Robert Novak has begun the delicate task of telling us why we fear Iraq isn't really why we fear Iraq. Those Weapons of Mass Destruction may not materialize, and if they do, may not be as awe inspiring as they could be. Novak reminds us that our "real" reason for invading Iraq had nothing to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction.
"The real reason for attacking the Iraqi regime always has been disconnected from its public rationale. On the day after the U.S. launched the military strike that quickly liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban, my column identified Iraq as the second target in President Bush's war against terrorism. I did not write one word about weapons of mass destruction because not one such word was mentioned to me in many interviews with Bush policymakers.
The subsequent debate over WMD ensued when Secretary of State Colin Powell, over Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's objections, talked the president into seeking United Nations sanction for military action."
Ah, you see? It all turns out to be the UN's fault after all, ably assisted by Colin Powell (who, after enjoying warm feelings from conservatives for a brief period of time, will shortly move back to their disapproved of list). The UN wouldn't buy the terrorist connection, so the US had to go after Weapons of Mass Destruction. Of course what that says to me is that President Bush had even less of a chance proving that Iraq had terrorist connections than they did proving that they had weapons of mass destruction.
No comments:
Post a Comment