Wright's cartoon on Op-Ed page of 6/22/03 Times Picayune--shows four panels with a simple picture of a rock drawn in each one. The four panels read:
1. This rock doesn't believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
2. Or that Iraq actually used such weapons.
3. Or that Iraqis were among the 9/11 hijackers.
4. Which, according to polls, makes it smarter than most Americans.
And conservative columnist George Will chimes in with this (from his recent column entitled The Search For Credibility)--
"Some say the war was justified even if WMDs are not found nor their destruction explained, because the world is 'better off' without Saddam. Of course it is better off. But unless one is prepared to postulate a U.S. right, perhaps even a duty, to militarily dismantle any tyranny--on to Burma?--it is unacceptable to argue that Saddam's mass graves and torture chambers suffice as retrospective justification for pre-emptive war." He ends with this--"Until WMDs are found, or their absence accounted for, there is urgent explaining to be done."
There is nothing new about this sentiment but that it comes from the mouth of George Will I think is an important turning point.
Thanks for the link. I've added it to my archive of WMD articles. Will seems to be lamenting that the Bush Doctrine of preventative invasion is at risk.
As I follow this story, my assessment is that it isn't quite dead yet. But it's slipping from the top of the agenda. The Washington Post carried a Blix story on page A20. "Hans Blix, the United Nations' chief weapons inspector, says he suspects that Baghdad possessed little more than 'debris' from a former, secret weapons program when the United States invaded the country in March."
My 5 cent psycho-analysis? The Republicans are addicted to national power extended over the entire world, and the Dems are co-dependent enablers.
update:
Well, okay, they ran this one on the front page ...
Report Cast Doubt on Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page A01
JimB made a good point--that critics of the war, by bearing down so pointedly on the no-WMDs issue, risk having all antiwar credibility evaporate when Bush & Co "find" the WMDs. Once that happens, and it seems likely it will given this lyin' crew, the neocons will be undone only if there is sustained Arab resistance to the invasion...i.e. "another Vietnam." The occupation will be harder to sell at home once it becomes obvious even to the dittoheads we're not wanted there.
Some critics are focusing on mis-use of the intelligence agencies and their reports rather than the lack of WMDs. Those are closely related but different issues. Unfortunately, subtle distinctions are not the forte of 'Merkins.
And the media isn't really doing it's job. My local paper ran a NYT article on "where in the world is Saddam" yesterday. The article mentioned the March 20 attack on the secret bunker that opened the war, yet failed to mention there was no bunker. It's only if the media continues to cite the lies, like this $50 M hole in the ground, that there's any hope that the general public will see the pattern of mendacity.
The right used "it's not the desecration of the oval office with oral sodomy and the spillage of unclean fluids (see Leviticus), it's the LIES about the desecration ..." The sexual morality issue mobilized their base (so to speak), and the lying aspect swayed many others.
The left may be able to use a similar approach. On today's Face the Nation, I saw Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the DNC, trot out the "it's about the lies, exaggeration, and politicizing the agencies" argument. But his mantra was the economy.
They have to avoid looking happy about the domestic and foreign quagmires, and they have to have something besides "Dubya's screwing up."
I saw Vermont Governor/Dem. Presidential hopeful Dean on Meet the Press yesterday, first time I've seen him really. Russert played hardball with him, Dean answered some questions with "I don't know," which, while refreshing, may be an attitude that gets used against him.
After reading the MTP transcript but not watching the show (forgot to check my Tivo) I went on a pro-Dean blog and said Dean needs to get his act together. I said in essence ... The transcript is painful. He can't gain any traction against the shrub on security and foreign policy unless he comes from a position of knowledge and strength. He can't use as a defense "Dubya doesn't know anything either." Dean must put together a team of advisors, including security and foreign policy advisors. Showdown 2004 has started already.
From watching the show, he comes across better on video than text. But I stand by my assessment that he needs to bring on board a security/foreign policy team. The race has been on since May Day.
Back to Mr. Will, the headline at the WaPost website is "The Bush Doctrine at Risk". I infer, and inferring can be dangerous, that Will would like to see the WMDs so we can get that darn Bush Doctrine back on track!
The San Jose Merc ran a different headline on the Will OpEd in today's paper ... "Both weapons and rationales lacking in Iraq"
|
1. This rock doesn't believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
2. Or that Iraq actually used such weapons.
3. Or that Iraqis were among the 9/11 hijackers.
4. Which, according to polls, makes it smarter than most Americans.
And conservative columnist George Will chimes in with this (from his recent column entitled The Search For Credibility)--
"Some say the war was justified even if WMDs are not found nor their destruction explained, because the world is 'better off' without Saddam. Of course it is better off. But unless one is prepared to postulate a U.S. right, perhaps even a duty, to militarily dismantle any tyranny--on to Burma?--it is unacceptable to argue that Saddam's mass graves and torture chambers suffice as retrospective justification for pre-emptive war." He ends with this--"Until WMDs are found, or their absence accounted for, there is urgent explaining to be done."
There is nothing new about this sentiment but that it comes from the mouth of George Will I think is an important turning point.
- jimlouis 6-22-2003 6:05 pm
Thanks for the link. I've added it to my archive of WMD articles. Will seems to be lamenting that the Bush Doctrine of preventative invasion is at risk.
As I follow this story, my assessment is that it isn't quite dead yet. But it's slipping from the top of the agenda. The Washington Post carried a Blix story on page A20. "Hans Blix, the United Nations' chief weapons inspector, says he suspects that Baghdad possessed little more than 'debris' from a former, secret weapons program when the United States invaded the country in March."
My 5 cent psycho-analysis? The Republicans are addicted to national power extended over the entire world, and the Dems are co-dependent enablers.
update:
Well, okay, they ran this one on the front page ...
Report Cast Doubt on Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page A01
- mark 6-23-2003 12:51 am [add a comment]
JimB made a good point--that critics of the war, by bearing down so pointedly on the no-WMDs issue, risk having all antiwar credibility evaporate when Bush & Co "find" the WMDs. Once that happens, and it seems likely it will given this lyin' crew, the neocons will be undone only if there is sustained Arab resistance to the invasion...i.e. "another Vietnam." The occupation will be harder to sell at home once it becomes obvious even to the dittoheads we're not wanted there.
- tom moody 6-23-2003 12:58 am [add a comment]
Some critics are focusing on mis-use of the intelligence agencies and their reports rather than the lack of WMDs. Those are closely related but different issues. Unfortunately, subtle distinctions are not the forte of 'Merkins.
And the media isn't really doing it's job. My local paper ran a NYT article on "where in the world is Saddam" yesterday. The article mentioned the March 20 attack on the secret bunker that opened the war, yet failed to mention there was no bunker. It's only if the media continues to cite the lies, like this $50 M hole in the ground, that there's any hope that the general public will see the pattern of mendacity.
- mark 6-23-2003 1:17 am [add a comment]
The right used "it's not the desecration of the oval office with oral sodomy and the spillage of unclean fluids (see Leviticus), it's the LIES about the desecration ..." The sexual morality issue mobilized their base (so to speak), and the lying aspect swayed many others.
The left may be able to use a similar approach. On today's Face the Nation, I saw Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the DNC, trot out the "it's about the lies, exaggeration, and politicizing the agencies" argument. But his mantra was the economy.
They have to avoid looking happy about the domestic and foreign quagmires, and they have to have something besides "Dubya's screwing up."
- mark 6-23-2003 3:55 am [add a comment]
I saw Vermont Governor/Dem. Presidential hopeful Dean on Meet the Press yesterday, first time I've seen him really. Russert played hardball with him, Dean answered some questions with "I don't know," which, while refreshing, may be an attitude that gets used against him.
- jimlouis 6-23-2003 3:12 pm [add a comment]
After reading the MTP transcript but not watching the show (forgot to check my Tivo) I went on a pro-Dean blog and said Dean needs to get his act together. I said in essence ... The transcript is painful. He can't gain any traction against the shrub on security and foreign policy unless he comes from a position of knowledge and strength. He can't use as a defense "Dubya doesn't know anything either." Dean must put together a team of advisors, including security and foreign policy advisors. Showdown 2004 has started already.
From watching the show, he comes across better on video than text. But I stand by my assessment that he needs to bring on board a security/foreign policy team. The race has been on since May Day.
- mark 6-24-2003 4:58 am [add a comment]
Back to Mr. Will, the headline at the WaPost website is "The Bush Doctrine at Risk". I infer, and inferring can be dangerous, that Will would like to see the WMDs so we can get that darn Bush Doctrine back on track!
The San Jose Merc ran a different headline on the Will OpEd in today's paper ... "Both weapons and rationales lacking in Iraq"
- mark 6-24-2003 7:07 am [add a comment]