« Speech, Religion, and Church & State | Home | A More Appropriate Title »
It Could Be All Over Soon
By Matt Margolis | April 26, 2003
Talk about quick. Allegedly, next week President Bush will officially declare the war over.
So some people are asking about the WMDs. Well, the answer to that isn’t a quick one. Lets get one thing straight… Saddam Hussein had more than enough time since Res 1441 to hide, sell, or destroy what he had. It appears from various reports that maybe just days before we started bombing, Saddam had whatever he had left that was around destroyed… Which means he knew we were going in soon, so he had to hide what he could, and destroy the rest, so that if Coalition Forces didn’t stay long (which Saddam thought would happened - the “Black Hawk Down” syndrome) that once they were gone and WMDs were not discovered, that he would win in the Court of Public Opinion against Bush.
Some leftist might say “Well, he destroyed them didn’t he?” Even if some were destroyed days before the war started, all that means is that he thought he could deceive the world, even prevent the war from starting… So regardless, he was in violation of the UN Resolutions, and only destroyed some WMDS at the last second to cover his ass and eventually go back to his old ways - rebuilding his weapons once things calmed down.
But don’t worry, be patient. Don’t let yourself be a victim to Saddam’s game. As the protesters said before “Let the inspections work.” Well, if the UN inspections had to take time, so will those of the Coalition Forces.
Topics: War Journal |
Related Posts:
June 2nd, 2003 at 4:18 pm
Do you actually read what you write? If you agree that it will take time to find the WMD’s, why did the Bush administration claim day after day that the inspectors had run out of time? What was the hurry? With the inspectors in Iraq, Saddam was clearly in no position to use any weapons he may have had. And if he had destroyed the weapons, why was Iraq an immediate threat? If the inspectors had a compressed time table to find WMDs, why shouldn’t we expect the same of the Bush administration?
One other note. Israel has been in violation of numerous UN resolutions for 30+ years. Does that mean that we must attack them? They certainly have WMD’s and have been systematically repressing their own population for as long as Saddam.
You see Matt, the Bush administration desparately needed a way to sell this war. Wolfowitz has stated that WMD’s were a simply a bureaucratic justification for the war that everyone could agree on. Translation– an effective sales pitch.
June 2nd, 2003 at 10:08 pm
Jack, it was not the job of the inspectors to find the WMDs. They were there to obtain proof of their destruction. Which they never did.
Not to get too off-topic - but the same people who criticize the United States liberating Iraq are the same people who said we left too early after the end of the Gulf War which resulted in Saddam Hussein gassing the Kurds. It’s a double standard. When a Republican is in office, when it comes to military operations, they either do too little, or too much - atleast from the viewpoint of liberals. It’s ridiculous. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say that the United States doesn’t do enough to help oppressed people of other nations - and after we’ve liberated an entire country, there are people like you still criticizing the war because you can’t even admit that there was a lot of good that came out of it. The fact is Jack, you would have rather let the Iraqi people suffer, you would have rather let Saddam go about his ways, developing, selling, trading, hiding, and possibly using his WMDs than have gone in there and freed an oppressed people. You wouldn’t even let yourself take any joy in the fact that the Iraqi people have finally learned what it is like to experience freedom. You just keep asking “Where are the WMDs?” as if Saddam Hussein was going to leave them all in one place, out in the open, with a “Welcome to my WMD Arsenal” billboard at the gate. Iraq is a big country, Jack. I appreciate your numerous posts, but be a bit realistic about this WMD search. We did found mobile weapons labs - which have been agreed on that they were obviously built for one purpose. So please, let the process continue.
June 3rd, 2003 at 3:27 am
Just a quick thought because it’s late… There was/is much disagreement as to what the UN resolution called for. For the sake of argument, we’ll assume that the inspectors’ job was, in fact, to verify that WMD’s were destroyed. Realistically, short of finding a smoking gun, there was absolutely no way that the inspectors could succeed in the eyes of the Bush administration. This is because it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. The closest you can come is to demonstrate with a high degree of certainty that there is no evidence of any weapons that were outlawed under the UN resolution. Now, the same goes for the Bush administration. As Rumsfeld has said, maybe they destroyed the weapons before the war. However, he acknowledged that there is no way to know for sure what happened (including the possibility that they did not have any WMDs). So, in either case, short of finding a smoking gun, we’ll never know for sure. As far as WMD’s go, inspections were working fine. As you have said, we should have been realistic because Iraq is the size of California. Incidentally, the big selling point in the run up towards war was the repeated hubbub about Saddam’s purported nuclear program. The IAEA inspectors conclusively asserted that there was no evidence of a nuclear program, period.
What really bothers me is the post-hoc rationalization of a war– any war. Americans should be told the real reason for going to war– and while I am happy for the Iraqi people and tremendously glad that Saddam is out of the picture (for now, anyway), the liberation was a by-product of our attack… not the reason we were told we were going, and certainly not the real reason we went. Nobody in their right mind would have supported the war, had it not been for the WMD argument. As I said in an earlier post, Wolfowitz has admitted that WMD’s was a convenient selling strategy. Your government should be above selling you on a war for reasons that differ from its ultimate motives. It is shameful to exploit a nation’s fear to further one’s own agenda.
