Posted on 06/09/2003 12:42:54 PM PDT by hchutch
The United States has discovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I know this because I read it on the front page of the very liberal New York Times. Of course, the Times was only trying to hurt the administration. In the rush to Baghdad during the war, our troops bypassed and failed to secure one of Saddam's key nuclear facilities. That facility was looted by local villagers, who ransacked vaults and warehouses looking for anything of value. Many of the villagers took home radioactive barrels, and are now suffering from radiation poisoning. According to the Times, the looted nuclear facility, "contained ample radioactive poisons that could be used to manufacture an inestimable quantity of so-called dirty bombs."
So in the course of trying to embarrass the administration, the Times has inadvertently raised a very important point in the administration's defense. Saddam's nuclear-weapons program contained sufficient material to pose a serious threat to the United States. In the hands of terrorists, nuclear dirty bombs supplied by Saddam could have rendered landmarks and key sites in American cities uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.
And why did Saddam have a nuclear facility in the first place? It was, of course, part of his effort to produce a nuclear bomb. In fact, the nuclear site reported on by the Times was connected to the facility bombed years before by the Israelis, who had become convinced that Saddam was attempting to build a nuclear weapon. Thank goodness the Israelis acted. Thank goodness we did too.
Now it's true that this was a site that the inspectors knew about. That, however, might not have prevented Saddam from transferring the small amount of nuclear material necessary for a dirty bomb to terrorists. And the Iraqis may well have been carrying out other critical tasks in pursuit of a nuclear bomb at secret facilities. And there was always the danger that, in the absence of regime change, the Europeans would have tired of sanctions and inspections — as they'd done before — and let Saddam complete his nuclear work. The Europeans' renewed interest in sanctions was only prompted by America's preparations to invade, and we could not have kept our troops at the ready forever.
Another serious danger was the possibility that, at a propitious moment some time down the road, Saddam might simply have kicked the inspectors out. After all, that's what the North Koreans did. They waited till we were tied down by our struggle with Iraq, booted the inspectors out, and powered up their nuclear program. Had we failed to invade, Saddam could have waited until a weaker president was in power, and/or until the U.S. was tied down in a war (perhaps with Korea), and simply thrown the inspectors out. After all, he'd done it before.
Prior to the war, it was impossible to tell how close Saddam was to building a nuclear bomb. We hoped and believed that he was still at least a year or two away from success, although the possibility that he might be even closer than that had to be reckoned with. After all, our intelligence had once before proven wrong. We had underestimated the progress of Saddam's nuclear program, as we eventually learned from defectors. But even if Saddam was a couple of years away from a bomb, the need to invade was urgent. The point was precisely to stop Saddam before he got close enough to a bomb to exploit our uncertainty about his capacity and blackmail us. That, after all, is exactly what the North Koreans have been doing for some time.
All of this was publicly discussed before the war. Opponents of invasion emphasized that Saddam was probably at least a couple of years away from building a bomb. And they argued that conventional deterrence could in any case keep a nuclear-armed Saddam under control. Proponents of the war argued that Saddam might be closer to a bomb than we realized, and that, in any case, it was necessary to strike him quickly, when he was (we hoped) too far from a bomb to blackmail us.
Drawing on Kenneth Pollack's powerful case for invasion, proponents of the war argued that, once in possession of a bomb, Saddam could not be deterred in the way the Soviets once were. Opponents of war asked why we were not invading North Korea, which was so obviously close to having a bomb. Proponents of the war countered that we were invading Iraq to prevent it from becoming a North Korea — which was, by all accounts, far too close to having a bomb to safely invade.
In two pieces published in the run-up to the war, "Brave New World" and "Why Invade," I explained that the administration had not been able to fully and frankly emphasize the connection between Saddam's nuclear ambitions and the war. Both the president and the vice president did, of course, talk about the potential threat of a nuclear-armed Saddam. But to emphasize that, and especially to spell out the danger scenarios outlined explicitly by Kenneth Pollack, would have been difficult and awkward. It would have harmed American power to note in too much detail just how vulnerable we were to nuclear blackmail. The same dynamic helps explain the administration's relative silence about the barrel over which the North Koreans now have us. We do our best to pretend that Kim Jong Il has not got us in as difficult a situation as he in fact does.
