Don't miss the Sunday Talk Show Breakdown on Liberal Oasis. This conversation between George Stephanopoulos and Rummy should open some eyes:
STEPHANOPOULOS: …Is it plausible that perhaps Saddam Hussein, by the time the war began, really didn’t have an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction?
RUMSFELD: I think it's unlikely…
…It seems to me that he could have had billions and billions of dollars of revenues from his oil lifting, if he had wanted to do what other countries did…and say, "Come in here, inspect."
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, it could be for the reason those scientists said…
…But you say, in the end, it's unlikely that he didn't have an arsenal but not impossible?
RUMSFELD: You know…until we've done this job and talked to enough people and been through it, we won't know precisely what we'll find.
Stephanopoulos was referring to reports that many Iraqi scientists have said that all Iraqi WMD's had been eliminated by the mid-90's. And while I can't blame Stephanopoulos for choosing one lie to pursue over another, I sure wish he had pointed out that inspectors had returned to Iraq when the Bushies called the whole process off. It seems quite plausible to me that for several years Saddam thought it was in his best interest, both internally and internationally, to let people think he had WMD's, even if he didn't. Bush's rabid sabre-rattling in 2002 changed that calculation, and Saddam let the inspectors in. If the UN inspectors had found substantial quantities of weapons and evidence that Iraq had ways to threaten the US with them, I might have to grudgingly give Bush some credit for his mad-dog approach, even though it was clearly illegal. But the reality is very far from that. Bush had almost no evidence of WMD's, the inspectors returned, found nothing, Bush invaded anyway, and found nothing. Bush's crime is doubled. Violating international law is an impeachable offense. Doing so on false pretenses is a crime of the highest order.
STEPHANOPOULOS: …Is it plausible that perhaps Saddam Hussein, by the time the war began, really didn’t have an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction?
RUMSFELD: I think it's unlikely…
…It seems to me that he could have had billions and billions of dollars of revenues from his oil lifting, if he had wanted to do what other countries did…and say, "Come in here, inspect."
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, it could be for the reason those scientists said…
…But you say, in the end, it's unlikely that he didn't have an arsenal but not impossible?
RUMSFELD: You know…until we've done this job and talked to enough people and been through it, we won't know precisely what we'll find.
Stephanopoulos was referring to reports that many Iraqi scientists have said that all Iraqi WMD's had been eliminated by the mid-90's. And while I can't blame Stephanopoulos for choosing one lie to pursue over another, I sure wish he had pointed out that inspectors had returned to Iraq when the Bushies called the whole process off. It seems quite plausible to me that for several years Saddam thought it was in his best interest, both internally and internationally, to let people think he had WMD's, even if he didn't. Bush's rabid sabre-rattling in 2002 changed that calculation, and Saddam let the inspectors in. If the UN inspectors had found substantial quantities of weapons and evidence that Iraq had ways to threaten the US with them, I might have to grudgingly give Bush some credit for his mad-dog approach, even though it was clearly illegal. But the reality is very far from that. Bush had almost no evidence of WMD's, the inspectors returned, found nothing, Bush invaded anyway, and found nothing. Bush's crime is doubled. Violating international law is an impeachable offense. Doing so on false pretenses is a crime of the highest order.
<< Home