While David Kay's report is getting some of the media attention it deserves, who wants to bet that
this barely sees the light of day in the US media?
I've long fumed as those simplistic thinkers who counter arguments against the invasion with the knee-jerk "we stopped genocide and rape by overthrowing Saddam" nonsense. Now Human Rights Watch has published a report debunking the humanitarian rationale for an invasion. The question is, how to disseminate this into political common sense?
Anyone interested in or knowledgeable about human rights knows that military solutions exacerbate rather than solve human rights violations. The case for military intervention for in those instances of on-going humanitarian crises of egregious dimensions is not even accepted doctrine, though there are arguments that support it.
This is the response to take whenever Administration or establishment sources attempt to justify their illegitimate invasion/occupaion. Yet this perspective remains absent from the political mainstream. And HRW is about as mainstream and US-centric a human rights NGO as any you will find.
Perhaps, in conjunction with the David Kay report that is slowly eviscerating the Adminstration's rationales, a more productive means of discussing the Bush Doctrine can be introduced. Bit by bit.
And people call me cynical.