Say What You Like About the Tenets of National Socialism, At Least It’s an Ethos

For the second time in the past month, a bi-partisan committee has concluded that there was not a link between Iraq and 9/11. The latest findings have been revealed by the Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC), made up of nine republicans and eight democrats. As opposed to the 9/11 Commission, which was examining solely the events leading up to 9/11, the SIC was tasked with examining the intelligence that led to the decision to invade Iraq.

The committee, in the way of 117 findings, concluded that the intelligence community, primarily the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), was primarily at fault for providing unreliable evidence to the administration and Congress. Among the most damning findings, the committee deemed that not only was there not a link between Iraq and 9/11, there was no evidence that supported a formal relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, a premise that vice president Cheney continues to use to support the invasion.

The committee did, however, find that although an illegal weapons arsenal has obviously yet to have been found, Iraq did possess the capabilities to produce biological agents.

Okay, those are the facts of the committee’s findings. To include that data with what is generally accepted previously, here’s a summary of the findings…

- Iraq did not have an arsenal of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons capable of exacting damage on the United States.

- Iraq did not have any formalized relations with Al Qaeda.

- Although Iraq had the means to produce biological weapons in the future, as they were not actively in relations with terrorist groups and were generally unfriendly with other Middle Eastern countries due to their conflicts with Iran and Kuwait, even if those biological weapons were manufactured, they would not be a threat to the American public.

That leaves only nation building and the spread of democratic ideals to the Middle East as the sole, legitimate reason for the invasion of Iraq. Although many arguments can be made that the world is a better place with Saddam out of power, would the American public, the coalition, including Great Britain, and Congress have agreed to bypass the international community and enact a new standard by which countries can pre-emptively attack each other, just for that reason? My guess is no.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/10/politics/10INTE.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/10/politics/10ASSE.html
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/iraq/documents.html#sicrpt

Headline Quote Movie of Origin: The Big Lebowski
Character: Walter Sobchak
Setting: The Dude (the muse for this blog) reveals to Walter that Nihilists are seeking to recover the ransom money for Bunny Lebowski and that they have threatened castration if the money is not delivered. Walter, astounded that a group of individuals, referring to the Nihilists, can be void of ideals on any topic, compares the group to communists.
The quote is relevant to this story how?: As Walter points out, although many may not agree with National Socialism (or a despotic regime with documented human rights violations in the case of Iraq), at least Saddam wasn’t a nihilist (to use the parlance of our times). Saddam’s ideals may not have been that of the U.S. but who are we to judge? There are many ills across the world and regimes that do not meet our standards of providing basic human rights. Are we going to invade all of those countries as well?

Contact El Duderino at jaipf@hotmail.com.