|
Thursday, May 29, 2003
Weapons of Mass whateverThe U.S. government's latest and best information on Iraq's WMD program is compiled here, and Josh Marshall has some general comments from a few days ago. He's right: It's still too early to know if the weapons threat was an absolute hoax, but it sure looks like there was some political exaggeration.
UPDATE, 5/30: The more I read about this, the angrier I get. Another NY Times piece has this little aside:
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz cited bureaucratic reasons for focusing on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and said a ``huge'' result of the war was to enable Washington to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia.
So part of the idea, if I have this straight, was to give in to Osama without seeming to give in? "Well, you're right, Mr. Terrorist, we don't want our troops in Saudi Arabia, either. So we'll just invade Iraq and pretend to be tough while avoiding at all costs any confrontation with Riyadh. Then we'll get our troops out of the Holy Land." Smart idea, Paul. Not honest, but wily as hell. Now how do you propose getting our troops out of Iraq?
posted by Michael Scott Moore |
5:39 PM
|  |
|
|
|
|
Too Much of Nothing, a novel
Politics and Prose
about our editor
The Underground Grammarian
current Berlin blog page
 |