But, again, this dynamic was by no means a complete secret before the war. The administration did include the danger of nuclear blackmail from Iraq in its publicly stated reasons for the war. And pundits did argue about all this. In particular, the war's proponents made the point that, Saddam's being perhaps a year or two away from a nuclear weapon (if we were lucky) made this exactly the moment to strike.
So the failure of the administration to turn up any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq is, from my perspective, not the key point. As I said repeatedly at the time, we were going to war to prevent Saddam from eventually producing nuclear weapons. That fact was known and even announced by the administration, but for reasons inherent to the nuclear game, could not be fully emphasized and spelled out.
Did the Iraqis have chemical and biological weapons? No one doubts that they did. Did they destroy or move them out of the country prior to the inspectors' arrival to prevent their discovery from justifying an invasion? Quite possibly. If so, in an effort to preserve the deterrent effect of our belief that he still possessed chemical and biological weapons, Saddam evidently decided not to give us evidence of their destruction. That was a very dangerous game to play — a game Saddam lost.
But the New York Times report on Iraq's pillaged nuclear facility reminds us that Saddam did in fact possess weapons of mass destruction — nuclear materials that could easily have supplied terrorists with "an inestimable quantity of so-called dirty bombs." And that very real danger was only the promise of a full-fledged nuclear bomb a few years down the road. We are all in debt to President Bush for acting, while there was still time, to prevent that disastrous outcome.
Keene correctly identifies conservative christians as "social conservatives". One assumes that grouping would include other religious conservatives besides just "christian" conservatives, which might explain why you're not happy about it.
-BTW are there any elected officials anywhere that you DO support?
And as far as I know, Kristol has nothing to do with policy in this administration. The last time Cheney made a public comment about Kristol, he said that "Bill just wants to sell a lot of magazines."
As critical as I can be of Bush, you are just plain wrong. A dirty bomb in downtown Manhattan would destroy a sizable portion of the economy -- a little bit more serious than 'annoyance'.
Furthermore, the fairly serious increase in cancers in the effected area would result in a goodly body count.
Or would you argue, as I would, that it would destroy a sizable portion of the economy?
As far as the discussion of neo-cons, I was using the generally accepted grouping often bandied about here. Frankly, it doesn't make much difference to me.
However, Kristol's opinion (exagerrated by Newsmax) is what prompted much of this discussion, and since the administration is accused of allowing people like Kristol to drive policy (not true) some discussion of his history was in order.
Sorry if you felt I was off-topic.
People are taking this too lightly. Saddam had maybe 20,000 litres of anthrax, enough to wipe out much of the world's population if he had the means of delivering it. And that's just one WMD.
I'm not so worried about a truck bomb in front of a building, as I am about a poison gas attack in a subway or other crowded public place. It's pretty easy to make poison gas from household kitchen chemicals that can kill hundreds. Saddam had his experts making the real toxic stuff. Be afraid and be vigilant.
Krauthammer, Perle, Wolfowitz, as well as Cheney and Powell were at the PNAC with Kristol. So part of the PNAC is good and the rest bad?
LOL. The funny part here is that you seem to think that's IMPOSSIBLE. You ACTUALLY think that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a person such as Miss Marple to dislike Bill Kristol, but have no problems with Krauthammer, Perle, or Wolfowitz, because they all were "at the PNAC".
One either must like everyone "at the PNAC" or hate them all! No in betweens!
That's darn hilarious.
Good question... because you wrote to me? And because you seemed to think your comments about Kristol had something to do with "neocons"?
As far as the discussion of neo-cons, I was using the generally accepted grouping often bandied about here.
