a berlin blog
|
a berlin blog |
|
|
Tuesday, October 14, 2003 No he didn't. Yes he did.Whether or not you believe Saddam had a peace-threatening nasty-weapons program depends, these days, entirely on political feeling. Krauthammer says the fractured manufacturing set-up we've discovered is as good a reason for the war as vast vats of anthrax (which we still might find). Josh Marshall twits Krauthammer for predicting in April that we'd have a "credibility problem" if no real weapons were found by, oh, say, right now. Baseball Crank adjusts his opinion of Clinton. Sullivan argues about the word "imminent."But come on: We know what happened. The Bush hawks thought of Iraq as a well-situated, easy-to-occupy base of operations for the terrorism war and for democratic reform in the Middle East. They needed a reason to invade that didn't sound too cold-eyed and strategic. So they used weapons of mass destruction as a talking point. That strategy backfired in Europe before the war; now it's backfiring at home. True, the hawks did not lie, exactly (and they never used the word "imminent"). Our reasons for war were not fraud; merely a matter of emphasis. But the pro-war right did go out of its way to blow steam about the WMD threat, and now the same people are trying to wave away the steam and pretend the terrifying djinni of a massively-armed Saddam was an illusion cooked up by the left in order to make the right look stupid. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 12:11 AM | |
|
|
 Too Much of Nothing, a novel  Politics and Prose  about our editor 
The Underground Grammarian  current Berlin blog page  |
