Thursday, November 17, 2005

Andrew Sullivan

"I actually side with Glenn on this. I never believed that nukes were the main threat. I was much more concerned with anthrax or smallpox. And I didn't get the impression before the war that nukes were at the heart of the Bush argument. I can see now how people who weren't as keen on taking the battle to the enemy as I was could have seized on the nuke issue as the peg on which to hang the war. But that's their perspective, not mine, and, I suspect, not Bush's. This debate is a draw. The bottom line is that the president was wrong and waged a war on the basis of intelligence that was soon disproven. Leave all the mind-reading out of it. The public is responding to those facts. And the facts are not really in dispute. We screwed up in a massive way in front of the whole world. If the invasion had gone well, we would have put it behind us by now. But it hasn't. The key thing now is to do all we can to get a free Iraq in place. We do owe it to the troops not to pull the rug from under them, which is why, despite all my anger at Bush, I still support him as commander-in-chief, and find the Senate vote yesterday repellent. We have no other commander-in-chief for three years. And we must still win."

An interesting post by Andrew Sullivan on his blog, but I think he misses the point. Many countries have had chemical and biological weapons for decades and no one has ever considered them an extreme threat. America was attacked with planes not Smallpox. There was no precedent for anyone to invade a country in case they might have these weapons.

After 9/11 chemical and biological weapons were made out to be far more dangerous than they really are. Let's not forget World War One was largely fought with chemical weapons.

The true danger from terrorists has always been explosives, of which the planes of 9/11 were a variation. No terrorist in recent times has succeeded with anything but explosives, but these can be gotten anywhere, even made out of fertiliser.

So if there was any threat from Iraq it was simply to go to a country, like the UK recently, and Spain a few years ago, and make bombs. One might argue E bombs were a danger too. The problem is it seemed Iraq was the target so whatever weapons they had were made to sound like the bad ones.

So why would terrorists be trying to get a hold of weapons from Saddam when all they needed to do was make bombs in the country they wanted to attack?