Speaking of Conservative columnists, George Jonas writes in Canada's National Post about the lack of evidence of WMDs (yuck, even I use that initialism now ... can one of my Gentle Readers give me an alternative?) and the resulting argument between those who had supported and those who had opposed invasion. I found it a reasonable, interesting, and well-thought-out piece, and not only because I agree with much of its analysis (tho' little of its conclusions).
The opposition to the invasion appears to be playing the administration's game, and perhaps winning for the moment, but it's still the wrong game. Two months ago, I wrote about the various grounds for opposition to the war, and I felt then and feel now that much of that stuff was never clearly articulated in advance of the invasion, and remains muddy now. As a result, the borders of the current debate about what we have found, and what we have done, and whether it was just, are not only unclear, but widely divergent depending on one's point of view, and the conversations appear to be like playing tennis on a court where the players see two different sets of lines. Some points are considered scores by one side and faults by the other, and vice-versa. Sloppy thinking is bad for communication. Recognize it. Avoid it. Call people on it.
Anyway, the real issue as I see it was never whether the Ba'athists had or didn't have a vial, a vat or a vast amount of weapons, but whether they were a threat (and of course to whom). The presence or absence of weapons was a factor in that, and a large factor I suppose, but as a factor, not as a point in and of itself. That's the big difference between a vial and a vat; that's the big difference between a couple of mobile labs that could have been converted back and forth and a, I don't know, report from Dr. Germ to Saddam Hussein saying "It will be 15 months before we can attack."
If the rationale for the invasion was, as Blair said it was (ignoring for the moment Our Only President and his buddies), that we faced the unpleasant choice of doing something now or regretting not having done it while we grieve for the victims of the attack that would soon come, then what we find or do not find should be judged in the light of that putative attack. Not only have we of the left (we Bush-haters, I'm afraid, to use my earlier category) not been convinced that the threat existed (or at least that it was dire enough to warrant the invasion), but we now doubt that Our Only President and his buddies were convinced that the threat existed. That's what we're on about. That should be the framework of all the Monday-morning analysis.
Of course, that analysis is important, but, the invasion having been completed, we all know what is more important now.
Redintegro Iraq,
-Vardibidian.
“WMDs (yuck, even I use that initialism now—can one of my Gentle Readers give me an alternative?)”
One of the writers in the New Republic pointed out last fall or so that the only weapons truly deserving of the term “mass destruction” are nuclear weapons.
I by and large find that useful–I don’t know I entirely agree. I’d rather see the newswriters specify in each case, even if they are saying CBaNW (chemicial, biological, and nuclear weapons). But I suppose that’s more factual and doesn’t scare people enough (though it scares me far more so).
Sorry–that last one was me and I hit post too soon… Onward:
“the invasion having been completed, we all know what is more important now.”
No, we don’t. I know what’s more important to me, but that’s about the extent of my clue on this one. 🙁 Care to go on with that thought?
I’ve seen a fair number of people use NBC: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. Of course, that term can lead to confusion too…
As for the smoking-WMD issue: I personally never really thought that Bush et al really believed there was an attack imminent; that seemed like the usual sort of exaggerated rhetoric to me. So a lot of the “We believed you, and now we see that (gasp!) you may have lied to us!” kinds of complaints ring a little hollow to me. I don’t doubt that there are people who feel that way, but I can’t help thinking there are a fair number of liberals who never believed it but who are taking advantage of the lack of evidence to act (disingenuously, it seems to me) shocked about the lies.
But maybe I’m just being cynical again.
metasilk-
I meant we all knew by now what Your Humble Blogger thinks is the most important, which is turning Iraq into a paradise.
Also, I’m going the other direction from your excellently specific suggestion (which really is a good way to go, in general——talk about what you are talking about, and not anything else) to call them Death Rays. At least for now, that’s what I think we are really discussing: did they have Death Rays? Anything that kills a lot of people, at a distance, using technology that isn’t readily available may as well be a Death Ray as far as I’m concerned, and it does have that nicely panicky note that I get when I think about, for instance, smallpox.
Jed-
I think there’s an important difference between believing that there were Death Rays and believing that Bush and his boys thought there were Death Rays. As well as whether the Ba’athists would use the Death Rays if they had them (since, of course, we would never use the Death Rays we have). As of the start of the invasion, I thought that Our Only President did, in fact, believe that there were Death Rays, and that the Ba’athists would ultimately either use them themselves or get them to Our Enemies.
Redintegro Iraq,
-Vardibidian.
How about just saying “chemical and biological weapons” since that’s what they are? “Illegal weapons” would be another accurate turn of phrase.
How important is it what President Bush believed/believes about whether or not Iraq had or was developing such weapons? It was clear by January that the Bush Administration was vastly overstating its case; had that not been clear, it is likely that the UN discussions might have gone differently. The U.S. was caught passing off fabricated evidence about Iraq’s nuclear program and never presented convincing evidence about chemical or biological weapons. The Administration was obviously cooking up evidence. Whether their own CEO understood that the evidence he was speaking about was fabricated or not is somewhat immaterial. Either he lied, or he was a willing tool of those who set out to deceive him as well as the American people. Neither option suggests that President Bush has the stature to act responsibly as President of the United States. Either he lacks the moral stature, or he lacks the intellectual stature.
Any member of Congress who voted to give President Bush carte blanche to wage war in Iraq last September who is now up in arms about being lied to looks to me like a political opportunist. If Congress had asked hard questions, had slowed the rush to war, the Administration would have been forced to make the case to Congress that it made to the U.N., and that would have revealed the weakness of the case much earlier. Any member of Congress who voted against giving the President his carte blanche last September has my blessing to cry out against the Administration’s duplicity to anyone who will hear their message.