Four years has passed since Colin Powell gave his con job -- which he so generously admitted was wrong once Bush was re-elected (elected). Shortly afterwards, Tim Noah (Chatterbox at Slate) wrote a piece on how it is clearly obvious now that Saddam Hussein had WMDs though it might be sound judgment to keep the inspectors in for strategic reasons. This added to his "reluctant hawk" reasoning to back the war with the usual Thomas Friedmanesque hesitance.
I was not alone in finding this B.S. though the "conventional wisdom" now is supposed to be that "everyone" did until some unclear time afterwards, though even now we really shouldn't do TOO much about it, except give the backers of the failed and mishandled policy more time and to be real concerned about things. In fact, true assholes thinks this is a step too far. John McCain actually had the bloody nerve to suggest that not supporting a failed policy you truly believe is only worsening the situation (including killing and maiming our troops to little good end) somehow disrespects the troops. Other more "reasonable" sorts allow partisan concerns to delay votes on critical nonbinding resolutions, including ones they co-sponsored. This is so even though the delay moves are obviously in place as sham jobs to make Dems look bad.*
February 2003, on the Slate Fray (links here):
More of the bloody same bullshit. This is war we are talking about, and this is supposed to be a hesistant hawk, someone pushed into a hardline policy because of necessity, because things are bloody obvious. Indisputable, pardon my French.
Noah challenged someone to dispute the Powell presentation to the UN, which could be broken down into three parts: terrorist (Al Qaeda ... we know Saddam has connections to Palestian terrorists), chemical and nuclear. Noah himself says the terrorist connection is disputable. The nuclear part, which he seems to ignore here, has been disputed by many ... it is deemed by some the weakest part of the case. That leaves the chemical. Noah (being a good sport) agrees that maybe that wildman Alexander Cockburn and Hans Blix might have a point that a couple points were disputable. But that leaves a few that clearly aren't. Therefore, a fraction of Powell's presentation is indisputable enough for Noah.
Didn't take Noah that much to go to the war camp, huh? I bow to JackD who posted a bit before I to answer his snide comments as to the possibility that inspections might have some value, but apparently not much.
btw Noah didn't have to go to Wild Cockburn to dispute the testimony. Newsweek [www.msnbc.com] gave a rather mixed report as well. Also, if Noah thought only a little smoke was enough, the presentation might have been enough. But, if (as some of us do) he thought a compelling case had to be made to impress the UN enough to declare a pre-emptive war on Iraq, it is a bit more tricky.
---
PS I attach the Newsweek analysis of key bits of Powell's case below. Suffice to say that other publications, like The Guardian, put forth a more damning case than Newsweek. All the same, if a middle of the road publication put forth such doubts, perhaps Noah should be a bit less cocksure of himself.
In a somewhat related vein, I was asked over the weekend to specify the difference between "atheist" and "agnostic." I think the main difference deep down is in strength of feeling -- atheists (as a recent debate suggested) tend to have a more doctrinaire side that tends to be a bit tedious. Anyway, it was suggested that there must be a God, since how else do you describe those lovely mountains etc. Not surprisingly, the same person was quite upset at God when someone close to said person died badly. There is a selective belief process here. Faith that seeks out something to hold on to, even if it is pretty weak. A priori thinking.
Not a reason to go to war. Got it this time?
---
* Two Republicans likely to have tough re-election campaigns, one perhaps from Al Franken, voted for cloture. Some note this somewhat sarcastically, but that is the point of elections -- to pressure public officials to be concerned with what their electorate supports.