06-09-2004, 08:08 PM
"20/20 hindsight. The US didn't know, and had to assume the worst case scenario."
Why would that be, exactly? Why couldn't we have waited, improved our information, and made a better judgement from there? Because of an "imminent" threat of an attack on US soil? Chances are insignificant. Because of proliferation? No solid evidence Iraq even had active WMD programs, let alone spare WMD to give away, or use in frivolous spite attacks.
What would have been so wrong with waiting until Hans Blix presented his findings? Was it really reasonable to infer from the evidence that Iraq presented a danger at that time, or even at any time in the near future? Why, when the burden of proof was on us, couldn't we have tried a little harder to come up with a more realistic scenario, rather than jumping straight to "worst-case"?
I don't think the decision was made in good faith. I don't think the administration thinking about the concequences of extending or expanding inspections against those of going to war. I think the administration was looking to paint the most dangerous possible picture in order to justify a war they wanted for other reasons altogether. Hans Blix's report couldn't be allowed to guide the decision to go to war because they knew it would come down on the side of Iraq being mostly harmless, which would undermine their case. When you pull that kind of cynical move, you lose the right to claim "20/20 hindsight" as an excuse.
Jester
Why would that be, exactly? Why couldn't we have waited, improved our information, and made a better judgement from there? Because of an "imminent" threat of an attack on US soil? Chances are insignificant. Because of proliferation? No solid evidence Iraq even had active WMD programs, let alone spare WMD to give away, or use in frivolous spite attacks.
What would have been so wrong with waiting until Hans Blix presented his findings? Was it really reasonable to infer from the evidence that Iraq presented a danger at that time, or even at any time in the near future? Why, when the burden of proof was on us, couldn't we have tried a little harder to come up with a more realistic scenario, rather than jumping straight to "worst-case"?
I don't think the decision was made in good faith. I don't think the administration thinking about the concequences of extending or expanding inspections against those of going to war. I think the administration was looking to paint the most dangerous possible picture in order to justify a war they wanted for other reasons altogether. Hans Blix's report couldn't be allowed to guide the decision to go to war because they knew it would come down on the side of Iraq being mostly harmless, which would undermine their case. When you pull that kind of cynical move, you lose the right to claim "20/20 hindsight" as an excuse.
Jester