Quote:
Originally posted by sean416
Think of Saddam, what if during his trial he produced records where it said that his informants told him that all of the people he killed in his country were apart of a conspiracy to kill him and he attacked them out of self defence. We should just excuse his actions because he was misinformed? When you pull the trigger, you're held responsible no matter what your informants/advisors told you.
|
He does not have to produce many records to use this defense, if he's being judged by the same criteria as Bush.
Just a couple of guys who were scared to tell him the truth will do.
One of the people who was not listened to about WMDs was Hans Blix. You remember him, he was the guy with the task of finding them. And with all this so called excellent intelligence he found exactly NOTHING.
The excuse that was being trotted out time after time was to reveal the location would give away the informant. Well it seems they never knew where they were. Iraq didn't even have conventional Scud missiles. His army was finished and useless. That's why they never bothered to bomb it, they just rushed in.
Against a force they were telling us existed, that would have been suicide.