« desperately seeking Patriot act supporters | Main | furry lardy demins! »

thought for the day

Here's an interesting thought.

The war opposers are all over the fact that we have yet to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. After all, they say, that's what the war was about. Therefore, they conclude, the war is a failure.

These are the same people who wanted to give Blix an Company more time to do the inspections. Weeks, months maybe even years would be necessary to complete the findings properly.

And here it's been less than a month and already we have failed.

It's sounding awfully shrill out there.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference thought for the day:

» A good point from Amish Tech Support
Michele of A Small Victory makes a pretty smart point These are the same people who wanted to give Blix an Company more time to do the inspections. Weeks, months maybe even years would be necessary to complete the findings... [Read More]

» A good point from Amish Tech Support
Michele of A Small Victory makes a pretty smart point These are the same people who wanted to give Blix an Company more time to do the inspections. Weeks, months maybe even years would be necessary to complete the findings... [Read More]

Comments

It's the sweet sound of hypocrisy.

Despite being against the war. I must concur that it has been a success. I hope that the rebuilding of Iraq, the instatement of an interim government, and the rest go as smoothly.

Oh, and just you wait...when we DO find the stuff, they'll all insist that we planted it there just to save face.

Or they'll say the inspectors would've found that, given enough time. Maybe, maybe not. But if we'd gone that route, Saddam would still be in power, and even if we found and destroyed his weapons (how would we ever know we had all of them?), how would we stop him from making more? More importantly, the Iraqi people would still be living under his barbaric oppression.

We have done the right thing. Even IF, for some bizarre reason, we find no WMD, I'll have no regrets about supporting the war. The world is a better place now. Period.

In the interest of balance the corollary to that is also true, that we gave Blix and company a few months and said they were useless, yet the military is claiming that it might take a year with complete unfettered access. That is if you wanted any balance [grin].

It's sounding awfully shrill out there.

It's about to get a lot shriller. Here's a statement released this morning by North Korea explaining why they reprocessed all those nuclear fuel rods. Guaranteed to set peacenik hearts a-fluttering:

“The Iraqi war teaches a lesson that in order to prevent a war and defend the security of a country and the sovereignty of a nation it is necessary to have a powerful physical deterrent force only.”

Get it? If we hadn't used all that force against Iraq, North Korea wouldn't be making nuclear bombs! They only want peace! Even though they already built two nuclear bombs before the war! And even though they spend what little wealth they have on their military instead of on, say, food! Fuck, it's all our fault! We should never use force again--EVER! FREE MUMIA!

And then of course there's the big rally today in Baghdad where thousands of Iraqis showed up to say "Yankee go home." Master 'Tard Hesiod has already seized upon this one as proof that the "neocons" were wrong. Hmmm. I wonder: can anyone think of any other recent examples of large protest rallies that ended up not reflecting national opinion? I wonder what lessons we might draw from that vis-a-vis popular opinion among Iraqis as a whole.

One thing's for sure: If only we'd left Saddam alone, this rally never would have happened.

Rick DeMent:

No, the two are not the same.

Pre-war:

UNSC 1441 says that Iraq is supposed to lay out for inspectors what it did w/ the WMD that the previous 17 resolutions had said it could not have. It was also supposed to lay out its WMD production plans and programs, including research efforts. Inspectors were NOT there to FIND anything, merely to confirm the destruction of the WMD and dismantlement of the programs.

UNSC 1441 merely reconfirms what was "international law" (to use a bad phrase) since February 1991, and which had been the basis of UN inspections which had met repeated stone-walling and non-cooperation (representinga violation of said law) since February 1991.

So, under "international law," inspections should have taken LESS time (certainly than 12 years), since Iraq was supposed to provide evidence of program dismantlement.

Post war:

US military is now going throughout the country, looking for sites that contain WMD. They are doing so while also maintaining force protection. And they are not content to simply sit and receive documents, nor stand around and be stonewalled. And they've been there A WHOLE MONTH.

If you think these two are parallel or corollating, please explain.

Brilliant!

As I have written elsewhere, only in the conservative bizarro world would not finding WMD be considered irrelevant to justify a war that was justified by the need to find WMD.

