Saturday, June 12, 2004

breaking news: WMDs found in Saddam's ass

Via Drudge, the following article: UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after.

This ought to cause some discomfiture on both sides of the aisle.

1. If you've been gloating that we're not finding WMDs because Saddam didn't have any, it'll come as a shock that your old pal, the UN, is reporting that those imaginary weapon systems may now be adding to "proliferation risks." I didn't know imaginary WMDs could do that, but I'll let the naysayers try to bullshit their way out of this. This blog, while not exactly a source of accurate prognostication, has maintained that we will eventually find WMDs. It's been, admittedly, more a matter of faith than of evidence, but I feel that my views will, in time, be vindicated. I took it seriously when Bush said we were in this for the long haul, and he said so repeatedly. The American public tires easily, though, and loses its way quickly. I was against the war, but since we're in the shit now, I see no reason to continue dredging up arguments that have become largely irrelevant. So let's all shut up with the "should haves" and figure out what comes next.

2. If you're a hawk who's been totally dismissive of the UN, this confirmation of the presence and movement of WMDs by the UN, whom you've long claimed we could no longer trust and whose credibility is undermined almost daily at places like Satan's Anus, must be simultaneously welcome and off-putting. After having spent so many column-inches on discrediting the UN, how do you phrase your reaction to this news?

I, for one, have lost a lot of respect for the UN since the war last year. I wasn't truly aware of its impotence, irrelevance, and general corruption until the rhetorical shit began to hit the fan in March 2003, and I was made aware of the UN's checkered history (think: Rwanda, for example; think: current UN oil-for-food scandal, both of which are moral stains being ignored by "the international community" in its lust for tarring American integrity). When someone like Kerry suggests that the UN be given a larger role, all I hear is money changing hands-- the same as when liberals trace Bush's policy decisions back to Big Oil. I'm sorry, folks, but the UN won't do any better a job in Iraq than we're doing. I don't give us many points for the job we're doing, and I still have grave doubts that we'll get the results we desire (i.e., a democratic, possibly-secularized Middle East), but we're in this effort now, and pulling out is a recipe for total chaos.

As for this breaking news, I think it's great. The UN is on my shit list, but I won't go so far as to write them off completely. If I can reconcile US imperfections with US integrity, I can grant that some aspects of the UN might be reprehensible, but it's still capable of intelligent action. So here's a provisional thumbs-up to the UN report, and further, here's hoping the report leads to even more nasty discoveries about Saddam's WMDs.


No comments: