WMD was to conservatives what global warming currently is to liberals; a) an article of faith, b) a submission to "experts"/authority, and c) an opiate....Here's to hoping that the moderates and small-l libertarians refuse to follow such a path themselves.
10 comments:
There's something missing here. 9/11 is an event, not an ideology. Are you referring to a truther thing? PATRIOT act? Or something else?
Actually, I should have said WMD and not 9/11.
Well, according to numerous sources, including Wikileaks, Saddam had indeed been hiding WMD, and many were found after the 2003 invasion which he had hidden and refused to declare.
So, do you mean any WMD at all, or just the controvery over new (especially nuclear) WMD and programs?
No, I meant WMD and I just changed it.
From New York Post:
"There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.
The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.
The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.
In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.
Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city...."
That Saddam stockpiled WMD up through and beyond the 2003 invasion is well known. What is debatable, of course, is whether or not his existing WMD stockpiles warranted the military response.
They found small amounts that were more than likely degraded and I still maintain that the threat was oversold and the mission unrealistic.
A reasonable argument that can be discussed with reasonable people, Will.
Without such chicanery as claiming that Bush is a war criminal and using as your main source a fake attorney a guy who calls Alan Dershowitz a war criminal just because the guy's Jewish.
Like I've said before, I've come around to the idea that getting rid of Saddam was probably a good thing (the dude was worse than Assad, Gadaffi, and Mubarek combined). I just wish that we had done it in a less destabilizing manner and in a way that didn't strengthen Iran.
"Heck of a job, Rummy"
As dmarks will attest, I have strongly spoken out against the use of the term, war criminal, for Bush.
Post a Comment