Saddam's vanishing arsenal. (Insider Report).
In the invasion's aftermath, the Bush administration has quietly revised its claims by insisting that the attack was justified, not by Iraq's existing arsenal, but by the possibility that the regime might someday acquire WMDs. Citing an unnamed administration official, who continued to defend the invasion of Iraq as a justifiable "pre-emptive strike," the Herald reported that the administration "never expected to find a huge arsenal ... [but was] more concerned about the ability of Saddam's scientists--which [the official] labeled the 'nuclear mujahidin'--to develop WMDs when the crisis passed."
"This represents a clearly dramatic shift in the definition of the Bush doctrine's central tenet--the pre-emptive strike," continued the Herald. Initially touted as a way of dealing with clear and present dangers from WMD-armed "rogue states," the newest version of the Bush doctrine supposedly justifies attacking "a nation which simply has the ability to develop unconventional weapons."
Confirmation that Saddam's regime probably did not possess WMDs came from Lieutenant General William Wallace, commander of the U.S. Army's 5th Corps in Iraq. According to the May 9th Sydney Morning Herald, Wallace said that while there is documentary evidence that Iraq was seeking to develop chemical and biological weapons, U.S. forces had found "no evidence of [Saddam] trying to employ them directly against U.S. troops."
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||The New American|
|Date:||Jun 2, 2003|
|Previous Article:||Bush, Senate back NATO expansion. (Insider Report).|
|Next Article:||Strip-mining the U.S. economy. (Insider Report).|