Free Dartmouth
10/07/2004 11:23:00 PM | Timothy

The Logic of Justifying Bush's war
Mark Kleiman writes:
Let's see if I have this straight:

1. The invasion of Iraq, and its timing, were justified by the risk that, if we waited, Iraq would acquire and stockpile more WMDs and more delivery vehicles, or alternatively supply them to terrorist organizations.

2. The chief U.S. weapons inspector has now reported that Iraq, at the time of the invasion, had no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and no capacity for producing any, but that Saddam Hussein remained intent on procuring them once sanctions were lifted.

3. No one was in fact proposing lifing sanctions at the time of the invasion.

4. After the release of the report, the President of the United States says that "There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks."

5. The Vice President of the United States says that the report shows that "delay ... was not an option."

Right. There was a real risk that Iraq would give things he didn't actually have to terrorists. And the finding that SH had an intention of doing something in the future when and if sanctions were lifted meant that leaving the sanctions in place and waiting before invading "was not an option."
Update: Mark Kleiman continues "I'm no Krauthammer." Well, Charles Krauthammer himself on Fox News just said something that would respond to Kleiman. Krauthammer said that the sanctions regime was slipping away, day by day. And I think it deserves a response (one Kleiman does not go into). Even if it was true the sanctions regime was slipping away under the Clinton administration, and keeping 'Saddam in a box' was not sustainable in the long term, acting immediately when the administration did was NOT a necessity. I remember many people arguing AT THE TIME, before the U.S. went to war, that we should wait, build alliances, let the inspections process continue and assess later whether an invasion was necessary and wise. Krauthammer was talking about the regime was being undermined during the Clinton administrationm, so it was ridiculous to think the sanctions regime was going to collapse in May 2004. (Oh, here's one post that caught on my eye on the corner)

Links to this post:

Create a Link


Post a Comment

The Free Press

Alums for Social Change
The Green Magazine
The Dartmouth
Dartmouth Observer
Dartmouth Review
Inner Office
The Little Green Blog
Welton Chang's Blog
Vox in Sox
MN Publius (Matthew Martin)
Dartmouth Official News

Other Blogs

Arts & Letters
Body and Soul
Blog For America
Brad DeLong
Brad Plumer
Campus Nonsense
Crooked Timber
Daily Kos
Dean Nation
Dan Drezner
The Front Line
Interesting Times
Is That Legal?
Talking Points Memo
Lawrence Lessig
Lean Left
Legal Theory
Matthew Yglesias
Ms. Musings
Nathan Newman
New Republic's &c.
Not Geniuses
Political State Report
Political Theory Daily Review
Queer Day
Roger Ailes
Talk Left
This Modern World
Tough Democrat
Volokh Conspiracy
Washington Note
X. & Overboard

Magazines, Newspapers and Journals
Boston Globe Ideas
Boston Review
Chronicle of Higher Education
Common Dreams
In These Times
Mother Jones
New York Review of Books
New York Times
The American Prospect
The Nation
The New Republic
The Progressive
Tom Paine
Village Voice
Washington Monthly

Capitol Hill Media
ABC's The Note
American Journalism Review
Columbia Journalism Review
Daily Howler
Donkey Rising
The Hill
National Journal
NJ Hotline
NJ Wake-up call
NJ Early Bird
NJ Weekly
Political Wire
Roll Call

Search the DFP
Powered by Blogger

The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.