Monday, January 17, 2005

Accounting for WMD

In email to the Instapundit, Merv Benson points out that the WMD issue in Iraq wasn't so much that we believed Saddam had huge stockpiles of WMD lying around (though it seems that the CIA did indeed believe it), but that he had failed to account for the huge stockpiles we knew he used to have. He claimed that they had been destroyed, and for all we knew then or know now that may have been true, but he wouldn't or couldn't prove it, and we weren't about to take his word for it, so we invaded (among other reasons) to find out what had happened to them. The fact that we didn't find them, Benson writes, puts us
in the same position as an auditor brought in to find missing money in a bank account. If it is still missing it does not mean that it was a mistake to audit the account.
We still don't know what happened to the missing WMD. Perhaps most of them were indeed destroyed, and the rest were sent to Syria, or hidden somewhere, or were looted after the war, or whatever, but even if Saddam was telling the truth, for once, we had no reason to believe him, and that alone (leaving aside all the other valid reasons) justified the invasion.

This seems to me part of a pattern I've long noticed in the leftist mindset, its willingness to trust people (so long as they are not straight white men), and its aversion to asking for proof, whether it's Saddam, or a person claiming to be eligible to vote, or anyone claiming to have been the victim of a 'hate crime', or to have been date-raped or sexually harrassed. And, of course, if someone who was convicted and served time for a felony, and has not yet 'paid his debt' and had his voting rights restored, and has now admitted to having committed another felony by voting, claims to have voted Republican, he must be believed, because a person like that wouldn't lie, would he?

2 Comments:

Blogger John Howard said...

Wow, that's some pretty impressive spin. Except that the vast majority of the missing weapons that you say are unacounted for were chemical weapons that would no longer work even if they did still exist.

Also, a lot of the numbers of unaccounted weapons had no basis in reality. Go back and look at some of the quotes leading up to the war, it's mind boggling the lies that were told. The only reason the admisitration is able to get away with it is that most people don't remember things that long.

Mon Jan 17, 03:41:00 PM 2005  
Blogger Kang said...

Our first, non-anonymous, liberal comment (That I can remember anyway)!! As for the 'no basis in reality', that's pretty accurate, if defined as 'We know he had them and then he, conveniently, can't account for how he got rid of them while every major intelligence agency in the world (and even France) thought he had them'.

Wed Jan 19, 02:23:00 PM 2005  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home