Tim Blair

Google doesn't like Bush? Why would I say that?

But not all of those who don't believe that there were WMDs are necessarily against the war in Iraq. And not all of those who were against us going into Iraq are necessarily in favour of us running away now.

"Australian media has shunned this story,..."

It's 'have'. Media is plural.

I'm only reading it because you mention Paris Hilton.

Walter,

Not in Australia, it isn't.

Tim,

Whitlam (cursed be his name) was the one the wanted "media" to be singular as part of his general(and somewhat insane) plan for Australian spelling. I thought you hated Whitlam and everything he stood for - surely you don't support his concept of Australian spellings for words and Australianised grammar?

You can't be telling Walter he is wrong unless you are a closet Whitlamite. Say it isn't so. Please say it isn't so!!!!

Russell,

On grammar, Walter is entirely correct. But the Australian media is a singular entity. If it was a plurality, we may have read a few more accounts of the oil-for-food debacle ...

Tim,

Oh thank God! The thought that you might be a closet Whitlamite was positively heart-breaking.

>But the Australian media is a singular entity.

Then it would be "medium"...

...unless they were accurate and objective, which would be "rare"...

...or you burned their studios and offices down, which would be "well done."

This grammar shit is boring. Let's beat up Andjam.

ok. this 'handjam'. you want i should deal with him?

Walter: "Media is plural".

Surely that should be ARE plural?

So we went to war (partially) over WMD, yet failed to find, or secure, ANY WMDs. People allege that the WMDs have been distributed to unknown parties situated in various countries in the middle east. In what way has the liberation of Iraq reduced the threat of WMD? Taking them out of the decrepit hands of a failing secularist dictator, and, potentially, putting them into the hands of radical Islamicists, is not an advancement in the war on terror, in my view. Please highlight were I'm wrong here, I want to be wrong about this!

Actually, they were in "the decrepit hands of a failing secularist dictator" who had two psychotic sons, funded suicide bombers in Israel, had several Korans written in his own blood, built the worlds largest Mosque and apparently used the UN to bankroll Al-Qaida.

"Walter: "Media is plural". Surely that should be ARE plural?"

No. Part of the sentence is implied and reads in full: "the word media is a plural".

"In what way has the liberation of Iraq reduced the threat of WMD?"

Uh...ever heard of Libya?

Negotiations with Libya over WMD had been conducted for several years prior to Iraq:
Despite much of the commentary on and analysis of Qadhafi's latest move in the mass media, the announcement to renounce Libya's quest for WMD was not a reaction to the war in Iraq as much as it was a continuation of Tripoli's desire to return to the fold. The discussions with Tripoli, conducted through British and American "good offices," have been going on for the past several years. The 19 December announcement has been a component of Libyan policy to graduate from American sanctions that began well in advance of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Furthermore, these discussions were conducted parallel to the Lockerbie negotiations held between the Washington, London, and Tripoli.

But back to my question, how has precipitating the proliferation of WMD, in the case of Iraq, made us safer from the threat of WMD? (Not forgetting the looted nuclear facilities which I'm sure will provide great material for a dirty bomb.)

Btw, monkeyboy, do you have any links for this little tidbit: "apparently used the UN to bankroll Al-Qaida"?

One authorized oil buyer, they note, was a remnant of the defunct global criminal bank, BCCI. Another was close to the Taliban while Osama bin Laden was on the rise in Afghanistan; a third was linked to a bank in the Bahamas involved in al Qaeda's financial network; a fourth had a close connection to one of Saddam's would-be nuclear-bomb makers

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110005011

Well, Bleh, it works like this - for the past several months my wife and I have been in negotiations for me to fix the leak under the bathroom sink (the negotiations being "Please fix the leak under the seat" and me saying "Yeah, OK.") Then the dog puked on our new Persian rug, causing my wife to freak out and scream at the poor animal until I decided it might be advisable for me to get under the sink and start wrenching toot-fucking-sweet in case I was next.

It's called "motivation."

bleh hasn't been around the blogosphere.

Big Mo of Libya - v. Big Mo of America said he didn't want what happened to Saddam happen to him.

'But back to my question, how has precipitating the proliferation of WMD, in the case of Iraq, made us safer from the threat of WMD? (Not forgetting the looted nuclear facilities which I'm sure will provide great material for a dirty bomb.)'

Bleh you are making an assumption here that the remaining WMDs were transfered out of Iraq at the time of the US led invasion. Wouldn't it be more likely that they were shifted during the prior 11 years of the UN program?

Well, Dave, thanks for the trite analogy, but can you give me any examples of a country that the invasion of Iraq has motivated to relinquish WMD? I've already posted strong evidence questioning the single case of deterrence that I'm aware of (I'm happy to debate that - couldn't decipher Sandy P's comment), are there any others?

Robin, ok, that is a possibility. How was invading supposed to help in that situation? What I'm trying to get at here, is the disconnect between our strategy and our goals. It seems to me that securing WMD in Iraq could never really have been a primary goal because invading is counter-productive to that purpose...

Bleh..you answered your own question. There were several goals and several justifications. That's why not (yet) finding stockpiles of WMD isn't a major issue.