COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

But the argument that the United States faced a moment of maximum peril in early 2003 from Iraq has been greatly weakened by the release last week of the comprehensive report of chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer. The report found that the 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability, leaving it without any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Washington Post, October 9th, 2004

Charles Deulfer, the head of the CIA weapons inspection team, also said in a television interview that weapons searchers so far have found as many as a dozen chemical-filled bombs.

Washington Times, June 24th, 2004.

All these assertions were disproved or rejected by the Duelfer report. Not only did Duelfer say Iraq had no weapons, but he said Hussein was interested in acquiring weapons because Iran, Iraq's longtime enemy, had its own weapons programs -- not because it wished to attack the United States.

Ok, let's put aside the factual matter that Duelfer NEVER held that Iraq "had now weapons," and let me get this straight: The Washington Post is conceding that Saddam was interested in aquiring WMDs because it wanted, well, to participate in a Gulf Region arms race (that would naturally eventually have to involve Saudi Arabia and Israel, as well as Iran, which has recently developed a nuclear weapons program on the assumption that that's what Saddam Hussein was doing.

Now, riddle me this, elect geniuses at the Washington Post and Kerry campaign: How in the WORLD would we convince Iran to give up it's own nuclear program so long as it was the considered opinion of Iran, Israel, the United States, the senior leadership of the Iraqi army, and every reputable intelligence agency in the world that Iraq was still keeping WMDs? Why would Iran ever THINK of dimantling its nuclear program? Indeed, it would be stupid to do so, given Saddam Hussein's demonstrated intent.

To say nothing of the idea that, Iraq having professed an intention to "burn half of Israel", leaving the Hussein regime in power would not have left Israel hanging--and eventually provoked Israel into doing what the UN didn't have the courage to do.

And that is somehow more just and more stable?

Duelfer said that before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the sanctions on Iraq were eroding and that Hussein hoped to rebuild his programs if those sanctions were ever lifted. But the appetite for lifting the sanctions evaporated in the U.N. Security Council after Sept. 11, 2001, and Duelfer said Hussein had no formal written strategy or plan for restarting his programs.

No. He just buried a centrifuge in someone's back yard. Are you guys REALLY this gullible?

White House officials said not attacking would have only delayed the inevitable. "The Duelfer report shows a clear choice: either remove Saddam when we did or fight him in the very near future, when he bribed enough others to bring down the sanctions and restart his WMD," Jim Wilkinson, deputy national security adviser, said.

And this is different than the Administration's position in 2003 how?

The United States is still suffering from the diplomatic consequences of launching a war without explicit support from the U.N. Security Council.

Yeah, but Serbia will get over the Kosovo war, eventually.

A book published in France last week said France had been willing to commit as many as 15,000 troops, though a French official said the offer was contingent on the Security Council approving a resolution authorizing war after determining that Iraq had committed a "material breach" during the inspection process.

France is lying. They would have vetoed any such resolution. The fact is that the security council had already found, in November of 2002, that a material breach had occured, and France was not willing to help then. So France NOW is saying they would have helped "if only we had waited longer?"

Bullshit.

It would have taken them six weeks to mobilize and deploy a division. They would not have been in a position to help during the invasion.

I'm sure the Washington Post would like to take everything Saddam says at face value, and assume that he would not attack the US (Hint: You don't have to attack the US itself to attack US INTERESTS, dumbasses!).

I suppose they might also be willing to assume--on zero evidence--that Saddam Hussein would not blackmail Saudi Arabia or use his weapons to intimidate or slaughter the Iraqi Kurds under our protection. There was already no chance that Iran would not react with its own WMD programs. They already have.

They might further assume that Iraq would never use WMDs to attack or threaten Israel, or that the fact (or strong likelihood) of their existance would restrict Israeli options in defending itself.

They would have to take as an article of faith that Saddam Hussein would never transfer weapons or technology to Al Qaeda, nor would any of his underlings take it upon themselves to do so. They would further have to accept as an article of faith that Saddam Hussein would never transfer WMD or technologies to anyone who WOULD transfer them to Al Qaeda--a dubious proposition indeed, considering the fluid and responsive nature of the free markets.

I suppose it's pretty nice being a senator or newspaper guy with no executive responsibilities for anything, anywhere.

A president cannot afford to make such stupid bets.

Such a tacet understanding about Saddam Hussein would have been the stupidest deal since Stalin signed a 'nonaggression pact' with Hitler. Well, the second stupidest. But Bush wasn't about to repeat the Sammy Sosa blunder.

Splash, out

Jason