C2, you meticulously peruse the article about "tags", while you are silent when it comes to the key issue here: the fact that these known UN-monitored WMD sites containing dangerous WMD materials were left unguarded by the US army, and looted at leisure over a number of weeks after the fall of Baghdad
If you read over my posts, you'll know that I agree with the fact that the postwar planning was horrible. I make no apologies for it.
But the larger point, if you follow the discussion, was WMD as a justification for the war, i.e., support for the war if we knew what we "know now." In that sense, the postwar failures are irrelevant, though they clearly do exist. I do not minimize them. I think, however, that a bit of time and a broader perspective will put the post war failures in their appropriate place.
The issue under discussion in this thread of posts has been WMD as the justification for the war. The elephant in the bedroom is my way of describing the potential for Saddam to have purchased nukes on the black market as one of the reasons for the war. I call the elephant in the bedroom because no one cares to see it or discuss it.
The NYT article is simply a smaller part of the overall discussion. The article deals with recent WMD findings, what has been found, how it was found, whether it was known to have existed previously, etc. The point was made that it was all tagged, hence irrelevant. But that is clearly not what the article said nor implied.
I don't mind discussing this stuff with anyone who is interested in a dialogue. It's imperative, however, to know what the issue under discussion is since I do put some time and care into what I post and I don't want to waste time by repeating myself. |
