It seems to me that you and GST are making a mistake that is grounded on your political predilections. As you know, I share yours, so please don't shoot the messenger. vbg
The fact is that there was a history of WMD use and production on Saddam's part; he acted like he had something to hide in 1998 when he made life miserable for the inspectors; he was known to have been very close to making a nuclear bomb in 1991; inspectors thought he had WMDs; he was evasive in '03, acting like he had something to hide, etc., etc., ad nauseum. These facts can reasonably lead to the conclusion that he had WMDs. Coupled with the failure of containment, this made Saddam look like a serious threat.
As it turns out, unless something dramatic occurs, the perceptions did not match the reality. A mistake may have been made. Was it a reasonable mistake? In my view, given Saddam's past history, yes. Even Pollack, as objective an observer as there is, seems to have over-estimated Saddam's nuclear efforts.
The rest is pure politics. The left will argue neocon skullduggery while the right will argue the facts. I'll argue that a mistake may have been made, but that it was a reasonable one under the circumstances for which no one (not even Clinton, and that's quite a concession, for me) should be faulted.
In the meantime, the focus should be on the results which appear to me on the whole to be quite positive.
C2@assomeonesays"let'smoveon".com |
