Again, meeting is obligations wasn't the argument that won with the public, or really a valid reaason for us to invade outside the UN. Those obligations were to the UN and not just the US. violating UN resolutions is a UN matter. For us to invade outside the UN, we have to a reason beyond those. And by our agreements, it must be that we are being attacked or that an attack is eminent. That condition did not exist. So, Sadda is a bad man doesn't qualify as reason to invade. And outside the UN, neither does him not meeting his obligations.
No one suggests history happens in a vaccum, but comments out of context don't apply today. That's the point. Nor does Saddams history of behavior. His history certainly means we should not take his word at face value, and no one has suggested we should. But to invade a country, any country, the standard hs to be higgh. We must have serious cause, reason, justification. And those qquotes, even if they were in context, would not qualify (even though that's not why they are presented. They are present to sugest agreement with Bush).Of course they do. History doesn't happen in a vaccuum. History didn't start on the day Bush was elected. Many things happened that brought us to that point.
It shows a pattern of behavior by Saddam. He was really just waiting for Bush to send some rockets at him (as Clinton did) then restart his weapons program with the people that still had knowledge of the program.
From interviews conducted by the FBI after Saddam’s capture:
"And that was his intention?" Pelley asks.
"Yes," Piro says.
"What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?" Pelley asks.
"He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program," says Piro.
"Chemical, biological, even nuclear," Pelley asks.
"Yes," Piro says.