President Bush was interviewed for the first time since taking office several years ago. The shifting sands of rationale continue to move, now back to the assertion that we needed to invade because Saddam Hussein was "dangerous." (Please don't take this amiss - remember that this reason was cited before WMD were cited. They didn't come up as a reason until the beginning of the campaign to sell the war to NATO and the UN, around last September.)
One of his statements (cf. this article) did surprise me a bit - "[The weapons of mass destruction] could have been destroyed during the war." If it were that damned easy to destroy them, they wouldn't be so high a risk - the only way to bulk get rid of nonconventional weapons is to set them off. More interesting is the suggestion that some stockpile may have been "transported to another country."
I suspect that there may have been something - not very much, but enough to be worth moving into the Syrian desert. Not enough for the WMD rationale to really be defensible, but enough to make me wonder what's going to happen to any such weapons that may be lying around....

February 8 2004, 23:03:07 UTC 11 years ago
It seems an elite minority has been systematically undermining President Aristide's government. They seem to have the support of many members of Haiti's former army (which was disbanded in 1994 after ousting Aristide in a bloody coup and terrorizing the country for three brutal years). It also seems that, contrary to the Clinton administration, which helped end the coup and restore Aristide, the Bush administration is at best not helping Aristide, and perhaps is helping (at least through inaction) the opposition.
Every once and a while it's good to sit back and realize how much the whims of American voters can affect the fate of people all over the globe. I really, really hope we don't get another four years of Bush Hell.
February 9 2004, 12:53:11 UTC 11 years ago
The interview was bizarre. Very rambly, odd body language, incoherent. Transcripts don't do it justice.
Read recently that Bush's rating actually went down after giving his State of the Union. The SotU wasbad, but not as bad as the interview, BTW. I can't remember *ever* hearing of a President going down after the SotU - it's usually a free ten-point or so bounce.
Interesting...
February 10 2004, 08:54:17 UTC 11 years ago
But they're not Iraq, and DPRK is a greater threat.
Re:
February 10 2004, 19:22:17 UTC 11 years ago
*sigh* And Al-Hayat is posting the story about al-Qaeda buying up nukes from Ukraine again. Not my first guess on the likely buyer for them, but there are an awful lot of those old backpack units not properly accounted for...
Re:
February 11 2004, 06:53:28 UTC 11 years ago
Still, I am nervous about those man-portable nuke units.
February 11 2004, 09:37:54 UTC 11 years ago
We live in nice, relaxing times, no? :)
Re:
February 11 2004, 14:59:37 UTC 11 years ago
Or if the PRC obtained some of those missing Soviet warheads.
Interesting times... yes.
But the world has always been like this...
for many people, the wool has only recently been pulled from their eyes.
Re:
February 11 2004, 21:05:29 UTC 11 years ago
Although this just brings up another old concern, about the god-awful amounts of Cs137 and Sr90 that the Soviets produced. I haven't seen any radiological bombs cropping up anywhere, and that makes me suspicious. I know their security on that stuff was no good...
Re:
February 12 2004, 07:41:01 UTC 11 years ago
like the small pox cultures the Soviets had developed and stored
sarin
etc
February 12 2004, 10:07:40 UTC 11 years ago
I'm sort of getting that sense again now. We have an impressive array of near-apocalypses abroad, and it's starting to feel like even if we defeat all of those, that's just going to force us to deal with some domestic rifts which may be even worse.