Douglas Feith, subsecretario de defensa americano entre 2001 y 2005, escribe un artículo mediocre en el Wall Street Journal justificando la intervención en Iraq: Why We Went to War in Iraq. David Henderson fiskea el artículo en Antiwar.
Notice that Feith admits that Saddam was not implicated in the 9/11 operation. That didn't seem to matter much, though. For Feith and, apparently, for Bush, a government that supported terrorism against any country needed to be stopped. But that's poor reasoning. A government's main legitimate function is to protect its people, not other countries' people.
Feith's point #3 is that to contain the threat from Saddam, all reasonable means short of war had been tried unsuccessfully. But notice that Feith hasn't yet established that Saddam was a threat.
(...)
Let's say that Saddam Hussein had been able to get nuclear weapons. If he had given them to a terrorist group, then that terrorist group would have been able to threaten him. Was Saddam Hussein, a man who had survived in a dangerous job for over two decades, that stupid?