Sure, it's a success. We won. We beat up on a third world nation. If that is your definition of success, then its a success. Using that standard, every mugging is a success. Every pimp bitch-slapping is a success. However, if you think not meetings the goals that were said to define success at the outset doesn't have any bearing on success, then you are too far gone in self-delusional wing nut la-la land to be taken seriously.

NC:

" I wonder: can anyone think of any other recent examples of large protest rallies that ended up not reflecting national opinion?"

And I wonder if you are logically consistent, can you then tell me what conclusion you draw from a few dozen people constituting .001% of the population in a city of 5 million tearing down a statue in front of the journalist's hotel in a mostly empty plaza?

Reverend--Naturally I draw the conclusion that there are only a few dozen people constituting .001% of the population of Baghdad who are happy to see Saddam deposed. After all, having been so good to Iraqis over the years, why would more than a couple dozen of them want to celebrate his demise? Never mind reports of more widespread celebrations throughout the country. You've caught me, and so I concede that there's simply no explanation why--during a war, with firefights still going on within the city and no one quite sure whether Saddam's goons might still be nearby--more people wouldn't venture out into the streets to cheer.

Rev-
You've been posting here alot in the last 24 hours. I'm guessing you've written 5-6000 words. Can't get any readers at your site, eh? Please try to limit your comments they interfere with the rich, mellifluous echo-chamber tones that I come here for.

To Rev, the world only unfolds according to his myopia. To him, sure, the statue came down, but it was all just a big photo op consisting of handpicked lackies. He has a strawman to thrust at every perceived strawman thrust at him.

agreed that the u.s. needs to find weapons of mass destruction to stamp this war a success. it may be even more imporatant than finding saddam himself.

of course, with the u.s. goverments long history of corruption and cover up [see pearl harbor as a classic example] their credibilty is poor and by not having found these weapons of mass destruction yet when they do nay sayers will accuse the u.s. of planting them.

inviting blix and his team back to iraq may be neccassary for the u.s. to lend credibility to any future findings of potential weapons.

no doubt they will only be invited on the u.s.' inspection terms and not thiose of the u.n. as previosuly established. those terms will be kept on the down low as most important issues in the u.s. history have been.

the days ahead will reveal an uncertain future...

I personally don't give a shit if they ever find a WMD. The Iraq war has been an undeniable success for one very simple reason: the odds of a Saddamite WMD being used against the US has now been reduced to ZERO as a result of this war.

Case closed.

/jackson

inviting blix and his team back to iraq may be neccassary for the u.s. to lend credibility to any future findings of potential weapons.

you know, whatever the outcome here, will it really make any difference to the blind zealots?

if the US finds WMD, "they" can say we planted them.

if BlixCo finds WMD, "they" can say we planted them there just so BlixCo could find them. why didn't BlixCo find them earlier? because we put them there!

if the US doesn't find WMD, or if BlixCo doesn't find them ... then "they" can say we just destroyed an innocent regime and continue to misrepresent the reasons for the war, just as rev m. does above.

people who hate bush and are anti-anythinghedoes will continue to be so, no matter what evidence they are shown. likewise for the rabidly pro-bush.

blind zealotry.

How long have US soldiers been looking for WMD? A week? In a country the size of Texas? Well, then, it's time to give up the search; there's just no way any will be found.

Hell, Rumsfeld himself said "I don't think we’ll discover anything, myself." (Of course, the next two sentences out of his mouth were “I think what will happen is we’ll discover people who will tell us where to go find it. It is not like a treasure hunt where you just run around looking everywhere, hoping you find something.” But that's inconvenient so Rev can ignore it.)

After all, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That's why the domestic law enforcement tool of "search warrants" should be done away with, doncha know.

Anyhow, when any WMD are found, you just know the good (?!) Reverend will simply claim they were planted there.

I have no useful comment, I just like saying "every pimp bitch-slapping is a success".

Didnt anyone think that the term WMD would go away?Which is better for the world: not finding weapons of Mucho Destrucion` or not having a tyrannical dictator teaching with brutal force his ways of hate?

So where are the weapons? And why were they not used against us in the war?

We invaded Iraq for two reasons.
1) to rid the world of a bad regime
2) to get a better economic foothold in the region.

And two more things will happen
1) Another terrible regime will come along
2) Oil will be cheap.

Happy us.

Yada yada yada.

