Google

Saturday, August 27, 2005

IRAQ WAR JUSTIFICATION

I wish someone in the Bush Administration would come out as eloquently as Christopher Hitchens does as to the moral and practical justification of the war in Iraq.

It would take me, on my most eloquent C-SPAN day, at the very least five minutes to say that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad; that Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of Qusay Hussein; that Saddam's agents were in Damascus as late as February 2003, negotiating to purchase missiles off the shelf from North Korea; or that Rolf Ekeus, the great Swedish socialist who founded the inspection process in Iraq after 1991, has told me for the record that he was offered a $2 million bribe in a face-to-face meeting with Tariq Aziz. And these eye-catching examples would by no means exhaust my repertoire, or empty my quiver. Yes, it must be admitted that Bush and Blair made a hash of a good case, largely because they preferred to scare people rather than enlighten them or reason with them. Still, the only real strategy of deception has come from those who believe, or pretend, that Saddam Hussein was no problem.

As Glenn Reynolds would say, read the whole thing.

1 Comments:

At 4:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I almost always agree with Hitchins, even though most fair-minded would conclude that my leaning is decidedly to the right.

Hitchins' position, I believe you will agree, has definitely edged right, and what is more significant, he lacks one of the principal characteristics of lefties: that logic/truth are not essential in political debating (even given that many debates can and are won by the technique of filibustering the discussion, an/or slick presentation).

I admire his compassion and his ability to sift through the clutter and home in on the facts affecting the subject discussion, even when his pronouncements differ from my understanding of the issue at hand.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home