December 06, 2003
ADAMS JUSTIFIES SELF
Phillip Adams leads with his chin. Well, one of them, anyway:
As George W. Bush sinks slowly in the West ...
Wrong. Bush is rising, this week hitting 61% for job approval and 72% personally. The rest of Phil’s column is similarly arsefaced, including so many easily dashed assertions as to be a Fisking 101 assignment for special children. One example:
It’s now clear that only one man was honest about WMDs in the run-up to the war. Not Bush. Not Blair. Not Howard. It was, of course, Saddam Hussein, who denied having them.
Adams trusts Saddam Hussein. Just consider that for a moment. Of course, the murdering bastard lied for years:
For seven years following the Gulf War cease-fire, Saddam Hussein claimed he did not possess weapons of mass destruction. And for seven years he lied. The routine, as described in detail by U.N. weapons inspectors, was simple: Iraqis told inspectors they had no mustard agent and then expressed their profound shock when quantities of mustard were found; Iraqis told inspectors they had never weaponized VX nerve agent and then feigned surprise when inspectors found weaponized VX nerve agent. And on it went. In the process, we learned that Saddam Hussein had constructed elaborate concealment mechanisms--the Iraqi regime spent a decade working to ensure that prohibited weapons' production was kept quiet. Still, black market procurement efforts continued unabated, and when inspectors were kicked out in 1998, the Iraqi regime had failed to account for vast quantities of its WMD stockpiles.
None of this registers with Adams. He’d be content to see Iraq once again subject to the reign of a killer. And he insists that his version of history is correct:
Though shouted down at the time by the Conservative chorus, this column predicted much of what would happen in Iraq - as did the writings of the like-minded. As did the millions who marched against the war. Yet Howard still talks as though the Coalition of the Willing has been entirely successful. If this is success, try to imagine failure.
That’s easy. I just imagine you, Phillip.
Posted by Tim Blair at December 6, 2003 03:36 AM
Yes, I remember some of those preditions, too. Millions of refugees, hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded civilians, months of hand-to-hand combat in Baghdad. Thanks for reminding me of what an oracle you are, Phil.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at December 6, 2003 at 05:09 AMThe photo of Phil - was he getting an award from the International Committee of Children Petulantly Refusing To Listen to Their Parents?
Posted by: Lileks at December 6, 2003 at 06:32 AMPretty sure Adams also predicted that if the US couldn’t find weapons of mass destruction, they would smuggle some in and plant them. Inside a fake Turkey perhaps...
Posted by: matt at December 6, 2003 at 07:29 AMDunno James---check out the banner on the podium. A hooded white figure towering over a black figure while raising a sword. Does Australia have the KKK?
Posted by: Angie Schultz at December 6, 2003 at 08:17 AMOne thing that Phil Adams doesn't explain:
Chirac and Schroder both, like Bush, Blair, and Howard, repeatedly said Iraq had WMDs. If claiming Iraq had WMDs was not honest, then why were war-opposing Chirac and Schroder lying?
Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at December 6, 2003 at 08:28 AMPretty sure Adams also predicted that if the US couldn’t find weapons of mass destruction, they would smuggle some in and plant them. Inside a fake Turkey perhaps...
If the Coalition of the Willing had really not believed that there were WMD,
I am sure that they would have smuggled some it.
Pretty sure there's a dealer in Europe who could supply the right make and model.
Posted by: Peggy Sue at December 6, 2003 at 08:46 AMwhat is it with latho and phildo and their nads? a man with his hand in his pocket is always on the ball...
Posted by: roscoe at December 6, 2003 at 09:01 AM"It’s now clear that only one man was honest about human shredding machines in the run-up to the war. Not Bush. Not Blair. Not Howard. It was, of course, Saddam Hussein, who insisted they were used as euthanasia devices for participants, who doubtless were completely willing."
Buying the lies of an ousted genocidal psycho just doesn't click, does it?
Posted by: donnyc at December 6, 2003 at 10:30 AMPhillip Adams, 2nd degree black belt. He's perfected the art of blocking punches with his face.
Posted by: Roger Bournival at December 6, 2003 at 10:50 AMIt’s now clear that only one man was honest about WMDs in the run-up to the war. Not Bush. Not Blair. Not Howard. It was, of course, Saddam Hussein, who denied having them.
At least Philip is saying what others merely think but aren't honest enough to say.
One of my thoughts about the consequences of there not being any WMDs in Iraq was "Sheesh, does this mean that child-loving Scott Ritter was correct?"
Posted by: Andjam at December 6, 2003 at 12:25 PMThe premise of Iraq having WMD that were deployable within 40 minutes or so was obviously wrong. I think it is entirely reasonable to find out why the intelligence on such things was so out of wack - no problem with that. If there was significant government pressure on them to sex it up then no problem in exposing that either. If the outcome of this is that we have better intelligence in the future then great - no problem with that.
However I wish that people like Adams could just for one moment stop indulging in "I told you so's" and offer some intelligent points for a change. I am sorry to see that this is not possible but I guess you cant teach an old dog new tricks.
One of the worse dictators in modern history is gone, no more political killings, torture chambers, rape rooms and god knows what other vile things they were up to. How can he not be happy about that? Isn't he supposed to be for human rights? Cant he find at least one positive from this?
At the very least I think that old Phil can be held up as an example of what not to become. So blinded by your own view of the world that you cannot see anything but darkness and hate - in his case for Bush/Howard (insert right wing politican here).
Posted by: Rob at December 6, 2003 at 01:23 PMThe problem with that Weekly Standard snippet is that it's wrong in several respects, and clearly biased. The "weaponised VX" was declared so by the US and no-one else, despite being studied by France and Switzerland as well. The "decade" of work on prohibited weapons turned out to be bullshit fed to the Americans by lying defectors. The inspectors were never "thrown out", they were withdrawn so they didn't get bombed. "Vast quantities" actually means about 10 minutes worth in any conflict, easily accounted for by Saddam's minions lying to him about Iraq's capabilities.
As well, UNSOM's "discoveries" should be looked at in the context of the proven stacking of the organisation with spies acquiring target information.
Of course, now that the US has the run of the country, there are STILL NO WEAPONS!
Oh well, if France and Switzerland said so, then it must be true. We know the superiority and purity of anything that comes out of those two fine countries.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 8, 2003 at 09:46 PM