I know, but I don't accept that grouping, because it is used neither consistently nor comprehensibly. I can't find two different Freepers who agree fully on what a "neo-con" is.
I do know, however, that it is supposed to have something to do with being a former socialist who has converted to conservatism. How that is supposed to relate to Bill Kristol still stumps me (which is why I asked).
Sorry if you felt I was off-topic.
I didn't. I'm sorry you got that impression.
That settles it, then. We haven't found any WMDs, so there obviously were and are no WMDs. Haven't found Saddam Hussein, so it is clear there is no Saddam Hussein. In fact, there never was a Saddam Hussein. Uday and Queasy? Colorful inventions hatched from the fevered brow of Paul Wolfowitiz or some other deceitful neocon.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence--unless you are a paleocon and the subject is Iraq.
He roomed with Alan Keyes in college. He got his first break in government by being hired as a domestic policy advisor to Dan Quayle. He was mistrusted by the Bush I White House. By the time he got to be Quayle's Chief of Staff, Baker wouldn't even allow him into campaign meetings because he said he didn't want to see everything in the press. Quayle says this was because James Baker was intimidated by Kristol's leadership and intellect. (Anyone who thinks Kristol could intimidate Baker may now quit reading, as you are a hopeless case.) Personally, that sounded very much to me like an idea that Kristol planted in Quayle's mind...much as he "suggested" that Quayle include that Murphy Brown reference in his speech, which of course was so helpful to Quayle's career.
Kristol was the campaign manager for Keyes's senate campaign, whicih was a failure. He then managed to convince Rupert Murdoch to start the funding for The Weekly Standard.
He was instrumental in getting the Republicans to go for a government shut-down in the budget confrontation with Clinton. He went on and on about Colin Powell being the ONLY possible candidate who could beat Gore. He switched to McCain when Powell refused to run. This, of course, is the same powell that Kristol is now attacking at every opportnity. Let us also not forget his bomb about the China plane incident , "Our Profound National Humiliation," which prompted the Cheney quote about selling magazines.
I would also bet cash money that he egged Jeffords to switch parties. He was a bit too gleeful about his scoop on Brit Hume's show, and I am wondering exactly where Jefffords got the mistaken idea that the administration was going to cut his milk funding.
Kristol, as a person with press credentials, has access to the halls of Congress and most agencies. I think he is like Iago, skulking around and carrying tales, dropping little divisive hints when he thinks it will cause the maximum effect.
This is, of course, my interpretation. I have spent a lot of time watching him and have concluded he shouldn't be trusted.
Watch what he says and does for 6 months and perhaps you will agree with me.
I just don't understand what it has to do with so-called "neo-cons". Maybe nothing.
Pike helped form the National Campaign to Save the ABM Treaty, and served on its Executive Committee. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and has served on a variety of non-governmental boards and advisory committees, including the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Peace Research and European Security Studies Center, and the Verification Technology Information Centre of London. He has been a consultant to numerous groups, including the United Nations Group of Government Experts on Confidence Building Measures in Outer Space.
A real lefty peacenik from way back. You might want to learn about someone's background before you worship his analysis. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Sorry, next contestant.
One more hint - go back and count the number of "coulds" in your quote. Covers a lot of uncertainty; can also cover a lot of exaggerations.
Why do you act as if the Bush Doctrine is such a bad thing?
Probably because it IS a bad thing.
Can you imagine the Bush Doctrine being applied to everyday life? Let's assume for a moment that a family member of mine is indiscriminately killed in a drive-by shooting. If I were to hunt down and kill the gang members directly responsible for the shooting, some people would agree that my actions were just. A jury of my peers might even let me off the hook with a ruling of "justifiable homicide."
Taking it a step further, let's assume that I not only kill the gang members responsible, but I start shooting other gang members simply because they pose a "potential threat" to the safety of my home and family. Would my actions be justified? No. And there wouldn't be a jury in the nation that would acquit me.
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.