WMD's
So now we have evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq? Surprising? Maybe. Who knows. I don't think anyone doubted that Saddam HAD chemical weapons. We know he used them against the Kurds and the Iranians. With the UN inspectors periodically allowed access, he also had more than a decade to hide whatever WMD's he may have had, or destroy them, or smuggle them out.
I will be the first to jump on the "Hans Blix Sux" bandwagon. The guy was worthless. He found no evidence of bad things in the places that Saddam would let him look. To the French, Germans, Russians, and Kofi Annan, that proved Saddam was Okie Dokie. Fine. To the rest of us, it certainly looked like Saddam had something to hide. Or maybe it was a pissing contest. Maybe Saddam was trying to prove that he wasn't bowing to the UN, and saving a little face. I don't know. The fact is that hard and fast intel has not appeared to validate the belief that WMD's were present.
Did Bush make a compelling case for war? Not really, but a compelling case COULD HAVE been made. The fact that one key piece of intelligence appears to have been fabricated is telling. The Administration felt that WMD's were the best argument for war, and the administration cited bogus intelligence in making this case. Hmmmm.
Did Bush botch diplomacy in the period leading up to the war? I think he did. Others here will certainly disagree.
Did the DoD asses the post war environment in Iraq properly? I don't think many people would agree with the rosy assessment of Iraqis cheering in the streets, and welcoming us as liberators. Wolfowitz's dismissal of Shinseki's assessment of required troop strength post combat looks naive now. Wolfowitz's prediction that those nations who opposed the war would jump to our side once Saddam fell seemed particularly idiotic. Now, a year later, it looks even more idiotic.
Would Gore have handled this better?
Would Kerry handle this better?
It's pretty pathetic that the best case for Bush is that Kerry sucks, and the best case for Kerry is that Bush sucks.
I will be the first to jump on the "Hans Blix Sux" bandwagon. The guy was worthless. He found no evidence of bad things in the places that Saddam would let him look. To the French, Germans, Russians, and Kofi Annan, that proved Saddam was Okie Dokie. Fine. To the rest of us, it certainly looked like Saddam had something to hide. Or maybe it was a pissing contest. Maybe Saddam was trying to prove that he wasn't bowing to the UN, and saving a little face. I don't know. The fact is that hard and fast intel has not appeared to validate the belief that WMD's were present.
Did Bush make a compelling case for war? Not really, but a compelling case COULD HAVE been made. The fact that one key piece of intelligence appears to have been fabricated is telling. The Administration felt that WMD's were the best argument for war, and the administration cited bogus intelligence in making this case. Hmmmm.
Did Bush botch diplomacy in the period leading up to the war? I think he did. Others here will certainly disagree.
Did the DoD asses the post war environment in Iraq properly? I don't think many people would agree with the rosy assessment of Iraqis cheering in the streets, and welcoming us as liberators. Wolfowitz's dismissal of Shinseki's assessment of required troop strength post combat looks naive now. Wolfowitz's prediction that those nations who opposed the war would jump to our side once Saddam fell seemed particularly idiotic. Now, a year later, it looks even more idiotic.
Would Gore have handled this better?
*cough cough*
(silence)
Would Kerry handle this better?
(sound of fingers drumming on table)
It's pretty pathetic that the best case for Bush is that Kerry sucks, and the best case for Kerry is that Bush sucks.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home