Thursday, March 02, 2006

WMDs and the Premises at the Wrong Fork in the Road

Summary: WMDs have been discovered in Iraq. But the media's and the Democrats' vested interest is to have you not believe this. Georges Sada, the 2nd highest ranking officer in Saddam Hussein's air force, explains what happened to most of them. In the absence of understanding that there were WMD's, we are constrained to talk about the wrong issues.

If you come to a fork in the road, neither of the alternatives are valid if previously you took a wrong fork in the road. I would personally be tempted to be frustrated about how much time I had wasted if such an event happened to me. But being frustrated only ensures that I will waste more time.

About 2 years ago I remember reading an article a friend had printed off about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) having been spirited out of Iraq and hidden in Syria. This made perfect sense as to why nothing large was found in Iraq at the time, yet the US, British, French, German, Russian, Jordanian, and Egyptian intelligence services all agreed that Saddam had substantial WMDs.

But this story seems in retrospect to have been a blip on the radar, never to have given a second thought by any mover or shaker anywhere in the world.


Enter General George Sada, the second highest ranking officer in Saddam's air force, who has just written a new book: Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein. In the book, and in an interview with Larry Elder on WorldNetDaily which begins here (, General Sada explains where (that is: Syria) all the WMDs went, and just what pretext Saddam used to get them there. (The truth the General explains would make a really good Hollywood movie, but...I see you've already guessed where I'm going with this one...)

For nearly the entirety of America's presence in Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom--for what reason I don't know--the dialectic has been based on the following 2 premises:
  1. Even if there weren't WMDs, Saddam was still an evil dictator who should be removed from office.
  2. Even if there weren't WMDs, it is still not appropriate to talk negatively about the US presence in Iraq, because this will endanger the lives of US troops.

I do not know who successfully altered and constrained the national conversation in this way, but since that milestone of intellectual prestidigitational legerdemain, the focus has been placed squarely and only on two premises that are clearly unclear, and therefore controversial and debatable, and the subsequent controversy has been used continuously by democrats, Hollywood, and the media to box President Bush about the proverbial ears for the better part of 3 years now.

But now, the dynamic is as it once was. There is a new premise in town, but he looks hauntingly familiar. The Bush administration said there were WMDs, Fox News said they were moved to Syria, and now General Sada explains how they got there.

It kind of makes the two premises, with which we've been blugeoned for the past two or three years, a bit moot, doesn't it? So the next time anyone asks you (1) whether Saddam was a brutal enough dictator to be removed from power, or (2) if American soldiers should continue to have a presence in Iraq, you may answer in good conscience, the following:

(1) Yes, because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which he moved to Syria


(2) Yes, because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which he moved to Syria.


Imagine what would happen--even now--to the insurgency if Harry Reid, Tom Brokaw, George Clooney, and all their self-righteous friends were to admit the truth about the WMDs and we could start over with a clean slate. We need to backtrack up the road a little bit and take the other fork.

If we overlook our potential frustration at having previously taken the wrong fork, we will be able to get back on track more quickly. Imagine the healing that can occur on both sides of the American debate if we will honestly and unashamedly admit and agree that our original justification of going up against Iraq was, is, and has always been valid.

1 comment:

Slaverre said...

You are on crack if you think that oil did not have something to do with it. There is genocide in South Africa right now, women are being raped on a daily basis there. But, really what is in it for us to go and save their asses. I beleived and MANY other Americans believed there were WMD's. There were none. Iraq has the 4th largest oil reserves in the world. Sure you have Aghanistan... Which I totally support btw... They had terrorist training camps... Osama... all that. I fully support that cause. But Iraq... even if they did have WMD's, so what. Ask yourself this, is this the fight against "terrorism?" Iraq? Saddam was a shitbrain, I don't dispute that fact. There are a dozen other countries out there that had many more ties to terrorism than Iraq. Besides with the money, 245 billion to date, spent on the Iraq war we could have sunk that into homeland security. If you were a terrorist in the US you wouldn't be able to fart without the FBI smelling it. BUT we are there, and I say that we stay until those bastards can meekly defend and support themselves. Now I'm sure you will get all butt-hurt by my comments and that's fine. I served a year in Satan's asshole, in the Infantry, when it all started, so don't think I don't know what's going on. Your probably a FOBit anyway. You have got to be kidding me, moved to Syria? You are on crack!