February 02, 2004
Obvious Followup #0001
The Superbrain, in acknowledging the absence of any banned weapons in Iraq, defends his decision to invade thusly: "I said in the run-up [to war] that Saddam was a grave and gathering danger. I believed that then and I know it was true now."
The obvious followup question, then, would be: "What was the nature of this danger?"
We know he didn't possess WMD, as the Bush Administration itself now admits. We know he wasn't consorting with al-Qaeda, as the Bush Administration itself now admits. We know he didn't pose any sort of conventional military threat even to his neighbours (let alone to the "homeland") -- Iraq's pre-war military spending was 10% that of Kuwait, and Saddam had even okay-ed the destruction of his al-Samoud missiles (whose range was minimally greater than allowed).
We even know that Saddam didn't pose any sort of ideological threat (the "threat of a good example") -- as might be argued of Fidel Castro, for example. Saddam was a region- and world-wide pariah.
So what was the nature of the "grave and growing danger", Mr. President? A question so obvious the mainstream media hasn't bothered to ask.
Posted by Eddie Tews at February 2, 2004 02:34 PM