Yes, it would be an issue if no WMD were found. It would certainly make the credibility of this administration, and Tony Blair, and John Howard, suspect.

But when they are discovered, it won't matter to those who are complaining, they will ignore it the same way they ignored the links between Iraq and terrorism.

Bring up that thought when you're on CNN next Monday. Bet you don't get invited there again. Personally, I'd like to see you on Hannity and Colmes over on Fox. Your intelligence and insight would be far more appreciated there.

Ryan sez:

"To Rev, the world only unfolds according to his myopia. To him, sure, the statue came down, but it was all just a big photo op consisting of handpicked lackies. He has a strawman to thrust at every perceived strawman thrust at him. "

Again Ryan, when only a few dozen people show up in a predominately poor Shi'ite area to pull down a statue in front of the Palestine Hotel were all the journalists are, even you can do the fucking math.

Oh, and if that handful of statue pullers define success, then what do you make of the thousands of people who just rallied asking us politely to get the fuck out of their country?

I will bet dollars to donuts that a few dozen hand picked statue pullers trumps thousands of spontanous Iraqis in the Sick Sad World of Dittohead Liberation.

NC

"Reverend--Naturally I draw the conclusion that there are only a few dozen people constituting .001% of the population of Baghdad who are happy to see Saddam deposed. After all, having been so good to Iraqis over the years, why would more than a couple dozen of them want to celebrate his demise? Never mind reports of more widespread celebrations throughout the country. You've caught me, and so I concede that there's simply no explanation why--during a war, with firefights still going on within the city and no one quite sure whether Saddam's goons might still be nearby--more people wouldn't venture out into the streets to cheer."

I see, and so what do you make of the thousands who rallied asking I to leave?

I hear the spin a coming, coming round the bend...

Cool, so here is how the conservibots play it out:

If we find WMD they are vindicated. If we don't find weapons of mass destruction IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER ANYWAY CAUSE EVEN IF WE FOUND THEM YOU WOULD JUST IGNORE IT ANYWAY AND ITS MORE IMPORTANT THAT IRAQ IS FREE RATHER THAN THE SILLY OLD REASONS WE GAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE...

Fair enough.

Not to change the subject, but remember when Americans were capable of independent thought rather than sounding like extras from 1984: The Musical during the Two Minutes Hate?

So Mr. Mykeru (notice I dropped the Reverend title, as it would be an insult to REAL Reverends who actually WORK for that title), how much crack did you have to smoke before you came up with your fascinating views on the war with Iraq?

Dean,

Happy to oblige. First of all Michele was talking about the "shrill voices on the left". I appreciate the fact that she is not painting all those who opposed the war with one broad stroke. My comments were likewise limited to supporters of the war, the shrill and obviously not as well informed as you, who took the inability of Blix's team to find any WMDs as prima facie evidence of his incompetence. That he was a bumbling fool and there was no point in giving him anymore time because he had had 12 years.

As you certainly know Blix did not have twelve years, he had a few months. The inspections régime was dormant since 1998, nothing had taken place. Nothing had been done. No one even cared until 9/11. The Regime of Saddam Hussein was not even a campaign issue in 2000. Terrorism was not an issue. So it is more then disingenuous to say that Blix had 12 years.

Now people like Rush Limbaugh was one of those who said on more then one occasion that when the US military is in Iraq, unencumbered with the stonewalling of Saddam Hussein, that it wouldn’t take more then a day or two to deliver the smoking gun. (I'm using Rush as an example of the loud shrill and uninformed on the pro war side). I believe President Bush knew better, that the task of finding these weapons would be a long drawn out affair. But then again the administration said they had powerful evidence that these weapons existed. They had satellite photos and intelligence reports, and so on.

Personally I was against the war, but once the shooting started I took the position, as many did judging from the polls, "hey, we're in, let's win" I personally believe that WMDs of some kind will be found, in fact I'm fairly certain on that score. I never for a minute believed that Iraq didn't have any and all but the most uninformed on the anti-war side shared that view. My objection was that there wasn't a clear, urgent and credible threat to the US. (but that is another, and largely irrelevant argument)

Now we were also told, in the early stages of the war, that we had military teams dedicated to finding those weapons. Their mission was singular and unencumbered by the general task of fighting and securing the country. So the argument that the military is too busy doing other stuff is frankly without merit. Personally I think it will take some time, abut I admit that I thought if the goal was to avoid war it would not have hurt anyone to give Blix and company another few months, but again irrelevant.

