[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Various and sundry Iraq news continues to flow. This is gonna be long.

On WMD: we still haven’t found anything, although Bush said we did. Alas, two trailers that might or might not be WMD factories are not in any way WMD. Sort of in the same way that styrofoam and gas aren’t napalm. On the other hand, various sources are reporting that intelligence analysts felt pressured to find evidence of WMD before the war. Similar reports are coming out of the UK.

Just to forestall one comment: yes, even if Saddam destroyed all his WMD years ago, he failed to accurately account for them. If you’re comfortable invading Iraq due to bad paperwork, more power to you.

Lots of arguments about what might have happened to Saddam’s theoretical arsenal. One popular argument: he gave ‘em to terrorists, in which case it would seem that we’ve at least temporarily increased the threat level. However, Bush tells us that’s not true, in a stirring speech: “But one thing is certain: no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime because the Iraqi regime is no more.” Or maybe he just forgot to say “besides the tons of chemical weapons I told you they had.”

Another current meme: we haven’t found Saddam, so why should we expect to have found WMD? This is an interesting turnaround from the hopeful noises Rumsfeld was making early in the war, when we were expected to believe Saddam was dead in a bunker. Also — and this is a subtle point, that many may have missed — Saddam is a single human being. Bush claimed that there were literally tons of chemical and biological weapons floating around. Saddam is independently mobile and rather small. Tons of chemical and biological weapons are not. I’m reliably informed that you need some sort of motorized device to move that kind of weight. I’m pretty sure you can’t actually extrapolate from one thing to the other.

Blix, God bless him, is still being the voice of sanity. “The lack of finds could be because the items were unilaterally destroyed by the Iraqi authorities or else because they were effectively concealed by them. I trust that in the new environment in Iraq, in which there is full access and cooperation, and in which knowledgeable witnesses should no longer be inhibited to reveal what they know, it should be possible to establish the truth we all want to know.” This is the closest anyone in the UN is coming to the Bush administration line.

Is that all the Iraq news? Heck no. There’s ongoing resistance in Falluja. This is in no way a surprising development, but it was not one that was widely accepted as a cost of the war by the war’s proponents. This surprise may explain the increasing delay in establishing an interim government.

Onward, ever onward. Turkey and the Kurds are not saber-rattling, and — it’s worth remembering this — Saddam is out of power. Which is a relief; don’t forget to read Salam Pax. That’s my good news for the day.

Comments

[gwenix.livejournal.com]

yes, even if Saddam destroyed all his WMD years ago, he failed to accurately account for them.

He would also have been following the UN orders, the very ones we based our attacks on.

[bryant]

Sort of. He did a really lousy job of accounting for the WMD; Hans Blix, who's really the only figure in the whole story I respect, said as much. Consider the hypothetical world in which Saddam videotaped the destruction of the various bits and pieces, and showed Blix the evidence the moment he got back to Iraq.

I don't think it's really possible to argue that Saddam was complying with the letter of the UN resolutions. I think he may very likely have been complying with their spirit, however. In a grudging, uncooperative way -- but complying.

I find you really have to acknowledge his procedural errors when you're arguing about this with the right wing. Otherwise they'll go "Ah! But he didn't do a good job of demonstrating it!" and look all smug because they think they've gotten one over on you. I prefer to say, up front, "There were things Saddam should have done, according to the UN resolutions, that he did not do. His bookkeeping sucked."

Cause then you can say "So, should we have gone to war because Saddam was a poor bookkeeper?"

[gwenix.livejournal.com]

You're right! And I should note that I admire the way you cleverly showed this. But I'm not as good at the diplomacy aspect, so I respond with my usual snide reactionary remarks. :)

[bryant]

Being a manager has forever ruined me. :)

[baralier.livejournal.com]

A little something from one of the local broadsheets...

America invaded Iraq because it could (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/05/1054700332091.html)