and in fact, this whole case is a good example of how even the "professionals" can be wrong (altho the "ideologues" were even wronger<g>)
About the exact state of Saddam's WMDs on Jan 1, 2003, the ideologues were wronger. But the ideologues are not too bothered, because the exact state of Saddam's WMDs on Jan 1, 2003 was not a major point with them, just something the lawyers told them to use to build a case. What the ideologues really worried about was, what Saddam's WMDs were going to look like, and what Saddam would do and say, after his protectors France and Germany got the sanctions dissolved, and forced the US to back down, one more time, in the Persian Gulf.
Pollack's tone is curious to me. "The war was not all bad," he says, then goes on to list six major reasons why it was good, very good, for the US and for the Iraqis, and probably for the whole region. He doesn't list one reason why it was bad. So why is he so down on it? |