At this point now I have only one question that sort of bothers me. The powerful and credible evidence that we heard so much about in the weeks and months leading up to the decision to go war. What is the status of those site? Have they been visited? If not, why not? If so what is the status and if they are sites that have been visited and nothing of interest has been found then why. Was it faulty intelligence? Is there evidence they have been moved? If so what it?

I consider myself nether shrill nor hysterical. I have not criticized the administration for it's prosecution of the war which I fully concede is a qualified success. I do think that the questions I raised are reasonable and even people who fully supported this war should be asking them because it's an important issue. If we are going to be making decisions to put troops into harms way based on our intelligence information, it better be damn good don't you think? Also if all of these weapons were moved to Syria or someplace else why is it that our intelligence missed that tid bit of news? Again, reasonable questions I would think.

Caleb,

Well, in the spirit of responding to your thoughtful comments in kind, I must admit that I did not smoke nearly as much crack as I liked, because your toothless whore mother totally bogarted the pipe. Which is just as well, because when she was done it was pretty much spooge-encrusted.

Rev, using your same mathematical ploy, in a city of 5 million people, where "thousands" are now protesting (giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll even say 8,000), that means that .16 percent was protesting. You're right, we should pull up stakes and admit failure. You wonk.

I'm beginning to wonder if our method of intelligence would still be severely compromised if we just happily listed top to bottom where all the WMD sites are right from the start, and a bunch of people are going to wonder "How in the blue f--- did they know all that??" We could be in the process of covertly securing these sites already, and then opening them up later for extensive investigations and inspections. All this takes time. I think it will be few months before we find a smoking gun, but there's no doubt we're going to uncover some deeply disturbing things in Iraq.

As for that asshat Hans Blix, this man had no intention of doing a real inspections program. He purposely buried or otherwise disregarded any findings that favored the U.S. Objective inspector my ass. I believe he was already compromised either by Hussein or France, Germany, Russia (take your pick) Global warming is more of a threat? Ass. At least it's coller now than it was in the Middle Ages. Ass.

Ryan,

The point is that more than 100 times as many people are protesting us being in Iraq than were there for the tight-shot made for CNN while Enya plays promos.

Yet, again, in the strange world of Bush pod-people numbers don't really matter, except when they confirm the prexisting bias.

Or maybe it is a Dred Scott thing where Iraqi protesters are only worth a certain fraction of statue pullers, although significantly less than 3/5ths of a person.

Mykeru,

Please make the effort to remove your head from your ass, as it is so far up that pipeline that it seems to be coloring your mind with a vocabulary of made up nonsensical slang words that only affirm you to be the crack smoker that you are. I would personally volunteer to kick that wide ass of yours in the vain hope that it might induce a fart bubble to free your head and actually enable you to have a lucid thought or two. If not, well then I can't help you.

Love,

Caleb

Caleb has it all figured out: Should WMD be found (of course, not the enormous stockpiles, we shall allow for a little ad hoc mission drift) it will have great significance, should they remain unfound they will just fall under the ETBA (Excuse to be Announced).

Mind if I help with some ready-made excuses:

They are in Syria, Iran or the backyard of whomever we don't like.

They are very small WMD

They are very, very small WMD

Don't you hate it when you put down your WMD and five minutes later it's gone?

They are with the matching socks

WMD? What WMD?

Shut up about the WMD already.

Hey look over there! A WMD? Oh, sorry, it's just Elvis fucking Jimmy Hoffa, my bad.

Oh, look, the cat's eaten it.

rolling eyes

Or, Rev, if you wanted to think of it in common sense terms, maybe, just maybe, more people showed up to protest now that they're certain they won't be drawn and quartered by Ba'athist goons. The very fact they're able to protest at all speaks volumes. But, oh wait, I guess I'm just spinning again.

On to the weekend. I'll be sure to tip a brew to all the wonks of the world, particularly those masquerading as Reverends.

Ryan,

"I guess I'm just spinning again. "

I apologize for thinking absolutely every word of yours was bullshit.

