Another Corner Heard From Wednesday, June 30, 2004

It's posts-from-friends day here at WTJ--like when Jeffy draws "Family Circus." Another long one, but a goodie. (I've cut it slightly because there were a couple of points I wasn't sure if the writer wanted repeated...)

I don't follow pundits much, but I hear two arguments repeated: 1. Saddam Hussein used powerful chemical weapons against his own people and, 2. The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. I find both irrefutable but these arguments sound defensive to me. Have we accepted that Iraq was not a top threat either by terrorism or nuclear capability? Was this ever a question?

Apparently, yes!

What are the top three states that harbor terrorists? Number one is Saudi Arabia, number two is Pakistan and number three is probably Syria. Did Iraq have chemical weapons? Proven. Did Iraq destroy their chemical weapons in accordance with United Nation mandates? At a minimum, we know that Iraqi scientists retained samples of deadly chemical agents, yes?, even if stockpiles have not yet surfaced.

Did Iraq attempt to obtain nuclear capability? I believe so. But I always try to remember that things never happen in a vacuum. Why did Saddam Hussein try to get nuclear weapons? Saddam Hussein received intelligence, much as we have, that Iran was escalating its nuclear program. You write that Saddam Hussein was "bonkers." We know that Saddam is evil but he may yet be rational.

I suppose the argument is that Iraq was *a* threat, never said to be the top threat in some ranking system. I wish the Bush administration had never augmented its case for war by linking Iraq to terrorists, though.

Those links do exist, however, documented in a recent book and many articles. Did Iraq have a hand in 9/11? Most likely not. But it certainly had contact with the terrorists that did.

...

Too often, nations have not acted to threats when they should of and, in this light, our war against Iraq is a bold move, even if it has an air of being originated by political scientists or a think tank. I don't think it was the right move, though. Perhaps you believe the Bush administration's discrediting of Richard Clarke. I think the man is as smart as a whip, though, and when he says we have become less secure following the war on Iraq, I think I believe him.

Regarding other items, I have no more use for a Michael Moore than I do of a Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, who play with "facts" from the other side of the political spectrum. Would another president have prevented 9/11? Of course not. ...

Good points. I would just add that Clarke has changed his story about GWB's performance at least once.

@ 9:24:00 AM,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home