Wolfie defends US role in creating the Iraq War

Paul Wolfowitz defended the US invasion of Iraq as only the architect of such action could. When asked, during a youth conference on genocide in Kigali, why the US was "murdering people in Iraq", Wolfie responded

"I am not going to get into a long debate, I am here to do development. But I ask you and anyone else who thinks the way you think to stop and think what it means to 8.5 million Iraqis who were threatened with death but still voted."

We've heard it all before, Bush and Blair were compelled to lie and create a flimsy cause for war because Saddam was a lousy leader (propped up by the US in order to gain ground against Iran), because Saddam used heinous chemical warfare against his own people, because he had weapons of mass destruction that he could, possibly, consider using. The US, being a country that is nothing but respectful of all people regardless of race, color or creed and ensures the rights of its own are inviolable was compelled to intervene in order to make sure a regime the could support (for the time being, at least) was elected in the country. The US, being lead by men of great morals, would not repeat any of the mistakes in that debacle known as the Viet Nam War such as use of napalm or anything like it, no siree that's for sure! The Bush administration, widely known for its candor confirmed they misled British ministers about the use of the mk77, an incendiary weapon similar to napalm in both action and lack of targeting precision.

The confirmation that US officials misled British ministers led to new questions last night about the value of the latest assurances by the US. Mr Cohen said there were rumours that the firebombs were used in the US assault on the insurgent stronghold in Fallujah last year, claims denied by the US. He is tabling more questions seeking assurances that the weapons were not used against civilians.

Sure, we got a few civvies, but hey - that's the price of war. Plus, those godless liberals keep using words like fascism which can't be an accurate depiction of a US Republican administration, so why should we listen to their rants about napalm when we used a completely different firebomb?

As Wolfie said, he's all about development after war and gonocide, and we need to think about all those who weren't burned that could vote. Who is it that stands to gain in the post-war development process?


Tags: Iraq War; Bush Administration; Foreign Policy; BBA; Downing Street Memorandum; wolfowitz

Sphere: Related Content