December 19, 2003


Who needs WMD when you've got Saddam? Jim Lobe, 12/20/03, Asia Times)

In a nationally televised interview earlier this week, Bush appeared to dismiss the relevance of whether Iraq actually had WMD and the possibility that Saddam might eventually have moved to acquire them. "So what's the difference?" asked Bush, who later added that he was persuaded Saddam constituted "a gathering threat, after 9/11 [September 11] ... that needed to be dealt with. "And so we got rid of him, and there's no doubt the world is a safer, freer place as a result of Saddam being gone," he went on. [...]

"In my many years on [Capitol Hill]," one veteran congressional staffer told IPS, "I don't know that I've seen anything quite as cynical as this. They're clearly hoping that Congress and the American public will just forget that they waged war because of a threat that never existed but that they hyped to kingdom come."

Even Mr. Lobe does not try to rebut the President's unanswerable argument, that the world is safer and freer with Saddam gone.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 19, 2003 10:37 AM

I'm sure the Israelis, Iranians, Saudis, Kuwatis, Kurds, and Shia are relieved to know the threat never existed.

Posted by: jd watson at December 19, 2003 11:12 AM

Boy am I relieved to know that Dem Congressional staffers think Saddam was no kind of threat whatsoever. Nope. None at all.

Posted by: Twn at December 19, 2003 11:48 AM

"A threat that never existed"

That statement is demonstrably false, as I noted in a comment on another thread here today, and anybody who utters it -- or quotes it -- shows themselves unqualified to discuss the issue.

Facts are stubborn things. It's why they are useful.

Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at December 19, 2003 11:51 AM

But we DID find weapons of mass destruction-- only they were in Libyq!! And who can say that we aren't safer because Qadaffi decided to fold?

Posted by: Daniel L. Merriman at December 20, 2003 3:42 PM