Replies

Pat's making no sense here at all. There are only two possibilites: Either Saddam was a threat to Israel or he was not. If he was a threat to Israel, then he was as much or more of a threat to our interests in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait—after all, it's not Israeli jets Saddam was shooting at daily, or the Israeli President he tried to assassinate. The US troops whose presence on Saudi soil caused Osama bin Laden to found al-Qaeda weren't defending Israel from Iraq, they were defending Saudi Arabia. So if Saddam had the capacity and will to use WMDs against Israel, US troops and US oil supplies would be just as much in danger.

But if Saddam didn't have WMDs, and wouldn't use them even if he had them, then he was no threat to Israel. And if he was no threat to Israel, why would Israel want him removed from power? If the Mossad or the Elders of Zion or the Neoconservative Cabal or whoever were "cherry-picking" intelligence to frame Saddam, surely at least the conspirators knew the truth. Or is Pat saying that Sharon is smarter than Bush but dumber than Saddam?

Conversely, is Pat now saying that WMDs were a legitimate reason to depose Saddam? Back when everybody in the world believed Saddam was sitting on stockpiles of ready-to-use chemical and biological weapons, Pat was saying that wasn't a valid reason for war. If that's still the case—if real WMDs aren't a legitimate casus belli—then discussing how the Jews "cherry-picked" the intelligence they allowed Bush and Powell to see is irrelevant.

A reasonable person could have written a very straightforward editorial saying "see, I told you so"—Pat didn't believe Saddam was a threat and lo, Saddam wasn't a threat, case closed. But no, Pat has to make this about the Jews.