Rick DeMent, Pentagon briefed that the exploitation teams were moving in this week. That makes it a matter of a few days at most. " So the argument that the military is too busy doing other stuff is frankly without merit." Anyone who thinks there are no WMD is ignorant, stupid or lying. Even Blixy baby says they're there or that proof of their destruction hasn't come forth. Scenario: 1998, inspectors leave Iraq. Inventories of WMD have been listed. 1998-2002, Saddam destroys WMD but loses documentation. Right. Uh huh. Sure. If you believe that, I got a nice Rolodex watch I'd like to sell you, special price.

yaj, I fell into the same trap about Pearl Harbor. That stuff has been thoroughly discredited. The item you linked is somewhat circumstantial anyway. If I can find a link, I'll post it.

Oh, and between UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, they had more than 8 years, not just a few months.

Rick,

In our interactions at various web-sites, I have never assumed you were either shrill, nor a fool. I would like to think that you would accord me the same.

As you note quite properly, I do not assume that Blix’s failure to find any WMD is necessarily attributable to incompetence, although his reporting methods DO raise questions about what his approach really is.

As you also properly note, he did not have 12 years. However, I would disagree when you say that “no one cared” about the absence of inspections. I believe the Clinton Administration cared, and frankly, many of us in the biz cared about the absence of information. The problem was that, as of ’98, the Iraqis STILL had not come clean, nor did they give any evidence of doing so. Whether that was an election issue, the reality is that the Iraqis, not Blix, had 12 years to come clean (and that was the reason for the continued imposition of sanctions).

The business w/ the satellite pictures, etc., is the difference between a smoking gun and preponderance of evidence. If you have pictures of bunkers, w/ special equipment outside, that does not DEFINITIVELY prove that there are chemical weapons inside. It presents a preponderance of evidence that there is. In 1962, there was no evidence that the USSR had DEFINITELY deployed nuclear weapons to Cuba. But the missiles, the force deployments, the way their stuff was laid out gave strong indication that such was the case. Of course, it turned out that was true, but the only way to be sure, both then and now, will be to actually find it (or someone who will tell us what happened).

On the issue of dedicated military teams, those teams ARE dedicated to finding such weapons. But while their mission is “singular and unencumbered,” that refers to the team, and not to its operation. Which is to say that they still require the protection of forces whose job is to kill people and break things, not study WMD, test possible finds, etc. It is like saying that there are police officers who are forensic specialists. You don’t necessarily send them into the crime scene ‘til AFTER the bad guys who are there are either dead or in custody.

You ask good questions at the end of your missive, which I believe will be answered. As your posing suggests, you don’t know the answer to those questions. Frankly, neither do I. I believe the coming months, however, will reveal the answer to them.

"No matter what side of the political spectrum you're on, if you are incapable of feeling at least a tiny amount of joy at watching ordinary Iraqis celebrate this, you are lost to the ideological left. And let me also add, if you are incapable of feeling badly that we even had to use force in the first place, you are ideologically lost to the right. And I would inform both of those groups to leave the room now and do not watch the program. It's like ice-skating: We throw out the high score and the low score. The rest of the people, you're welcome at the table."

Mykeru, please remove yourself from the table now. You obviously hold nothing but disdain for the thought of a free Iraqi people, if it means you have to tip your hat to the current administration. You're hopeless in your belief that this war can't bring about a better, lasting peace. You are all that is wrong with the extreme left, shouting into the wind, only to have your hollow words blow back at you time and time again. The only solace I take from knowing that you lurk out there is that you will once again be proven wrong, and you'll be forced refocus exactly how it is you define your hate. You accuse others of spinning, yet you miss just how dizzy you've become as you do the same.

Reverend--I make of the thousands who rallied asking the U.S. to leave that there are thousands in Iraq who want the U.S. to leave. I don't automatically conclude from it that a majority of the population agrees with them. And frankly, trying to deduce that fact by comparing today's crowd with the crowd present at the toppling of the statue is inane. As I tried to explain earlier, the circumstances were completely different. With fighting still going on at the time, with some of Saddam's stormtroopers still around, with the U.S. having advised residents to stay in their homes whenever possible to minimize the risk of their being killed by U.S. bombs, it's not surprising that not so many people would want to dance in the streets of Baghdad just yet on April 9th. Today those conditions no longer obtain so Shiites were able to turn out en masse without having to fear for their lives.

