Skip to comments.No WMDS? So What! (NY Post Editorial)
Posted on 05/27/2003 11:24:40 AM PDT by NYC RepublicanEdited on 05/26/2004 5:14:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
U.S. troops and intelligence agents have had weeks now - weeks! - since Baghdad fell to find the weapons Washington said it had. And yet - nothing.
Actually, it's not hard to imagine at all.
Despite several promising leads, the Bush folks have yet to produce any smoking (or, happily, not-yet-smoking) nukes, bugs or chemicals.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
He did. If you listened to any of his speeches on Iraq, he certainly did mention how brutal SH was to his people, the torture, rape, etc.
If so, he might have lost some supporters - right-wingers, maybe who cared less about humanitarian goals.
I can only speak for myself, but this right winger cares about humanitarian goals, and I doubt that I'm alone.
And gained some - left-wingers who cared more about those goals.
Left wingers have shown with their reaction to our action against Iraq that they don't care about humanitarian goals; they just give lip service to caring.
Some of us predicted last year that no WMDs would ever be found in Iraq. We were told that we were just a bunch of nay-sayers, and that after the war was over we would learn how wrong we were.
As soon as I see a newspaper like the NY Post printing editorials that contain irrefutable (i.e., unprovable) reasons why these weapons might not be found, I know I've been vindicated on this one.
You forgot to add "in the month after the war ended".
I predict that weapons will be found. I'll give our efforts 12 full months before I declare there aren't or weren't any WMD's.
People have short memories, or perhaps, they just want to find any excuse they can to attack this president. We did not go into Iraq because they had WMDs. We went in there because Iraq repeatedly violated the 1991 cease-fire agreement and the U.N. Security Council was not willing to do anything about it except play the Hans Blix shell game. We had no idea if Iraq had WMDs or not. Yes, our thinking was that they had them. But how could we know for sure unless Iraq gave us complete and total access to the entire country?
Since the 1991 cease-fire (yes, we have technically been at war with Iraq since that time), the U.N. has passed over a dozen resolutions which Saddam repeatedly thumbed his nose at.
We know that Saddam had WMD's in the past and used them against his own people. This is why at great expense, we have maintained no-fly zones over north and south Iraq - so that Saddam could not commit mass-murder against his own people.
We also know that Saddam had a history of making unprovoked attacks against other countries (Iran, Kuwait, Israel). We'd be nuts to leave him in power after 9/11 and sit around waiting for him to attack a fourth (which might well have been us).
I had a feeling that people would jump all over Bush if no chemical weapons were immediately found. But I still think he did the right thing and I think eventually we will learn that they did exist. I would not put it past Saddam to have ordered the destruction (of movement out of the country) of all WMD's in the months before the war, knowing that Bush would be embarrassed (or even hounded from office) if none were found. God know they had enough time, with all those months of wrangling with the UN. All of this will come out over time. Those who are gleefully sticking it to Bush today might well have egg on their faces tomorrow.
First of all, violation of 1441 and the WMD argument are one in the same. Secondly, it was not up to us to find WMDs, but Iraq to prove it did not have the WMDs that were unaccounted for...they failed...even according to Blix.
Dr. Blix detailed the following breech's of 1441:
Failure to account for WMD and WMD Programs known to exist as of 1998 when UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq: (Iraq has failed to account for 1,000 tons of chemical agent, long-range missiles and biological agents outlined in his earlier report as 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent.) "How much, if any, is left of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programmes? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed. Another matter and one of great significance is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented."
"I referred, as examples, to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles, and said that such issues "deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside". The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions. This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions."
Also...another reason we may not be able to find anything...
According to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, the scientist also claimed that Iraq destroyed and buried chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment days before the war began March 20. The scientist told military officials that several months before the war, he watched as Iraqi officials buried chemical precursors for weapons and other sensitive material to conceal and protect them for future use. He said stockpiles of deadly agents and weapons technology had been transferred to Syria in the mid-1990s. Four days before Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum in March, the scientist said Iraqi officials set fire to a warehouse where biological weapons research was conducted.
IMHO, Blix had 5 months and the left was willing to give him more time, they should at least extend the same consideration to Bush. These bozos were hollering about "no WMDs" 15 minutes after the statue toppled.
That is not the case at all. The justification for the war was that the Iraqis were not cooperating with the U.N. Security Council resolutions and the Security Council was not adequately enforcing their own resolutions. Why do you think we wasted all that time farting around with those guys, trying to get them to do their jobs?
That's the price the U.S. paid to get Great Britain on board.
It's hard to make the case here on FreeRepublic that Iraq's violation of U.N. resolutions constituted legitimate grounds for war, since most of us here never gave a rat's @ss about the U.N. to begin with.
And that, I think, is the long and the short of the story.
The burden of proof is being put on the wrong man.
Nothing new about that, of course--essentially the same story as 900 FBI files being accessed illegally, then saying that no harm was done. But that can never be proven, and it should never have been suggested that the victims had any obligation to try. x42 deserved impeachment simply for instituting a system which in fact did access those files wrongly, and for not punishing anyone for that behavior. And firing Craig Livingstone doesn't count as "punishment", not when Chuck Colson went to jail for a year for one count--not 900.