Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Do These Articles Make the Case Against Bush in Iraq? Part III

In his comments on my previous related posts, BYT wrote,
First of all, shrub and his cronies tried as hard as they could to associate Iraq with 9-11, which was never true. They made Americans believe bin-laden hit New York, he and Saddam could hit anywhere USA with WMD, including nuclear weapons.

In the CNN article provided by BYT, the facts (Bush quotes) do not support BYT's argument that Bush tried to make Americans believe that Saddam was involved with 911. Bush's opponents used to criticize action in Iraq, based on the fact that Iraq wasn't directly involved with 911. This was a very weak criticism, in that it in no way addressed the threat of any other enemies. The fact is, if Al Qaida was able to attack us, some one else might be able to as well. If that someone had WMD, the devastation could well top that of 911. At the time, Saddam was vigorously defying UN weapons inspectors. That made him a gathering threat. You can disagree that was the case, but I and many other Americans didn't want to take the chance.

Actually, not having anything to do specifically with 911, has nothing to do with what makes some one a threat. Whole Al Qaida cells exist without ever having had anything to do with the 911 plot. This does not make those cells less our enemies.

When BYT wrote " . . .made Americans believe Bin Laden hit New York, he and Saddam . . .", I assume he meant to write " . . .[if] Bin Laden hit New York, he and Saddam . . ." There is good evidence that Saddam was working with Al Qaida, our undisputed enemy. It is unreasonable to say that if Saddam was developing any WMD, he wouldn't collude with whomever he could to use it in the USA. The sanctions against Saddam were regarded by many in the international community as part of the "US agenda", and wanted to repeal or limit them. If Saddam felt the same, why would he not support an attack in the US? He sure didn't regard us as friends or allies. And it is true, that we have been attacked before, eventually, we could be attacked again. We can try to prevent that on our end. That failed on 911, for a number of reasons. In a country that values civil liberties, it is difficult at best to detect imminent attacks in time to prevent them. At times, it's true that the best defense is a good offence. Go after your most threatening enemies, in the order of their ability to threaten you, and with the consideration that some, like N Korea, have obtained so much weaponry that military action is unwise.

Moreover, the statements by Bush et al in regard to Saddam and WMD have not been proven to be wrong, they just have not been proven to be right. Was Saddam a WMD threat at the time leading up to the invasion? The argument that he was, is based on material and circumstantial evidence. The argument that he was not a threat is based on the inconclusive nature of the evidence. One side evaluated the evidence and said "This is too much to ignore". The other side did the same, but concluded, "This is not enough to warrant the use of force".

The evidence at the time was in my opinion, too much to ignore, enough to go to war, even if we never find more.
It's like when a cop shoots a perp who holds up a gun. If the gun turns out to be a toy, that doesn't mean the cop made the wrong choice. He made the best choice he could given the evidence and the risk, at the time.

It's like when a surgeon does an appendectomy on some one who had all the signs and symptoms of appendicitis. If it turns out the appendix was not the problem, that doesn't mean the surgeon made the wrong
choice to operate. He made the best choice given the evidence, and the risk, at the time.

If a woman is being stalked, there is little the police can do until the stalker commits a crime. The first crime the stalker commits may be the time he rapes or even kills the woman. Until that time comes, what recourse does the woman have? Hire body guards? Take a self defense class? Invest in security devices? Those things may or may not work, assuming she has the financial resources for them any way. One sure way to protect herself is to eliminate the stalker. Under US law, she cannot choose to eliminate her stalker. To do so would undermine the very foundation of law in the US.

But there is no world law. There is no law between nations, only contracts, and the enforcement of them. Iraq broke its contract with the US and the UN. There are no world police to whom the US can appeal for help, only friends. There is no reason the US cannot eliminate those who threaten her.

She is only restrained by her ability, her will, and her conscience, all which I'd stack against any other nation in the world.

No comments: