Sorry Andrew, but this
logic is too tortured...
I have never said I don't agree with Bush's decision to go to war with Saddam. I've merely said the obvious - that we now know that, given Saddam's lack of WMD stockpiles, the urgency, with hindsight, was misplaced. Does that mean I have to apologize to Howard Dean? Sure, if Howard Dean had argued that there were no WMDs and that was why we shouldn't go to war, and I had trashed him for it. To Hans Blix? Sure, if he had said the same thing. But they didn't. And I didn't. Almost no one argued against the war on the basis that the WMD stockpiles didn't exist (except, hilariously, Baghdad Bob). So Bush was right to go to war when he did on the evidence in front of him. The only apology I owe is to those, like Jim Falllows, who correctly foresaw the immense difficulties after the liberation. But my apology must merely be for not taking his argument seriously enough. I never attacked it.Well, actually, this is what Dean said on March 6, 2003:
...Tonight the President made another attempt to convince the nation and the increasingly skeptical world community that pre-emptive war against Iraq is necessary.So, OK, it's not "I have proof that Iraq has no WMDs." I still think an apology may be in order, though.
Once again, I believe the President's rhetoric has fallen short of making a credible case that Iraq presents an imminent threat to vital U.S. interests. He continues to tell us what we all agree on: that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless, tyrannical despot. But he does not make the case that we should take on this crisis without the full backing of the United Nations. It is no wonder that we cannot convince our long-standing allies to go to war when we cannot demonstrate that an imminent threat exists.
