No Iraqi WMDs- huh.

This is an interesting piece of information. It seems that everyone's favorite old Swedish man Hans Blix now believes that Iraq destroyed its WMDs twelve years ago. That's interesting. So we went to war in large part because of a threat that hadn't been there for twelve years. Yes, I'd suspected that this was true for over a month, but this is something that's nice to have in print.

It's nice in part because it publicly demonstrates the goal post moving on the part of the Bush administration (which Blix actually mentions in the article) and the combination of hastiness and dishonesty that got us into this war.

This goal post moving, in and of itself, is pretty disturbing. After a certain point, Bush administration officials (and, consequently, much of the media) ceased all mention of actual weapons or weapons systems, and began talking exclusively of Iraqi weapons programs, meaning, of course, materials and scientific expertise that could potentially be used at some later time to develop weapons of mass destruction. This flip flop came without any acknowledgment of a change is course, largely, I imagine, because the WH is so vain.

So we got into a war against a third rate military in the heart of the Arab world, a war that will have cost the US taxpayers over 200 billion dollars by the end of next year, that has killed or wounded 6000 American soldiers, a war that depletes our readiness to fight necessary wars against actual threats, because there were a few scientists who knew how to produce liquid anthrax and a buried centrifuge in someone's garden?

To the defense of this indefensible state of affairs, Bush's fans and cronies will probably talk about what a bastard Saddam was, how he tortured and killed his opposition and let his psychotic children run all over the countryside raping and murdering. True, and awful. But awful things are happening in North Korea, China, Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe etc. etc. and we haven't lifted finger one (Unless you think calling Kim Jong Il a pygmy is going to feed his starving people, prevent him from building nukes, or weaken his hold on the North Korean population).

Now I'm at least as stupid as the next guy, but here's what I think. I think Iraq made a good target for the White House because:
1. It sits on enormous oil reserves. It's better to have someone we trust in charge.
2. Somehow, if we defeat Saddam, it will intimidate Syria and Iran.
3. Iraq is weak, and we're guaranteed to win easily.
4. If we bring democracy to Iraq, democracy will flower all over the Arab world and no nasty terrorists will ever hurt us again.
5. They will shower us with flowers when we defeat Saddam, and it will be a big PR victory.
6. They tried to kill Bush's dad.

I don't think it had much to do with a concrete threat against the US, and if people in the White House actually believed that it did, I think they merely saw what they wanted to see.

Regardless, the White House is being called on its deceptions and dishonesty. What were a scant few voices challenging the honesty of this very dishonest administration has grown over the months, and I am becoming optimistic that Bush's reign of error will last only four years.