Wednesday, January 28, 2004

So Where's the WMD? - Anti-Bush partisans aren't listening to what David Kay is saying.

This is a great piece that expounds on why it's premature to say that WMD won't be found in Iraq, and posits some good theories as to why we may not.
I, for one, will come right out and say it: I don't care if we find WMD or not. No, this is not because I am a blind follower of the Bush White House, or even of the man himself. In fact, as many of my friends can attest, I was so turned off by last week's SOTU that as of right now I'm not even sure I'll vote for him.
That being said, I maintain that Saddam was or could soon be a threat. He may not have been conspiring with Al Quaeda (I think he was), but terrorism is not an Al Quaeda monopoly. This is a man capable of great evil, who made no bones about his desire to turn that evil towards the rest of the world, particularly the United States. Do you think he cared if he had to deal with a few muslim terror groups toward the common goal of attacking us? Not likely.
That he was not capable of lashing out in the moment we attacked, and that he seems to have been contained (though, according to Mr. Kay by his own scientists, not by inspections and sanctions) does not mean he couldn't avail himself of future opportunities. Yes, this was preemptive. Yes, I believe it was necessary - even if we don't find any weapons.

UPDATE: Prompted by this article, I was also reminded of this paradox: if we can't attack Kim Jong Il because he already has WMD, and we shouldn't have attacked Saddam because he didn't have them, when can we depose murderous dictators who want to attack us? Seriously, I know no one is reading this blog yet (and may never) but anyone who opposed (or still opposes despite the fact that it already happend, you Kucinich lunatics), please tell me: under what circumstances could we have invaded Iraq to safeguard the world?

No comments: