The World Around You

Steve at Daily Kos makes much the same argument I have been making, brought back to life by an NY Times editorial.

Here’s a central issue people need to keep in mind: it doesn’t matter what Saddam had in 1991, 1995 or 1998. It seems that there was a gap of years in our knowledge what weapons Iraq possessed. Past behavior does not predict future performance and any debate on what Saddam did before 2002, or any excuse that “in the light of 9/11, our assessment changed” is a load of crap.

I largely agree, but where Steve is wrong is that it does “matter” what Sadaam had. I have been convinced by those on the other side that Sadaam wasn’t going to change his tune. Somewhere down the road he was going to be a threat to the United States. There’s still a threshold that needs to be met. Was Iraq a greater threat than Al Qaeda? Was Iraq a greater threat than North Korea? Was Iraq a greater threat than Iran? No. There was little to no evidence that Sadaam was any greater threat now than he was five years ago, especially with the inspectors on the ground.

The in light of 9/11 arguments are “crap”. Of course we had to look at things differently, but looking at things differently did not mean we needed to immediately enact regime change in Iraq. That is a leap the administration made because, we were told, they had evidence which caused them to believe Sadaam was an immediate threat. If that evidence was a lie, than this administration has to face the music. That’s what needs to be fleshed out and fully investigated.

What’s truly disturbing and sad, is that this may well bring the Governor’s plan some votes: Riley wins support for tax plan from 2 former college football coaches .

Speaking at the annual conference of the Alabama High school Athletic Association in Montgomery, former Alabama football coach Gene Stallings and former Auburn head coach Pat Dye said they supported the tax plan, which voters will decide on in a Sept. 9 referendum.

“You know the reason we’re going to vote yes on Sept. 9? It’s the right thing to do,” Stallings told group of high school football coaches from around the state.

Kieran at Crooked Timber frames a counter-argument to Daniel Drezner very well on the uranium from Niger debate.

Dan can be relied on to have made as well-argued and well-supported case for war as possible, but at this point I really don’t care what it was, for the same reasons the hawks had no time for the “Not In My Name” line. The substance of the President’s case for war is what matters, and it had everything to do with “the WMD issue.” If that case was built on a series of lies — immediate threat, 45-minutes to deployment, uranium from Niger and all the rest of it — then that is something to get exercised about.

That’s the point that the other side is missing, we’re not saying that the Niger debate is the one and only error. We suspect it is one of many. That’s the issue, and it is not insignificant.

UPDATE: James Joyner has a post that has drawn attention based on this same exchange.

Don’t forget to check out the OTB Caption contest. It’s fun with GW.

Daily Kos links to some information that has been uncovered by Judicial Watch. As he points out the mere fact that these documents were included is strong evidence that there was a link.