The Boy Who Cried WMD

Eight weeks. And still no sign of the damning weapons of mass destruction. Where was the threat that was so dangerous that we had to spend billions of dollars and the lives of U.S., U.K. soldiers and 5,500-7,200 Iraqi civilians (as of current estimates)?

As this shakes out and the country wakes up (hopefully) to the wool that was pulled over their eyes concerning the Iraq situation, what happens next time when there is a legitimate threat? I have two speculations on that:

1. The citizenry and congress will be much harder to convince of the seriousness of the threat. And, if the threat is legitimate, this could be costly to the U.S.
2. The administration will do nothing about it because we prefer to flex our military might on worn down shabby armies that hide in caves or have been starved of resources by years and years of sanctions.

The latest essay I read out of Lewis Lapham's Theater of War paints a pretty damning picture of the CIA. The essay was written before the September 11th attacks, and mentions the many things the agency has gotten wrong over the years (including the idea that the peasants would rise up and join us when we tried to invade Cuba - sound familiar?). When our enormous military machine gets fired up for whatever is next, how can we trust the reasoning and decision making behind it?

Some readers might say "So it's been eight weeks. Give them more time!" To which I remind those readers that which was said of the weapons inspectors prior to the attack.

And as another reminder of just how convinced the administration was (or appeared to be) about these vast stockpiles of evil weapons, the Whiskey Bar takes us on an entertaining (and sickening) trip from the past to the present.