No WMDS? So What! (NY Post Editorial)

NY Post ^ | 5/26/03 | NY Post Editorial

[NYC Republican]

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.

Imagine that.

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.

[NYC Republican]

As usual, the NY Post editorial seems to hit the nail on the head.

[NYC Republican]

Another viewpoint from the folks at realclearpolitics.com - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html#5_27_03_0757

Their opinions are usuall spot on, but I have to disagree with their overall opinion on this one. Regardless, it's definitely good reading.

[Mr. K]

The only thing I have to say abouut this is that Sodamn Hinsane was even stupider than he looked if he DID NOT have any WMD. Why all the stalling and tactics designed to pi$$ us off?

[alnick]

Maybe Bush should have hedged his public rhetoric about Saddam's monstrous capabilities. Maybe he should have broadened his public rationale for military action (as he eventually did, by the way - "The day of your liberation is near," he told Iraqis - on war's eve).

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.

[Alberta's Child]

Saddam Hussein had years to hide his weapons. And it takes far longer to uncover evidence than bury it. The proof might be underground. Dispersed in streams or mountains. Shipped out of the country. Destroyed. A failure to come up with proof-positive will actually prove nothing about the existence of weapons before the war.

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.

[mr.pink]

Although I agree that it's way to early to be carping about yet unfound WMDs, I find this Editorial a bit desperate.

They're throwing alot of arguementative spaghetti against the wall of debate.

[1Old Pro]

Some of us predicted last year that no WMDs would ever be found in Iraq.

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.

[SamAdams76]

Actually I hope that no WMD's are ever found. For that would mean that we got there in time.

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).

[Conspiracy Guy]

I'm wringing my hands excessively over the WMD quagmire. It's really hard to type like this.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

I assume that most of those who buy this worthless paper do so for the 'security guard wanted' and 'drivers wanted' pages and the sports pages. Everything else, including this depressingly idiotic editorial is just stinking filler garbage. Probably as capable as 'producing germs' as the 2 'mobile facilities' that were 'found' in Iraq.

[Search4Truth]

Reminds me of what Carl Sagan said, "Absence of proof, is not proof of absence."

[SW6906]

Wow, who crapped in your Cheerios this morning?

[SamAdams76]

I don't disagree with any of the Bush comments you posted. Like Bush, I believe that Saddam's Iraq was a threat, did support terrorists (as evidenced by the hollowed-out plane that was found in that terrorist camp, for example), and repeatedly violated the terms of the 1991 cease-fire. Like Bush said, I realize that Saddam has used chemical weapons in the past to kill thousands of his own people. We have film of this to prove it. It stood to reason that if Saddam used them in the past, that he would use them again.

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.

[ravingnutter]

If you read the entire speech, you'll note how he emphasized the threat of WMDs and how little he talked about the cease-fire agreement.

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."

Source

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.

Source

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.

[Mr. Bird]

I am concerned about the lack of WMD, but not because I think I was lied to. I know what was accounted for in previous inspections, and I know what has yet to be accounted for since. That's troublesome.