Instapundit Doesn’t Get It
This series of posts shows the problem with most of the loudest supporters of Iraq. They don’t understand non-proliferation or the real precedent we are creating.
I’m for an attack on Iraq. Friedman and Weisberg make the point better than I do, I’d like to think because their jobs allow them the time. Counterpoints that have been especially well done include Steve Chapman (always a great read) & Michael Kinsley. And let me tell you, the dishonesty of the administration is unbelievable.
Non-Proliferation is a problem we should have been fighting the last 20 years. And some have been like Dick Lugar and Sam Nunn (an unfortunate member at Augusta). Others get in a tizzy over it when they see an example of someone they don’t like–Saddam Hussein.
We can, and should take out Hussein, but another will spring up elsewhere. Controlling fissile material has little to do with him and given the number of times we have found it being trafficked, this wasn’t necessarily going to Iraq. Or at least Iraq under Hussein’s control. Hussein is an issue of a specific threat with a relatively easy solution.
Non-Proliferation is a long-term problem in search of a strategy. Let’s not forget, Gephardt had to scare the administration into including full funding for the Lugar-Nunn initiative back in January. Did you hear about that at Instapundits site? Why not?
Update: This page lists several cases of theft of fissile materials. The confusion between the Iraq threat and the threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons has been completely confused by many in the current debate. What stuns me i s the lack of attention to serious non-proliferation and the mistaken notion that taking out rogue states like Iraq will solve the problem.
ArchPundit