Saddam's scientists did destroy a lot of WMDs, but he kept mum in the interest of "constructive ambiguity."

That's what ex-U.S. inspector David Kay says in this Washington Post story, linked to here via The Seattle Times. (By the way, The Times and other papers I link to here require registration, but go ahead - it's no hassle, free, and well worth it).

The Post story notes, "Kay said the Iraqi scientists didn't have complete records to back up their claims (of disarmament) because the destruction had taken place under pressure to keep it secret from U.N. inspectors."

Pressure from Saddam.

The Post adds, "Kay said he believes Saddam may have been pursuing a course of 'constructive ambiguity' before the war, bluffing about having weapons to provide the illusion of power and serve as a deterrent. 'Saddam wanted to enjoy the benefits of having chemical and biological weapons without having to pay the costs,' Kay said."

No wonder Bush, and many Democrats before him, had to take Saddam's bluff for real. In addition, there were many other reasons, good ones, given for our intervention in Iraq.

And there was that matter of the vote by Congress.

Perhaps it is not surprising then, that a majority of Americans polled by the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press support our intervention in Iraq, despite the hard going.

Anybody wonder why Clark and Dean are fading fast, and Kerry is (yes) doomed?

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 28, 2004 06:35 PM

---

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rosenblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/8

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Playin' poker with Saddam:

---

» mike in brazil from mike in brazil
Interesting.... nice [Read More]

Tracked on August 30, 2005 06:30 PM

» Cum Fiesta from Cum Fiesta
To be honest [Read More]

Tracked on September 6, 2005 03:02 AM

---

---

---

---