|
« Blair survives
Main |
October 04, 2003
Those missing weapons
It is now quite clear that Robin Cook and Menzies Campbell have simply lost the capacity for rational thought. Cook says the Iraq Survey Group has told us that Saddam did not have any WMD and posed no threat to us; Campbell says it now looks more likely that Tony Blair went to war on a 'flawed prospectus'. Now look at what that ISG report actually said. True, Iraq was thought not to have had a 'large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons programme after 1991'. But he was exploring the possibility of resuming it, and it was still possible that his remaining chemical agents had been hidden -- the very thing that had been suspected all along. Merely a few drums of the stuff could be lethal. So why is that part of the report a 'devastating blow' to the government, as it was described in the press? When it comes to biological weapons, moreover, the report knocks Cook, Campbell and the rest of the cerebrally twisted anti-war crowd for six. After 1996, it says, Saddam focused on small, secret operations to produce BW. The team found a 'clandestine network of laboratories and facilities' that had never previously been uncovered, and were 'key elements for maintaining a capability for resuming BW production'. Two scientists had been doing work 'directly applicable' to anthrax'. The ISG found evidence of research on new deadly biological agents, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin. This is indeed a 'devastating blow' - not to Blair and Bush, but to the anti-war lobby who daily assert that Saddam had destroyed his WMD programmes and was totally harmless. Why was he going to such lengths to hide all this, even after the war started, if as they assert he had nothing any more to hide? It also further underlines that he was utterly in breach of UN resolutions, the reason we went to war. And this is only an interim report. Will the anti-war lobby now eat humble pie and admit they were utterly, totally, malevolently wrong? Not likely. For what the Iraq row has revealed is that our society now has a big problem with truth, logic and rationality. Faced with facts and evidence, it either denies them or draws from them instead the most perverse and irrational conclusions. The Iraq war is the defining event of our time, and illustrates with terrifying clarity how much of Britain has succumbed to a flight from reason itself. Posted by melanie at October 4, 2003
Comments
You mentioned Cook and Campbell but failed to cite the BBC, the greatest denier of them all. Posted by: DP at October 5, 2003 12:33 AM Sane commentary, welcome to the blogosphere. I am adding your blog to my list of favorites. New reader from NYC. Posted by: Susan at October 5, 2003 01:40 AMYou hit on the flaw in the ongoing debate. Whether or not WMD are found, the reason (actually, one reason) for the war was that there was sufficient evidence that Iraq had and/or was building WMD. To me, Iraq's behavior towards UN inspections over the last 12 years was plenty sufficient. Posted by: JeffF at October 5, 2003 01:24 PMThe interesting question is *why* so many people have succumbed to the "flight from reason" (which is by no means limited to Britain--we see plenty of it here in the U.S.) I would suggest that it has something to do with the proliferation of people--whole classes of people--whose professional lives involve dealing with symbols--specifically, words and images. I'm talking about writers, entertainers, advertising people, and most especially professors (outside of the hard sciences). When one deals only with words and images, one may lose a kind of fundamental respect for reality. It is hard to imagine a tool-and-die maker, say, or even an electrical engineer, engaging in the kind of bizarre thought processes which are common among the classes of which I speak. When you deal with the tangible reality of metal, or even with the slightly less tangible reality of volts and amps, you are grounded in a way that the "word people" are not. Posted by: David Foster at October 5, 2003 05:37 PMBravo Melanie. Dr. Kay was just on CNN . He said he was unhappy that people were focusing on what he had not found THUS FAR, and were ignoring what HE HAD FOUND. And as you point out, what was found thus far was cause for using military means to remove Saddam. The whole media circus reminds me of the OJ trial. If you are innocent attack the facts, if you are guilty, attack the witness. The defeatists have put Blair and Bush into the position of being on trial instead of Saddam. The thrust of the left is to discredit Blair and Bush and get a Not Guilty verdict for their client, Saddam. I am glad that you have refocused attention to the real defendant , Saddam Hussein, and by implication, those in the Infidel Nations who defend him. Posted by: Ted Miller at October 5, 2003 06:19 PMMel writing a blog? Excellent stuff. Nowhere have I read anyone who advocates war claiming that Saddam was in possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles during the past few years. And yet for some strange reason those who claim Blair and so on where lying accuse him of claiming just that. Posted by: Poosh at October 5, 2003 06:37 PMRe flight from reason Mercury Rev (this one is arguable either cheap way). Sebadoh, first with Lou and Eric, then ticket with Lou and Jason. They Might Be Giants. lowest Pixies, although they just broke up before generlogies too much of it got to happen. Here's another discount bold statement: in my opinion, there are enough flight exceptions to this theory present in jazz, low that as a music I will exempt it from that airfare entire clause. You can certainly find examples cheapest Posted by: cheap flight at October 16, 2003 04:17 AM |
