The chemical weapons that have been recovered by US forces in Iraq were all made before the 1991 Gulf War and were too degraded for their intended use, US intelligence officials said.
Republican lawmakers have cast the disclosure that about 500 chemical weapons have been found in Iraq as evidence that Saddam Hussein had a stockpile of the weapons before the March 2003 US invasion of Iraq.
But the intelligence officials, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, said the weapons were too degraded to have posed a threat to US forces in March 2003.
All this talk of WMDs seems to bea lot of wasted words. First, all evidence pointed to the fact that Saddam had WMDs. He didn't let the U.N. inspectors in; most of us assumed that this was because he didn't want to demonstrate proof of his ability to massively destruct things. It turns out he had an incredible inability to do so, but chose to attempt to hide this, possibly so as to avoid tipping the hand of the Iranians, or so I've read.It must be re-iterated: the intelligence was bad. Bush did not lie. According to what he knew, Saddam had the weapons. He trusted too easily, perhaps, but he did not lie.
The reason the War in Iraq is immoral has nothing to do with WMDs. "The only defensible war," Chesterton tells us, "is a war of defense." The Iraq War was an aggressive, if ostensibly preventive, war, and cannot be defended for this reason. It makes no difference whether Saddam had three camels and two rockets or a nuclear arsenal to rival that of the United States.
We cannot simply go attack countries on the premise that, someday, they may attack us. To do so would result in endless wars to prevent wars from occuring. Such utter madness cannot be accepted by moral individuals.
It is somewhat curious, then, this constant focus on WMDs and lying and the like. They are utterly irrelevant, and there is a just and perfectly legitimate excuse for opposing the War in Iraq which neither depend on Saddam's cascade of weapons nor Bush's alleged violation of the 8th Commandment.
4 comments:
This issue is more than just semantics. (when is a lie not a lie)He said he had proof positive when in fact he did not, much early intelligence disputed the idea he had viable WMDstockpiles. He CHOSE to ignore this good intelligence in favor of the bad because it served his agenda.(establishing a solid position in the region) To look back at the footage and rehear the pre-war speeches is to understand why US democracy no longer works. I agree that defense is a justification for war but do not find the issue of deciet irrelevent.
I would agree that deceit is not irrelevant, but I do not know that we can ever tell for certain whether he was deceiving us or whether he's simply guitly of gullibility.
So long as you include the defense justification, speculations as to the credibility of pre-war intelligence and the Presiden't knowledge thereof are perfectly reasonable. Yet they are also not essential, and my point was that hinging the whole argument upon WMDs is idiotic, a point upon which I presume you would agree.
I believe that GWB is so unconcerned with the truth or falsity of statements he makes that it is not appropriate to dither over whether he lies or not. Let's just say he has his notions, and he is reckless with the facts. It may be that he never actually, purposely lies straight out, or no more egregiously than most presidents have.
I heard an interview with a venerable White House press correspondent who was banished to the back rows for some time by W because she was so insistent on asking hard questions. They finally gave her her place back as the senior member of the WH Press Corps. (I forget her name, but she has a book out.) She said to him, "All your reasons advanced for this war have been not true - no WMDs, no involvement with 9-11, no terrorists in Iraq BEFORE we invadeded...Why DID you want to go to war?"
He didn't answer, except to say he didn't really want to. (Somebody's got to it...) Truth is, he bought a bill of goods sold him by the pseudo-intellectuals like Wolfowitz who thought it would be a cake-walk to a glorious Pax Americana. And it would ensure our energy supply too! Do well by doing good...
See, if he were smarter, he might have seen through them and done the right thing simply to avoid getting himself in a fix. Sort of like LBJ and McNamara. Kind of funny, isn't it? The intellectuals, they're the real villains!
See, if he were smarter, he might have seen through them and done the right thing simply to avoid getting himself in a fix. Sort of like LBJ and McNamara. Kind of funny, isn't it? The intellectuals, they're the real villains!
I prefer to think that Bush is stupid rather than evil, but I'll leave that for Someone else to judge. I think the people who are the real villians are those of us who knew that this was immoral and silently stood by. Civilians don't have much power, but by making their case, their consciences can be clear.
I have promised myself that I will do better next time around. Perhaps that is all that we can do: hope to learn and make right when this happens again.
Post a Comment