Anti-Bush Assumptions May Be Disproved---Then What?
John Fund pens an interesting political commentary that the Democrats have staked their credibility upon 3 assumptions:
1. Bush lied about Saddam being a threat.
2. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
3. No progress is being made in Iraq.
In each case there is mounting evidence that these assumptions will be proven false.
Fund explains that there is significant development in evidence requiring further analysis to disprove No.2 above about WMD. However, bureaucratic reasons control the investigation. Fund explains:
The CIA was unable to complete its probe due to instability in Iraq, but it held out the possibility that an "unofficial" transfer of WMD might have been secretly conducted, with WMD material either shipped out of Iraq into Syria or destroyed by another country after being flown there.
Since then, the Iraq Survey Group has been inactive even though a continuing stream of credible sources have come forward with clues of where evidence of WMD material might be. Some administration officials now appear to be reluctant to investigate further, in part out of fear that any fresh discovery might lay the White House open to charges that lax U.S. security could have allowed the insurgents to get their hands on highly dangerous material. Some Pentagon officials have actively discouraged further investigations. But even with no official approval, some U.S. servicemen continue to explore promising leads about possible WMD sites or out-of-country transfers on their own. Many believe such tips will eventually bear fruit.
The bold sentence is particularly galling. Wouldn't we rather know that they existed and where they are or allow political opponents to devalue to operation? If WMD pose a threat to the US, we would like the information. No doubt, there would be criticism made of the administration. Why did we allow so much cross border activity before and during the initial phase of the war?
As I have written, our biggest mistake was to provide Saddam the time to prepare a cleansing of the evidence and a potential supply for our enemies in or outside of the Iraq borders. But this is important information to know. I also suspect the relocation of the WMD would implicate some allies (Russia, China and maybe France) and force public opinion towards questioning the lack of action against Syria or Saudi Arabia. That would complicate international relations.
The truth will be known eventually.
Turning to Fund's point in the political ramifications of the ultimate rebuttal of each assumption, whether Dems are found wanting or not, they have openly stated that they will never act to defend the country until they have incontrovertible evidence of an enemy's likely dangerous intent. They may even mean they would still not attack an enemy until we were attacked first. Neither position should be acceptable to the American public looking for protection by the government---the most important if not only obligation it possesses.