Furthermore, why do you insist on restricting the crowd-size comparison to the crowd that showed up to topple the statue? In northern Iraq, "tens of thousands" of Kurds were celebrating. Don't they count? What about all the reports of Iraqis coming out to greet U.S. troops in the smaller cities or shouting encouragement at them along the highways as they drove past? They defaced a few murals and toppled a few statues of Saddam, too. Just not the one in Baghdad. In fact, let me switch it around on you and ask you this: where were all the big "U.S. out of Iraq" protests in Kurdistan today?

And by the way, what was the subject of today's rally? The message was not "You never should have come here." On the contrary, the reports I've read said the signs were along the lines of "No No Bush" AND "NO NO SADDAM." In other words, they're not protesting the liberation of the country. They're protesting the occupation of it. And when have the dreaded "neocons," as Hesiod appears to claim, ever insisted on a multi-year occupation of the country? If anything, the administration is doing everything it can to get the fuck out of there as soon as possible. That's why Jay Garner is trying to get Iraqis together to form a government even though we don't know what happened to Saddam yet. In fact, the real thing to worry about is that we'll be in so much of a rush to get out of there that we'll leave prematurely, before order has been fully restored and the new government has had time to establish itself, and the country will start breaking apart.

And if that happens, the leftists will turn right around and shriek that Bush should have occupied the country longer.

Mykeru,

IIRC, the three-fifths clause is in the Constitution, whereas Dred Scott deals with the status of slaves who had resided for an interval in federal territories.

As to WMD, naturally we'll be doing our best to find them all, since that's the only way we have to be sure they don't fall into the wrong hands. A lot of the people who know what was where are unaccounted for, and probably have standard of living issues.

NC-
Hey non-blogger, send me an email when you get a chance. I miss my Times, man.

I wonder if survivors of the Holocaust consider World War II a big failure for the Allies. After all, the Brits and French never liberated Poland, and it took fifty years for that nation to gain self-governance. Isn't that what the whole hubbub in '39 was over, Poland?...

Maybe I was reading the wrong history books.

Dean,

Nor do I think you a fool and if that is how I came across I most humbly apologize.

Larry,

There have been military WMD teams on the ground even before the first air raid on Baghdad. Saw it on FOX, has to be true [grin]. The teams of which you speak are bringing in more equipment and people with specialized training, but make no mistake they have been there for some time. But I'm curious, don’t you wonder about our intelligence on this issue? Don’t you wonder if the information was good? After all over 100 of our kids are dead based on that intelligence and personally I'm want every question answered, every "I" dotted and every "T" crossed, and I would hope you do too. Anything less is taking their deaths for granted. Being pro war is one thing, I can respect that, surrendering all skepticism is folly.

Rick, you're right about i crossing and t dotting. I am always skeptical about gummint doings. A dollar will get you ten, though, if we don't find lots of this stuff.

What concerns me is not being able to account for those WMDs that EVERYBODY conceded that Iraq has/had, even Hans Blix. What happens when even THOSE WMDs can't be found? For example, from what I read it was clear that everyone was ware that Iraq had a stockpile of anthrax, the only debate was as to how much of a stockpile they had. Where the hell is it?

If anything, nobody can deny now that Saddam's regime had clear ties to terrorism, including Al Qaeda. Even if some of his WMDs were mild in the minds of a moronic few, does it concern no one that these forms of weaponry in the hands of fanatic terrorists might possibly be a bad thing? I would sure as hell want a full accounting of everything they had.

Reverand as agree, lookout statue zion effx of digit, all medea flag pin! Wepon? Sadam? STATE!@

Matt, the reasons that chemical weapons weren't used against us in this war was the same reason that all of those explosive-laden bridges were never detonated: Iraqi command and control disruption.

Otherwise, I still have to wonder why all those Iraqi soldiers had chemical suits. Maybe they were expecting Coalition forces to drop some Sarin on their positions?

And given that Iraq's use of chem weapons in the Iran-Iraq war isn't in dispute, I also have to wonder why Iraq didn't bother to prove to the UN inspectors that they don't have those weapons any more. I mean, if the Ukraine and South Africa can manage to convince inspectors that they've completely disarmed, it shouldn't be too hard for Iraq, should it? And it would have been an opportunity to blow our casus belli (sp?) out of the water and make Bush look, well, even dumber than you think he is. It also would have been an opportunity to get rid of those sanctions. So why didn't he?

