But the existence of the Saddam regime was itself a defiance of all known international laws, and we had before us the consequences of previous failures to act, in Bosnia and Rwanda, where action would have been another word for "regime change."

OK. So the existence of Hussein's regime was in defiance of ALL known international laws. Wow. Because you said so. Right, Chrissy? It's not like agressive imperial invasions are against international law. No, sir. No, international law breaking is caused not by murderous actions, but by mere EXISTENCE! So when one government mounts an invasion, it's obviously upholding the law by punishing another government for EXISTING illegally! Right, Chrissy?

Amazon.com Editorial Reviews of Blix's "Disarming Iraq":

Amazon.com
Disarming Iraq is an insider's account of the diplomatic and inspection efforts leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Though a bit dry, the book is logically presented and gives an excellent background on the inspections process and the politics surrounding it. Hans Blix, who came out of retirement in 2000 to lead the inspections effort, was often bashed by American politicians and journalists, but he does not use this forum to strike back. Instead, he allows the evidence to do the talking, only occasionally offering his own opinion. Blix stresses that he never trusted Hussein and that inspectors were often misled and stonewalled, but he also points out that they never found any evidence of weapons of mass destruction either. Though Blix welcomes the end of Hussein's brutal dictatorship, his removal was "neither the avowed aim nor the justification given" for the war—-WMDs were the issue. Therefore, he believes the invasion was unnecessary and possibly counterproductive in the long run and is disappointed that they were not given enough time to complete their task. "Containment had worked," he writes. "It has also become clear that national intelligence organizations and government hawks, but not the inspectors, had been wrong in their assessments."

Blix blames "monumental" intelligence failures on the part of the U.S. and Great Britain for most of these errors. In particular, he questions America's reliance on Iraqi defectors over their own intelligence agencies. He further wonders why the U.S. dismissed nearly all of the inspection agencies' findings over the past decade, in essence depriving themselves of a valuable source of information. He concludes that inspections are a worthwhile and effective method of containing potentially dangerous regimes and he believes that too high a price was paid for the war: "in the compromised legitimacy of the action, in the damaged credibility of the governments pursuing it, and in the diminished authority of the United Nations." --Shawn Carkonen

Its good to know that Christopher feels this way to prove the validity of something that doesn’t need to be validated.

Do we need to actually prove whether the memo is real or not?

Isn’t clear by now from both sides of the bullshit that we’re all being screwed here and what we’re really doing is trying to rationalize the heaps of sputum to pretend that we’re really not bitch slaves to the energy companies? It would be like naming that British television show "Keeping Up Appearances with a Plunger up your Ass"

Have we not known since the 1950’s that these so-called Super Powers of the World are nothing but toadies for oil syndicates?

Let’s see all these wind bags (ie: people who comment on obvious tyrrany) go over and get their heads blown off for some Crude, dude. As far as I know Hitchens is not poor, and he’s not hispanic. So don’t listen to him. 3 paragraphs is a milestone for that hack. Keep clicking your heels Chris you’ll make it home someday . . .

 

One of the basic flaws of going to war in Iraq was not the decision itself, but the way in which it was sold to the public, something I argued a lifetime ago in Iraq: A Venture Pitch. The reason...

Now his line of reasoning seems to be, "Well, of course the people had to be lied to. We, your intellectual superiors, were forced to do it because you wouldn't have done what was best for you if we didn't. So what?"

Of course he can't write anything without calling someone a "moral cretin" or some such garbage. Hitchens' attitude of moral and intellectual superiority is disgusting.