What are we to make of the news about David Kay, the chief WMD hunter in Iraq? He has resigned his position. In an interview, Kay expressed the view that no substantial stockpiles of WMD are in Iraq. Mr. Kay has also noted that:
the C.I.A. and other agencies failed to recognize that Iraq had all but abandoned its efforts to produce large quantities of chemical or biological weapons after the first Persian Gulf war, in 1991.and that there has been no substantial production of WMD since the first Gulf war in 1991.These days, it seems difficult to find anyone who based his or her support for the war on the urgency of disarming Saddam. Many folks justify the war on the basis that Saddam was a brutal dictator who oppressed the Iraqi people with rape rooms, mass graves and other techniques.
Others justify the war as a means of showing that we are serious about terrorism and that by striking in the heart of the Arab world we provide a powerful symbol of American strength. Still others hope that Iraq emerges as a democratic nation, marking a different path for the Arab world. Finally, some see the war in Iraq as a first step in a series of confrontations between Islam and the West.
For one person, however, the war was about the WMD. For that person, had it been known that Saddam had no WMD, the war would not have been necessary. That person is George W. Bush.
President Bush made clear in the run up to the invasion that war could be avoided if Saddam disposed of his WMD. George W. Bush would have permitted Saddam to remain in power free to oppress the Iraqi people, sending them in countless numbers to rape rooms and mass graves if it had been known that Saddam possessed no WMD. In the absence of WMD, George Bush did not feel that the establishment of a free and democratic Iraq was worth the price in blood and treasure. It now appears that George W, Bush went to war chasing a ghost.
Those are strong words. The evidence to back up those assertions is contained in the words of George W. Bush and administration officials in the run up to the war.
…followed by Dwight Meredith's detailed documentation that Bush claimed the only reason to invade was the threat posed by WMD.
Untenable Positions To Take With Me:
"Well, everyone thought he had WMD. "
That's because everyone relies on U.S. intelligence.
"Why didn't he just let inspectors in?"
He did. He'd been complaining for years about the inspectors being a political tool because he'd already proven to them he had no forbidden weapons.
"Why are you on Saddam's side?"
I'm not. I'm just not on the side of liars either. For some reason people keep acting as though one side or the other must be right. Are you REALLY that stupid?
Posted by P6 at January 26, 2004 12:44 PM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/137
Comments
Thanks for persisting on pounding away on this issue. I guess I should too. For me, it just seems so obvious.
I suspect the people who still favor the invasion do so because they have pride issues. They simply find it too painful to acknowledge that the state they rely on for protection is sometimes unjust.
Posted by James R MacLean at January 26, 2004 01:55 PMI agree with you completely.
In his State of the Union speech Bush said that the Kay report "identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations." Today, Ashcroft said, "past use of �evil chemistry� and �evil biology� justified U.S. actions."
So if "past use" & "related activities" are enough to justify military intervention, then we could invade any country that had WMD at one time, regardless of whether they still possess them.
This is a dangerous precedence.
I think that my position was slightly different. It was lack of compliance with the 1991 cease fire, not weapons.
Posted by Phelps at January 26, 2004 06:59 PMYou know, I am so far past whether or not the invasion was justified. My position is kind of obvious, but the fact is, it was done.
Now I want to point out we're following people who…
(How shall I put this? I need to be delicate since directly calling the Bushistas liars is shrill.)
…willfully disregard physical facts that do not directly support their preconceived ideas.
Posted by P6 at January 27, 2004 05:00 PM