Posted on 03/15/2005 8:02:35 AM PST by pissant
Clearly there were WMD's. (of course this won't be reported by the media)
Clearly we didn't secure the WMD sites very well, or at least quickly enough. (this WILL be reported by the media)
So, even though both sides (leftists and rightists) have some explaining to do, once again we have the classic situation: Bush will end up looking bad, all because the media won't report both sides of the situation.
As Hitchens points out, in the long run, the media cannot simultaneously push the “there were no WMDs” and the “Bush let them disperse the WMDs” stories.
Well, I guess they can, but only the idiot voters of the left will be able to swallow the contradiction, and they're effectively marginalized for the duration.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
Let me tell you what I love about the WMD debate. The attitude that our intelligence community are a backward gaggle of hicks that couldn't find a WMD if it hit them in the face.
I believe the WMD were already found, removed and destroyed as part of the bigger picture.
What happens if we find the WMD? What then? How do we know how much of it is still floating around? Will that cause a panic as we know that the NYT and the MSM will be screaming about Bush's negligence?
On the flip side, was this worth the abuse Bush took from the radical left? Was this a Rovian plot as to make the left rabid, let America see that, reelect Bush, all the while we have identified the WMD and with the help of Syria, destroyed it?
Call it a tinfoil hat theory of mine, however look at the logic. Finding the WMD will cause more of a headache to the world then just accepting it didn't exist. After we do find it, you know it will be publicized. What happens after that when Al Queada says they have 50 pounds of Ricin stashed in America and they are going to use it.
From a political point, the hit the administration took far outweighs making the left look bad while altering us to a potential danger.
Just my 2 centavos
Thanks for posting this! However,I made the mistake of reading some of the comments below the article (at Slate).... gotta go take a shower.
A while back, another freeper (I believe it was RandallFlagg) theorized that we had indeed found and removed the WMD's from Iraq. However, by not making that fact public, we were inviting terrorists from around the world to join in the phantom hunt for WMD's. (Why not concentrate the War on Terror in one area where we happen to have 130,000+ troops.) President Bush is magnanimous enough to take the continual "No WMD's" heat from the left while the fight is playing out. Of course, Randall put it more eloquently, but then, I'm just a lowly cook. ;-)
The point is as it was - you can't simultaneously claim "there were no WMDs" and then when presented with the two tons of enriched uranium that the IAEA had sealed up in Baghdad, claim "oh, but we knew about that." Yet that is precisely what the Times has been claiming all this time. And the ones swallowing both stories are the same who are notably proud of their "critical thinking" skills. You can't make this stuff up.
>the nyt is either stupid or evil<
Not both?
(Napoleon and Hitler each invaded Russia)
Actually, evil is an over-used term, IMO. Stupid and manipulative aren't.
-George
Good job, you got in one of the requisite three (a variation of "it's Bush's fault"). The other two are "I find the timing deeply suspicious" and "TDwDS, now DHRiDS" (Tom Daschle was deeply saddened, now Dingy Harry Reid is deeply saddened)
Why do people think a president micromanages every aspect of a war -- do folks think he has a big Stratego board in his office and moves pieces around on it, like in the movies?
He touches briefly on a fairly fundamental point...
Before the war, one of the most common arguments against it was that Saddam would unleash his WMDs on us. I even remember seeing a flash "game" on this point.
Now those *same exact people* argue that everyone knew Saddam had no WMDs...strange isn't it?
"Looting" indeed! LOL As Hitchens points out, what happened does not fit the ordinary definition of "looting." This was a planned military operation, coordinated at the highest level, designed to hide Saddam's ongoing weapons programs.
This is all well and good for Christopher to bring out, however, he never mentions who was driving the "loot" out of the country and where the "loot" was driven to. I think it was Russians driving to Syria---Lebannon--Bekaa Valley There will you will find the pot of gold WMD. Me thinks.
the nyt is either stupid or evil.
The New York Times is either stupid or evil, that would be both, and as always, on the wrong side of history. Why anybody even reads their rag is beyond me, also the washington compost.
Bumpity-bump-bump!
ping
Actually, I disagree here. The Dems and the MSM have too much invested politically in the "Bush lied about WMDs" attack to walk away from it now. And the Bush Admin has already taken the political damage from there not being WMDs to want to deal with the prospect that the WMDs were actually scattered, as some critics claimed could happen before the invasion.
Witness how the foiled al Qaeda chemical weapon attack on Annan, Jordan fell completely off the radar screen.
This is why I was disappointed when Bush came out and "admitted" that he (the administration) was "wrong" about the WMD stockpiles. Now, if they are found during his administration, he can't go back and say, "Oh yeah, I knew they were there all along".
My only (small) consolation is that they probably won't be found during his presidency, thus there wouldn't really be any way to capitalize on the discovery. Still though, it would've been nice to stick to his guns.
They will be found though. There's simply no way they didn't exist, (Saddam knew the US was coming in, but did nothing to convince us he had no WMD's when he really didn't? That makes zero sense, even for a crazy man like Saddam) and the pictures of the burried Russian Mig prove that the desert in and around Iraq is vast, capable of hiding a great many sins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.