Plan of the Day: Syria's WMDs

Over at Plan of the Day, there's a brief post on Syria's WMDs that reminds us about Iraq's WMD's and connects the dots to Syria. US and Israeli intelligence knew Iraq's WMDs were moved by the Russians to the Beqaa Valley in east Lebanon.

Go read more, it's a great reminder that the Bush administration understood foreign affairs a lot better than they were ever given credit for understanding.

Get ready for "Kerry lied, people died."

Because on the right, we are vindictive like that...

Word today, John Kerry is saying it is undeniable that there Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Syria.  When president Bush said this about Iraq, most of the liberals who subsequently targeted president Bush as liar were on board for invading Iraq.

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the use of chemical weapons in attacks on civilians in Syria last week was undeniable and that the Obama administration would hold the Syrian government accountable for what he called a “moral obscenity” that had shocked the world’s conscience.

I doubt conservatives are eager for a Syrian expedition at this point.  But what of the general public?  Is there any appetite at all for yet another foreign intervention?  I sincerely doubt it.  And even a few cruise missiles at a million dollars a piece might be too much for voters to stomach in light of things like a Detroit bankruptcy, and Chicago school kids having to go through no man's land to get to school these days. We'll see.  But if WMD's are not found the temptation to start with "Kerry lied, people died", or even "Obama lied, people died." will be hard to resist.

 

Of course if they find WMDs, that's another story. But don't hold your breath.

Dictator Watch - February 14, 2010

The focus of today's Dictator Watch is on the nuclear program in Iran, and the dangerous relation to the threat of terrorists using WMDs on American or other Western interests and/or populations



There's a great video out from the site Nuclear Tipping Point about the dangers of proximity of nuclear anything, to the Middle East because of the possibility of access by terrorist groups.

Compare the level-headed analysis above with the idea that preventing a nuclear Iran of any sort - peaceful purposes or not - makes any sort of sense.

The only way to deter terrorists from using WMDs is to keep them as many steps away from access to the tools to do so, as possible. Iran is not three steps away from Al Qaeda, let alone ten steps away. How comfortable can we feel about Iran's latest boasts of becoming a nuclear power? The answer is that we should feel extremely uncomfortable.

Others disagree. They do so at their own peril. For that matter, they do so at all our peril.

"No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it."

Naive, beyond naive.