A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
September 11, 2003Rhetoric and Risk"The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime."This is one of the more dramatic, congratulatory statements our president peppers through his speeches. He said it again just yesterday. I have yet to figure out what prompts him to make such statements. It just doesn't fit that well with the other stuff he tells us. The administration insists, for example, that Saddam's regime possessed chemical and biological weapons, and that we will eventually find them. So, according to the administration, those weapons exist somewhere in Iraq. At the same time, we are being opposed by significant guerrilla forces that include, most prominently, members of the old regime. And we also have an influx of outsiders, including perhaps thousands of terrorists. An estimated 3,000 militants have crossed from Saudi Arabia alone. This leads to obvious questions. Remnants of the regime may very well know where the weapons are, if they exist. And they appear to be making alliances with large groups of foreign fighters. Aren't terrorists more likely to get hold of WMDs in Iraq than they ever were before? Posted by William Swann at September 11, 2003 09:18 AMComments
That is a very good point and a valid question William. I can only hope however that the administration was completely incorrect in its assessment of the situation on the ground in Iraq, and there were no WMD's present in Country before we initiated the conflict. There is testimonial evidence supporting this claim from nearly all those who have been interviewed. I can only hope for the sake of our nation, that these Iraqi's are telling the truth, and that WMD's are not there. I can live with a lying President, but I cannot live with the thought of a President, who through his own inadequate actions, has allowed access to WMD's by the forces bent on attacking us. Posted by: Steven R at September 11, 2003 10:36 AMI think that suspicion underlies much of the current assessments of those who support the war. It's an unspoken assumption. We don't really think those weapons are out there somewhere in the Iraqi countryside, or we'd be desperately afraid of a WMD-style attack. They're willing to use truck bombs to blow up buildings. Why wouldn't they use chemical weapons? Today isn't the best of days to contemplate such things. Posted by: William Swann at September 11, 2003 11:16 AM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
