On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

First, he was a brutal tyrant who was murdering
his own people wholesale and was engaging (and condoning) the most heinous
sorts of torture, rape and brutality imaginable.

Which also describes US treatment of prisoners in Iraq.

Second, he was facilitating
and harboring terrorists, which threatened world peace and facilitated the
9/11 attacks.

No one has ever made a credible link between Saddam and 9/11.

I imagine you get your news from the CBC, so I wouldn't expect you
to have heard anything even reasonably unbiased.

I get news from The Economist, a British right-wing news magazine. They
reported the same news and then condemned the US for fraud after the
results of the invasion were revealed.

Third, all the above justifications were repeated by the administration
many, many times. That the liberal press refused to publish them is not the
administration's fault

The first invasion of Iraq was preceded by a huge mass of propaganda that
proved to be complete fiction (e.g. nuclear-hardened bunkers filled with
Republican Guards just inside the border). Given such a precedent, why
should we believe anything the US Administration says?

Mike