Nick of Time

Related Articles

Suicide is the right word

In the print edition of today's Financial Post, the...

It’s the principle of the matter.

It's always beautiful to see logic, science, morals, ethics,...

Not American. Just misinformation.

Yesterday I wrote where the amount found by the...

“Tax the rich?” “Raise corporate taxes?” How about taxing fake charities?

Terrence Corcoran's National Post column today unwittingly picks up...

We should ignore someone here

Globe and Mail opinionator Andrew Coyne says: "How should...

Poll: More than half of San Fran residents plan to ditch

The city known as Liberal-left Progressive Central, San Fransisco,...

“Political” problem my Democrat

Reminiscent of their treatment of Canadian political scandals, whenever...

The Article

This adds yet more juice to my “Joel’s Handy Iraq War Reality Check” that I posted yesterday.

Nick of Time


Thursday, October 07, 2004
By John Gibson
Fox News Channel via their website

For months I’ve been saying, Oh geez, Saddam didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction? Well, then we got there just in time.

It makes sense to me. Based on the notion he would love to have WMD, he wanted to get WMD, he tried to get WMD, he wanted to hide WMD from us and he wanted to use WMD on us, then we got there just in the nick of time if we didn’t find any actual stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

I thought it was one big phew! And an illustration of the rule, I’d rather be lucky than good.

Well, silly me.

The Bush opponents are making a huge noise about no WMD proves we did the wrong thing: There never should have been a war since there was no reason for war.

Well, Mr. Duelfer’s report makes a few important points:

No. 1: Saddam was bribing the United Nations Security Council members with a billion dollars.

No. 2: Saddam wanted the sanctions lifted and was close to getting it done.

No. 3: When those sanctions were lifted, he was going to get WMD again.

No. 4: I guess, the simple point that diplomacy is tough — shall we say, impossible — when the other side is buying off the United Nations.

So once again, after you get past the headline, No WMD and we have no idea why Saddam wanted the world to think he did have WMD, then you get into areas where the threat is laid out in a real way which justifies action against Saddam Hussein.

If our friends the French, the Russians and the Chinese — U.N. Security Council members with a veto — weren’t taking billions of dollars in bribes, maybe we could have counted on diplomacy and the rule of international law.

But since they were all corrupt and greedy thieves, we couldn’t count on diplomacy and the rule of international law.

I ask again: What is the logic behind the argument that Saddam posed no danger and we should have left him on his throne?

Joel Johannesen
Follow Joel
Latest posts by Joel Johannesen (see all)

You can use this form to give feedback to the editor. Say nice things or say hello. Or criticize if you must. 

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Your Message

    Do you Have a File to Send?
    If so, choose it below

    This is just a question to make sure you're not a robot:

    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    — Normally this would be an ad. It's a doggy. —spot_img