254. Administration’s actions puzzling
The following are a number of puzzling questions:
Statements like “the UN should enforce its own resolutions; if it doesn’t, we will” makes one wonder who put the Bush administration in charge of enforcing UN resolutions? If it is in charge will it also enforce the some sixty plus UN resolutions taken against Israel?
The Bush administration is also trying very hard to pass a second resolution which will be interpreted as authorizing war. It does, however, say it doesn’t really need one. Does this sound logical?
The administration also says that if this second resolution gets the majority of nine votes, even if France uses its veto, it will be a moral victory. Since when can bribing and coercing smaller countries be considered a "moral" victory?
“Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is dangerous since he can give them to the terrorists.” Why is it that Saddam Hussein with hundreds of inspectors roaming around would do such a thing and not North Korea that expelled the inspectors and reactivated its nuclear program?
The Bush administration keeps repeating that action is better than inaction. Only someone with bad faith can describe the intrusive inspections by UNMOVIC as inaction.
The point is this. Why in the world is it necessary to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis, destroy, for a second time, the infrastructure of Iraq, put our soldiers in harm’s way, if disarming Iraq can be done peacefully, especially given that Iraq does not pose an imminent danger, as the Bush administration wants us to believe?