The press is awash with the declaration: "THE FINAL WORD: NO WMD!"
And yet, buried farther down in the report is the exact thing we on the right have been warning about:
But Duelfer also supports Bush’s argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted, his report said.Here's a quote that sums up many of the reasons the left can not be trusted with power:
“What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of use of force, and had experiences that demonstrated the utility of WMD,” Duelfer told Congress.
a top Democrat in Congress, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, said Duelfer’s findings undercut the two main arguments for war: that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he would share them with terrorists like al-Qaida.Aaaah. Well, that crunches it, then.
“We did not go to war because Saddam had future intentions to obtain weapons of mass destruction,” said Levin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee
Levin's wrong, of course, on many counts. The threat of WMD is little better than their existence; once you have the knowledge and the material, building a new nuke is just a matter of craftsmanship, not genius.
And there were four reasons to go to war; the WMDs, the link to terror (which existed, and existed with Al Quaeda although not in terms of cooperating on attacks - hence the 9/11 commission's "No Operational Link" quote, from which so many on the left have dropped the "operational" to create a misleadingly blanket statement - the defiance of the UN, and his human rights abuses. Any one of them was sufficient to depose Hussein; by my count, we got two completely right, and two of them halfway.
I postulated "Berg's Law of Liberal Iraq Commentary" two years ago:
No liberal commentator can simultaneously address more than one of the justifications for war; it'd make their point untenable. I still stand by it. Posted by Mitch at October 7, 2004 07:16 AM | TrackBack