To forestall Rev's likely comeback, no, it isn't proving a negative. Those chem weapons used way back when were manufactured somewhere in Iraq, and they would have had personnel who assembled, handled, and transported those weapons, along with records regarding how much of each agent was manufactured, etc. Also, there should be records regarding what chem munitions were expended, etc. All of those records would have shown when chemical weapon production stopped (at least at that plant); other records would indicate how / where any remaining stocks of chem weapons were destroyed. People would have done the work of destroying them, and could be interviewed to get corroborating evidence.

Nope, I'm still convinced that Iraq has 'em. Still, it'd be nice if a) the news folks stopped hyperventilating at "possible" WMD finds, and b) we'd actually manage to find some.

The US claimed to have information that Saddam possessed WMDs, and used this as a justification for invading Iraq.

After several weeks, US forces have been unable to turn up any WMDs.

This does not mean that no WMDs exist, but it does make the administration look foolish (at best) or manipulative and dishonest (at worst). Sites that were previously regarded as definate or likely WMDs spots have turned out to be unimportant factories or warehouses.

Both Blix and the US forces deserve(d) more time in searching for possible WMDs. It is unfortunate that only one of those two groups has the possibility of getting that extra time.

Ruler, the only "unfortunate" thing is your utter indifference to the plight of Iraqi people under Saddam's regime.

Ah yes, you have so cleverly seen through my simple disguise. I am actually Saddam Hussein, and was posting here in hopes of tricking you all into loving me.

So brilliant of you to see through this, however, and I know I will have to create some new plot to trick all you Americans into becoming Communists.

On a more serious note, when did this conversation have anything to do with the "plight of the Iraqi people?" This is about finding WMDs, and although I'm certain people could be smarmy on the left and right (ooh, civilians are dead / Saddam is Hitler / blah blah blah), its a fairly obvious attempt at a change of subject. This an uncomfortable topic for some reason, perhaps?

Idiots.

You cannot draw parallels between the Blix farce and the current search for WMD's.

Why? Because they were fundementally different missions.

Get this through your heads, you dingbats: Blix was NOT there in a game of hide and seek to FIND the weapons, he was there to monitor, document and confirm that Iraq was disarming itself.

And Blix's job was done when it became clear that Iraq was doing no such thing. Take the scientist interviews that did NOT conform to what they should have been (though this is more of an appeasing Blix's fault than the Iraqi's). Or take the cluster bombs that were designed for chemical warfare. Or take the longer-range-than-allowed missiles. Blix's job was not to hunt down each of these, though he did.

We'll probably find at least some of the weapons, and when we do you will prompty ignore it and move on to the next complaint. Why should we hurry to provide evidence you'll ignore, anyway?

And as for Syria? Its pretty certain that the Syrian government illegally shipped a good number of russian anti-tank missles to Saddam. Are you seriously claiming that WMD could not have been shipped back in a likewise fashion?

We need to get one of those magical liberal pixie dust one-way-only national borders... it would solve our illegal immigration problem in a jiffy.

Oh, and as an aside, I was convinced Iraq had WMD since way back when they tried to purchace atrophine autoinjectors.

Yes, atrophine the chemical is sometimes used for heart conditions, but atrophine autoinjectors (needles designed to allow self-medication) have one use only... for use against chomical weapons.

Pray tell, do you think that Saddam was afraid we were going to use nerve gas on his troops?

Make no mistake... Iraq has chemical weapons.

Hell, Rumsfeld himself said "I don't think we?ll discover anything, myself."

He also said, "We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north of that," last month.

Was he being overconfident, or was he wrong?

Andrea,

Actually, I think he was sorta being funny. Given that Baghdad and Tikrit are close to the center of the country, listing things the way he did basically means that if there are any, they're somewhere in Iraq (unless he meant beyond the borders of Iraq, in which case, they're somewhere on Planet Earth).

Also, iirc, Rumsfeld's comment about not finding any went on to say that he expected to find the people who had helped make them, and that those Iraqi scientists would help explain what happened to them.