Finally, not to lose the forest through the trees, here is the big problem with this war: the real reason we went. First geopolitical power: The neo-cons have made no bones about the fact that they wanted to teach the rest of the countries in the middle east a lesson. So, they picked the weakest country where victory was certain to demonstrate our stated of policy of using to force to deal with any and all perceived threats, no matter how real the threat may be. That is not an effective foreign policy. In fact, we are ultimately encouraging these other countries to develop WMD’s. If they think they are next line for a preemptive attack, the only way they can develop any real deterrence against the US is to develop WMD’s. Why do think we are pussy footing around with North Korea? They got nukes. While this war gave the Iraqis some new freedom, the cost is a much more dangerous and volatile region. Not to mention increased Al-qaeda recruitment (which was, incidentally, predicted by the CIA).
Secondly, greed: Halliburton and Bechtel are the real winners… and that is not a coincidence. Oh and don’t forget Richard Perle’s Trireme.
Ok so maybe this was a long one.
June 4th, 2003 at 11:08 pm
How about waiting till you have a point, too? The UN inspectors already knew about the existence of many WMD’s in the past. What they needed was evidence of where these known weapons went. They’d already found missles that were banned under the UN resolutions and the cease fire, so obviously Iraq was in material breech.
Indeed, we found a cruise missile and ballistic missiles that violated the terms of the cease fire.
We’ve been stating the reasons for years, but people just won’t listen! The WMDs were there, and the Wolfowitz quote was taken out of context. The problem wasn’t having a reason for the war, the problem was that we couldn’t find a reason not to.
Then why did we steamroller Saddam in a couple weeks, while our entire military assumed he had WMDs? Why was everyone wearing those chem-bio suits the whole time?
So why were we pussyfooting around with them in the previous 50 years when they didn’t have nukes? Could it be terrain and artillery? Could it be China sitting on the border?
More dangerous to us or to the millions of dead Iraqis who Saddam killed?
Nope. It’s no coincidence that the only two companies qualified to handle a reconstruction contract get a reconstruction contract. “It’s all about the OIIILLLLL!!!!” and our attack on Afghanistan was just a clever scheme to sieze control of the world’s supply of lapis lazuli. “NO WAR FOR CHEAP BLUE JEWELRY!!! IT’S ALL ABOUT THE JEWELS!”
Anyway, BUSH=HITLER, BLOOD FOR OIL, and QUAGMIRE, QUAGMIRE, QUAGMIRE.
June 5th, 2003 at 1:36 am
Well, “Name” (I’ll have to refer to you as that since you were too much of a pussy to leave a name– any name)… I think you suceeded in avoiding everyone of my points… lets see.
“They’d already found missles that were banned under the UN resolutions and the cease fire, so obviously Iraq was in material breech.”
Those “missles” had a range of about 110 miles and were not ever touted as WMD’s– wow… what colossal and immediate threat to the U.S.!Additionally, Israel has been in material breach of several U.N. resolutions for nearly 30 years. Are they next in line for the invasion? Isn’t all about the rule of law?
“Indeed, we found a cruise missile and ballistic missiles that violated the terms of the cease fire.”
See above, jackass.
“So why were we pussyfooting around with them in the previous 50 years when they didn’t have nukes? Could it be terrain and artillery? Could it be China sitting on the border?”
Boy, you really are an idiot. First of all, North Korea did not start really threatening us until Bush grouped them in the Axis of Evil. Secondly, China wants to resolve this crisis as much as we do. They are on our side in this matter. Thirdly, North Korea is a far greater threat to its neighbors and its own people than Iraq, yet there has been no talk of invasion. If our stated foreign policy is to use force to deal with any threats to the U.S. (and that is the Bush administration’s stance), why are pursuing diplomatic means? Its the nukes, stupid.
“More dangerous to us or to the millions of dead Iraqis who Saddam killed?”
Where did the “millions” figure come from?? And was that before or after a previous Republican administration was supporting him with military aid including WMD’s?
“Nope. It’s no coincidence that the only two companies qualified to handle a reconstruction contract get a reconstruction contract.”
Only two companies, huh… What about Schlumberger, Weatherford International, Baker Hughes, Boots & Coots International, Safety Boss, RPC, Cudd Pressure Control, and Superior Energy Services to name a FEW. Or did Michael Savage forget to mention these?
Interestingly enough, people who supported the war, such as Mark Bowden, author of Black Hawk Down, are coming to the same conclusions– Bush lied and its going to cost us in the long run. See for yourself. http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/columnists/mark_bowden/5937888.htm
June 5th, 2003 at 1:50 am
P.S.
“We’ve been stating the reasons for years, but people just won’t listen! The WMDs were there, and the Wolfowitz quote was taken out of context. The problem wasn’t having a reason for the war, the problem was that we couldn’t find a reason not to.”
Which one of Bush’s ever changing reasons was the “real reason”? Material breach? I thought it was WMD’s? Oh no, I mean to liberate the Iraqi’s. No excuse, its because they were linked with Al-Qaeda. No, no, not that… we need to create a middle eastern democracy. Yeah, thats it. We’ve been saying that for years. Right.
The Wolfowitz quote was taken out of context? I’d love to see how you are going to spin this one… Couldn’t find a reason not to? See the Wolfowitz quote.
“Then why did we steamroller Saddam in a couple weeks, while our entire military assumed he had WMDs? Why was everyone wearing those chem-bio suits the whole time?”
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Iraq had a deterrence value of zero. There were no WMD’s and we knew it. Plus, real deterrence comes from nuclear weapons. Chem-bio suits don’t offer much protection from that threat.