Please make yourself at home! Check some tags, do some reading, leave a comment.

Tuesday, July 03, 2007


Farls, in a long post considering various things having to do with the case some are making for invading Iran, says this about Iraqi WMD:
While the allegations about chemical weapons formed the center of the administration's case for war, the real problem is not that the administration was lying (although it was), but rather that Iraqi WMD, even if they existed, did not furnish a plausible reason for war. It doesn't excuse the administration to say that its sin was two-fold; on the one hand, it lied about the existence of WMD, and on the other it lied about the implications of WMD. Even if the United States had found a rump WMD program, it would not have justified the war, and I doubt very much that it would have affected the course of the insurgency. Like an attack on Iran for supporting Iraqi insurgents, invading Iraq for having WMD was stupid on its own merits.
Exactly. This was, in my view, the soundest reason for opposing the Iraq War at the time. It just wasn't necessary.

No comments:

Post a Comment

!Thank you for joining the conversation!