Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[Growler]

Destroyed a number of cultures along the way, but I'm sure that you think that they're better off in the long run anyways.

The British Empire was on balance a very good thing for its subjects. They brought representative government and the rule of law to the remotest corners of the world. They banished the world wide slave trade. In India they banished suttee, the practice of burning widows on their dead husband's funeral pyres. They greatly reduced the incidence of plagues by introducing the principles of sanitation and scientific medicine. They reduced famines by introducing improved agricultural methods. That is off the top of my head, they are responsible for many other worthwhile achievements. And yes, those achievements remain worthwhile even balanced against the blood spilled of those who resisted them.

For that matter, in my opinion, the USA is one of the least "revolutionary" of the modern western nations.

I wonder what standard of measure you employ to call the US the least "revolutionary".

The idea of implicit consent justifying a government may have been around for a long time (what is the significance of 2500 years?) but historical longevity is not an argument for its validity. Because the doctrine of implicit consent can be used to justify the continued reign of tyrants, it is in fact fatally flawed considered as political theory.

a.) does not have any particular terrorist affiliations (particularly compared to its neighbours)

Saddam sponsored terrorism against Isreal by making payments to the families of suicide bombers. This is one of the many facets of Saddam Hussein's behavior that made his continued existence incompatible with the goal of peace in the area.

b.) is governed by a regime at polar opposites with those clerical orders in the rest of the arab world from which terror cells develop

I don't agree with this assessment that Saddam was a polar opposite of the theocracies around him. A police state is a police state, it makes no difference whether it was secularly or religiously justified.

And 10,000 frenchmen can't be wrong, eh?

Try at least 30 million.

I'm sorry that went over your head. What I meant was: the numbers are irrelevant, what is right and what is wrong is not determined by counting noses.

Germany had no oil contracts with Iraq.

I was glib. Germany built Saddam's bunkers. France was the oil money launderer. Russia sold arms, China helped with Iraq's air defense network. Regardless of the details, I insist that French, German, and even Russian government interest in continuing the regime of Saddam Hussein indefinitely was motivated by crass economics, not any principled stand against violence. Crass economics is not evil, but please spare me the hypocrisy of the 'peace loving peoples of europe'.

Because Saddam Hussein's tyranny was financed by the state controlled (ie socialized) oil industry, he was free to neglect the welfare of his people. In democratic countries, because the gov't is financed only by taxes on the people, the gov't has an interest in encouraging a healthy economy, and the people have some economic leverage over the government if taxes are set by a representative legislature. So it is better for the people of Iraq that their oil fields not be socialized, that arrangement merely funds their repression.

I like the Wolfowitz doctrine. It disproves the notion that the short election cycles of democracies prevent long range planning. A country as large and influential as the US should not lurch from crisis to crisis, it should plan ahead. It should plan for its own benefit because the primary responsibilty of any government is to its own people.