Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
October 4, 2003
WAR: Where Are The Weapons of Mass Destruction?

As I noted last night, you must check out Andrew Sullivan's summary of David Kay's report on Iraq's WMD programs. Sullivan suggests that we should read the whole report, which I intend to do myself shortly.

In fairness, of course, you should also check out Gregg Easterbrook's take. Easterbrook focuses on the absence of a continuing nuclear program, and takes it as evidence that Bill Clinton's missile strikes on Iraq were more successful than a lot of (particularly conservative) observers thought:

Set aside the question of whether the United States should have invaded Iraq in 2003; history may still judge this decision favorably, as a liberation of the oppressed. But if most of the Iraq atomic weapons program stopped in 1998, as Kay concludes, then Clinton administration policy on Iraq was far more effective than once assumed; then the WMD case for invasion this year was even weaker than now assumed; and then the case for airstrikes to halt the North Korean nuclear-weapons program may be stronger than now assumed.

Unlike, say, Josh Marshall, I never bought the idea that the entire case for war depended on whether or not Saddam had an active nuclear program; on top of the many other reasons for war, biological and chemical weapons looked plenty bad enough. But Easterbrook's probably right that Clinton is owed an apology on this point, up to a point (it would still have been better if he'd moved more aggressively against both Saddam and bin Laden; maybe if he'd been threatened with impeachment more often . . . )

Posted by Baseball Crank at 10:21 AM | War 2002-03 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg