Well, here are two subjects that I commented on earlier at two of the most popular blogs concerning Iraq and the Middle East. One was on Moon of Alabama- the comments webpage for Billmon's Whiskey Bar. These are my thoughts on Todays' Topic of Treason: The Nuclear weapon plans of Iraq (finally discovered) and how the Republicans posted them on the Internet for all to see...
Freedom of Information
So much ado about nothing on either side? Or justifiable activity for both sides depending on what level of hypocrisy you want to take?
On the Bushbot side: Okay, so it is proof that Iraq did have plans for making nuclear weapons. The moronic part there is that the Republicans who were so afraid of nukes ARE responsible for other countries having access to this nuclear information. So I guess the loudest of both sides will attack the other for the next two weeks over this...
Meanwhile. Back in reality: the U.S. has over 6,000 active nuclear warheads. Israel has their own illegal nuclear stockpile which they got by ignoring UN sanctions. Is having the technology for nukes, or even building them as a safeguard against your enemies something that the US should be starting wars over? If we hadn't allowed Israel to do it, would we even be having this conversation? I think that it is ridiculous to believe that a country that might build one nuke would use it to immediately attack a country with 6000 of them. I, for one was and AM against INVADING another country PRE-EMPTIVELY for any reason. Being an oppressor will one day be the downfall of Israel, one day when the US can't protect them any more. And with the outrageous acts of the current Bush administration, we may be closer to not being able to protect Israel than we have EVER been.
So what's the point? Malkin and crew finally got their smoking gun. Much good that it does them. Would you rather Saddam had a nuke, right now, or have the U.S. bankrupted, overstretched, humiliated and excoriated as it is now? Some of us saw how this would end up from the start- for the rest of you : Hindsight is 20/20.
(Sigh) I wish.
And on No Quarter, Larry Johnson expounds on the deteriorating situation in Iraq.
Over the rubicon, Into the Styx
In the comments I posted this:
Who in their right mind EVEN thinks we can hold on to Iraq for the Next 3 years?
Is Civil War the only thing keeping the Iraqis from outright ejecting our troops? I find it repulsive, in light of all the information that the progressive side has known for years now- (because we go into these situations without blinders on) that NOW that the Pro-Iraq war crowd FULLY understands there IS no good news in Iraq- that they can't take the next mental step forward. 105 US deaths in a month will likely look like a Good month if the militias keep consolidating their power. And I don't see ANY reason why they won't.
Here's a BIGGER Reason to get the HELL out of Iraq right now: Do we REALLY want to get backed forcibly out ala the Israelis backing out of Lebanon? Our occupation of Iraq has quite a bit in common with THAT Failed Israeli operation. If we declare victory, turn it over to the Iraqis and get the hell out, sure it will deepen the chaos for a few months- but then, the Iraqis will have the situation in their own hands and they won't be able to blame everything on the US Presence. Face it, Our troops sit there (to borrow an earlier commenters analogy:) acting as an Anti-Gang police task force against the Bloods and Crips of the Sunni/Shia situation. Except in this situation, 90% of the population of Baghdad is a member of one of these two gangs.
It's a bloodbath for our troops waiting to happen.
THERE IS NO SECRET BUSH PLAN. It's going to hell in a handbasket.
If you give a damn about our troops then support redeploying them OUT of Iraq IMMEDIATELY.
Nov 3, 2006
"We found the WMD!" For what good it does them
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
They did not find a smoking gun. Seriously, did everyone not already know about Saddam's nuclear program in the 80's and 90's. We helped get it started. Remember in the early 80's when Israel attacked Saddam's nuclear reactors? They were claiming that they were attacking his secret labs to make nuclear weapons. A lot of this was released to the weapons inspectors in the 90's when Iraq was required to disclose all such programs. I thought all this was common knowledge. The government knew all this already. The thing is that they actually destroyed those programs during the years of sanctions.
I repeat: THIS IS NO SMOKING GUN. This is not new info. This proves nothing. They are trying to say that it proves that Iraq had a nuclear program at one time, but that is a big DUH!
The point is that these documents were documents that were given to weapon's inspectors as a list of programs that they had discontinued. The POINT is that these programs didn't exist in 2000, 2001, 2002, and especially not 2003 when we attacked them. If they exist, where are they???
All credible anaylists say that he stopped his nuclear program in the 90's. The fact that he had them at one point is no smoking gun, it is not new, and it is not even the question at hand. The question has always been, "does he still have those program?", not, "did he ever have them?" We already knew the answer to the second one. And all the intel from credible sources said, and still say, the answer to the first question is a resounding NO.
Btw, these are some of the same documents that we gave the security council before the war in Iraq. Except, our government redacted portions of them because they didn't want the non-nuclear countries on the security council to see that particular information. These same documents somehow ended up on the internet, not redacted, but in full for the whole world to see.
So, why does our government not trust the security council of the UN with such info, but find it perfectly ok to be plastered all over the net?
This is not a partisan domestic issue, and any attempt to make it so is dishonest and disingenuous. This is an issue of global nuclear non-proliferation. This single action potentially did more harm to the effort to keep the number of nuclear states small than any other one could imagine.
The reason that so few states have nuclear weapons is not because it is difficult to enrich uranium. that is a simple chemistry experiment, by comparison. weaponizing uranium entails getting the nuclear geometry of the explosive atomic core correct to cause a runaway fission chain reaction. It entails getting the timing circuitry in the firing mechanism correct to the order of microseconds. that is the difficult part. that is what the US put on the internet. that is the problem.
Post a Comment