Good article today at Salon by James K. Galbraith. He goes through President Bush's recent approval numbers, but then moves onto something puzzling President Bush said recently, as part of his effort to explain why we invaded Iraq.
"Bush made this clear the other day with his definitive defense of his war in Iraq. He said: "Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq ... We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them."
Was this just the latest lame defense of failure? Or was it a calculated statement of doctrine? It could be either. Unlike the neoconservatives before the United States went into Iraq, we should be prudent and assume the worst.
Read Bush's statement again. In it, he asserts a right to remove any "declared enemy" with "capability" to produce weapons who "could have passed that capability" along.
"Capability"? "Could have"? What trouble spots in the world doesn't this fit? It certainly fits North Korea and Iran. Will this doctrine thus lead to a raid on the internationally legal Iranian Nuclear Plant next year? It could, as the Times of London has reported, citing an unnamed U.S. administration source. "
Anyway the whole article is interesting, but I for one think we might have enough to right now without invading Iran or North Korea.
No comments:
Post a Comment