Sons.


Extending the war into Iraq would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Exceeding the U.N.'s mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.


From ‘Why We Didn't Remove Saddam’

by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time Magazine, 1998


Prove You’re not Hiding a Blue Button with Red Beads on it.


[There is] sheer illogic of asking the accused to prove a negative.  That the United States was forcing Saddam to prove that he did not have weapons of mass destruction was unprecedented.

Let’s simplify this by using a different analogy:  I accuse you of having the capacity to lay an egg.  Legally, it is incumbent on me, the accuser, to prove this claim.  Most definitely it would be odd for me to lay that claim, and then make you prove that you don’t in fact lay eggs.


From ‘Why are Americans and Iraqis Dying?’ 

by Maha Zimmo at //


In a War Waged by Democracies, we are all to Blame.


But we are all moral cowards when it comes to Iraq.  Our collective inability to summon the requisite shame and rage when confronted by an estimate of 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians in the prosecution of an illegal and unjust war not only condemns us, but adds credibility to those who oppose us.  The fact that a criminal such as Osama bin Laden can broadcast a videotape on the eve of the US presidential election in which his message is viewed by many around the world as a sober argument in support of his cause is the harshest indictment of the failure of the US and Britain to implement sound policy in the aftermath of 9/11. 


From ‘The war on Iraq has made moral cowards of us all’

by Scott Ritter.  Guardian, Monday November 1st, 2004.