Thursday, October 07, 2004

Weapons of Mass Disinformation

It's probably no surprise to anyone that G.W. Bush's justification for war with Iraq was completely gutted officially Wednesday. I think it's beyond dispute now that almost the entire rationale for the war was false.

Does that mean the U.S. was wrong for preemptively striking Iraq? The answer is ... yes and no. The sad but simple truth is the U.S. may one day be forced to take preemptive action against another country based on sketchy information because the proportion of the risk versus the validity of the information is too high. For instance, if a substantial amount of "good" but hazy intelligence pointed to North Korea selling Al Qaeda a nuclear weapon and the only way to prevent the exchange was to attack North Korea, then an attack would be justifiable because the risk would be too high to ignore, even if the information later proved faulty. However, the situation in Iraq was substantially different ... the U.S. controlled practically two-thirds of the country and U.N. inspectors were ever-present. We had the clamps on Iraq and it would have taken balls and resources that Saddam didn't possess in order to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) right under our noses. It just wasn't going to happen. Our invasion of Iraq was like shooting someone in the head after they had already been shot in both arms and legs. Would a court of law in this country acquit someone under those circumstances if s/he claimed "self-defense"? No, so why should Bush and Cheney get that type of benefit of the doubt?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds pretty ironic to me that they didn't try to re-create WMD's until after we already invaded - very chicken and egg if you catch my drift.

But, I have to agree B&C are trying to cop out.

October 8, 2004 at 10:58 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home