Wednesday, October 06, 2004

 

Do you think William Safire will get it NOW?

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html

Saddam did not have WMD in 2003. He did not have them in 2002, he did not have them in 2001. He did not have them in 2000, or 1999, or 1998. He was closer to having them in 1990 then in 2003. This is the conclusion of the report by Charles Duelfer for the Iraqi Survey Group, which has been searching for WMD and any signs of a program to obtain them since we invaded Iraq in April 2003.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/international/middleeast/06CND-INTE.html?oref=login&hp

New York Times, October 6, 2004

U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in '03

By Douglas Jehl

"The report, by Charles A. Duelfer, said the last Iraqi factory capable of producing militarily significant quantities of unconventional weapons was destroyed in 1996. The findings amounted to the starkest portrayal yet of a vast gap between the Bush administration's prewar assertions about Iraqi weapons and what a 15-month postinvasion inquiry by American investigators concluded were the facts on the ground.

"At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer concluded, Iraq had not possessed military-scale stockpiles of illicit weapons for a dozen years and was not actively seeking to produce them."


Do you get it, William Safire? Is any of this getting through to you? Saddam DID NOT HAVE WMD AND WAS NOT ABOUT TO GET THEM. Yes, William Safire, I'm talking to you, Lord High Chief Enabler of the Necon Rush to Fortune and Glory. You were lied to, Mr. Safire, diddled and screwed and manipulated, and you still don't get it, do you? How much more proof do you need, Mr. Safire, before you (and yes, you can do it reluctantly) pull a Tom Friedman and jump off the Saddam = Mortal Threat thread? I mean, at the rate you're going, George W. Bush is going to stop trying to keep this lie going before you do.

Mind you, I know it's such a subtle argument. I mean, Bush saying that even if he'd know Saddam didn't have WMD, he'd have invaded anyway - how could that possibly have been a dead giveaway? I mean, it's not like we let our enthusiasm to remake the Middle East in Israel's image get the better of us, right, Mr. Safire?

It's bad enough that masses of Americans think Saddam was behind Sept. 11. Bush and Cheney have done their damndest to cement that misleading impression in people's minds. But anyone who was paying attention should have been attentive to at least the possibility that they were grossly overselling the WMD angle. Anyone who would promise that we'd be welcomed as liberators - in an Arab country in the Middle East - should be stripsearched for lies and real but hidden motives. Safire is as tendentious as they come among American pundits - anything Clinton did is bad, anything Bush does is great - but he either let himself get screwed like an old whore or he helped pimp so that Bush could screw others. Either way, it's long past time for him to stop lying to himself and to us and to help tear down the criminal enterprise he beat the drums for. He has almost no reputation left to salvage, but he might think about the remnants the Times is still holding onto by its fingernails.
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home
Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?