This important and detailed report from the Washington Post makes for unnerving reading. Yes, as the story details, we don’t know for certain whether the reports of defectors are completely true and our satellites cannot determine with complete accuracy whether new buildings and construction are designed to build weapons of mass destruction. So the question becomes: who gets the benefit of the doubt? A dictator who has used such weapons and declared the United States as an enemy or a democratic country that has already experienced terrorist catastrophe? Meanwhile, Tom Friedman balances the Times’ recent relentlessly dovish coverage with the counter-factual omitted from the Times recent story on the economic impact of an Iraq war. What if a victory in Iraq were to lead to far lower oil prices? And what if not tackling Iraq meant at some point we’d have to rebuild Washington D.C. or Manhattan? It seems to me that a critical element in this debate has to be September 11. We’re not discussing hypotheticals any more.
KERRY’S OBVIOUS FLAW: For all the Times’ puffery, isn’t it a critical problem for John Kerry that he voted against the first war with Iraq? If he couldn’t stand up to Saddam and the enemy after a brutal invasion of another country, why should we trust him to defend our security today? I’d say that’s a fatal weakness.
The Dish 