Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[WarBlade]

I think you missed my point, so I will try again.  First, a recapitulation of the original item to which I responded:

I'm not sure if you are seeing this one or not, but with different societies comes different ideals on which people are basing their arguments. It's tricky to highlight in this topic unfortunately, but it looks to that you are making a point based on one definition of what you percieve is an accurate portrayal of moral standing (with regards to certain weapon types). Other posts will certainly come from other societies where the perception is entirely different.

What I most object to here is the idea that the US and Saddam Hussein's Iraq were morally equivalent.

Newsflash: You'll be living with that association for as long as Bush remains in power and probably beyond.

Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, and in my humble opinion any gov't not so constituted is fundamentally illegitimate. (THIS IS NOT my full political theory, that would be off topic.)  Any country in the world had the MORAL right to invade Saddam Hussein's Iraq (but not an  obligation), because Saddam had no rights at all.  I don't understand how the US is somehow less moral because it is well armed.

That line of argument comes from a viewpoint that is entirely removed from any question of governmental legitimacy. Many societies today find the idea of Biological, Chemical and Nuclear weapons as wellas land mines repugnant. The military of the society in which I live has even determined that cluster bombs are an unacceptable method of conducting warfare. The question of use is beside the point. It's the very fact that people have these things at all that puts them in the catagory of amoral.

Certainly how those arms are used counts, or in other words consequnces matter in moral judgements.  Disagreements?

No. How they are used or not used only counts in some societies. Others will still look on in disgust.