8.10.04
Ritter on the Duelfer Report
Scott Ritter, forgotten expert on Iraqi "WMD", considers the Duelfer report:
Is there anyone else who thinks it's kind of... what's the word? sad? unbelievable? really fucked up? that a dictator like Saddam is more truthful than the leadership of the US and UK? How about the fact that a group of people who think that Stalin was a pretty neat guy - i.e., ANSWER - had to be relied on to provide any actual opposition to the war?
So-called liberals are up in arms trying to get their guy Kerry in the White House and Bush out, with good reason. Yet we do not see anywhere near this level of energy directed towards changing the system that allowed someone like Bush to become president and his little coterie of yes-men/opportunists/weaklings/neo-imperialists to assume power. We do not see very many liberal calls to change the system to strengthen what, in the final analysis, are very weak checks on executive power. The assumption seems to be that getting Bush out is enough. But what happens if Kerry is defeated, in this election or 4 years from now? What is to stop another Bush from coming along?
In many ways, the anti-Bush rhetoric and strategy is misplaced. It's misguided. The dude is a moron, yes, and he's bad for many reasons. But he's only the messenger. Bush is only the messenger of bigger problems affecting American society that go beyond him and this election.
Anyway, read the article. There's more.
Scott Ritter, forgotten expert on Iraqi "WMD", considers the Duelfer report:
One of the tragic ironies of the decision to invade Iraq is that the Iraqi WMD declaration required by security council resolution 1441, submitted by Iraq in December 2002, and summarily rejected by Bush and Blair as repackaged falsehoods, now stands as the most accurate compilation of data yet assembled regarding Iraq's WMD programmes (more so than even Duelfer's ISG report, which contains much unsubstantiated speculation). Saddam Hussein has yet to be contradicted on a single point of substantive fact.
Is there anyone else who thinks it's kind of... what's the word? sad? unbelievable? really fucked up? that a dictator like Saddam is more truthful than the leadership of the US and UK? How about the fact that a group of people who think that Stalin was a pretty neat guy - i.e., ANSWER - had to be relied on to provide any actual opposition to the war?
So-called liberals are up in arms trying to get their guy Kerry in the White House and Bush out, with good reason. Yet we do not see anywhere near this level of energy directed towards changing the system that allowed someone like Bush to become president and his little coterie of yes-men/opportunists/weaklings/neo-imperialists to assume power. We do not see very many liberal calls to change the system to strengthen what, in the final analysis, are very weak checks on executive power. The assumption seems to be that getting Bush out is enough. But what happens if Kerry is defeated, in this election or 4 years from now? What is to stop another Bush from coming along?
In many ways, the anti-Bush rhetoric and strategy is misplaced. It's misguided. The dude is a moron, yes, and he's bad for many reasons. But he's only the messenger. Bush is only the messenger of bigger problems affecting American society that go beyond him and this election.
Anyway, read the article. There's more.
