Correct.
I think a huge stumbling block in the debate over this WMD issue is that there are really two separate issues involved, and they become confused and conflated in peoples' minds.
One issue is this: Did Saddam's regime actually have any WMD programs? (And if so, what kind? how far along? how dangerous to us? etc.) This and all follow-up questions were important in the domestic debate over whether the U.S. should go to war. But that debate involved other stuff too. And the verdict, as delivered by Congress's War Powers resolution, was "let's not take any chances".
A different issue was: Was Saddam in violation of U.N. Resolution #XYZ? (1441, whatever). This is a different question. The reason we cared about the answer to this question was not because "this was our case for war". It was because it was our case for convincing the UN to pass a resolution endorsing war, and (most importantly) getting Britain in on the act. See, we (the U.S.) had already decided on going to war, and not necessarily for all the same reasons we gave to the U.N. (because after all the UN has no interest in protecting US national security, per se). The UN/WMD/resolution stuff was all about having Britain and anyone else we could get, join us in the war we'd already deciding on waging.
Now, as per the second issue, it was already settled long ago. The answer was Yes, Saddam was in violation of (oh, let's say) U.N. Resolution 1441. For example, Blix found an unmanned aircraft which hadn't been declared by Saddam. BOOM. Violation. For another example, Colin Powell played a tape of Iraqi military discussing how to hide such-and-such from inspectors. BOOM. Violation. (No hiding stuff! Full cooperation! Duh.) Case closed. Resolved: Saddam was in violation, and according to the terms of 1441, force was called for at that point. Nothing more to discuss.
The problem now is, when people hear the second point (yes Saddam was in violation of U.N. resolutions), they try to backtrack and re-argue the first issue (whether Saddam had WMD, whether they were "really" dangerous to us, or dangerous "enough" to justify invasion), as if that hadn't already been settled by Congress, last year.
For example, they will no doubt say "but a drone? Who cares about a drone, if he didn't have chemicals to put on it." With respect to the U.N. resolution issue (drones were a no-no), it DOESN'T MATTER! Or they will say "you say they're bio-labs but how do we know it was used for bio-weapons?" DOESN'T MATTER!
Even if no WMD stocks are found, ever, that doesn't mean Saddam obeyed Resolution 1441. And, with respect to the issue of U.N. resolutions, that's all that counts.
I bet the chemical weapons manufacturing was integrated into the Iraqi refineries. They didn't have to maintain stockpiles, but just reconfigure portions of their refineries when they wanted to produce them.
Also, we did find mobile biological labs but without any pathogens. The seed stock for the pathogens could have been stored in a small refrigerator anywhere. The labs would never be contaminiated with traces of pathogens till they would be actually used to make biological weapons.
Also, I suspect all the technical documents produced by the WMD program could easily have been converted to PDF files and burned onto CDs or DVDs. The original paper documents could be destroyed, while the digital documents would be rather easy to hide.
Yep. Just argue one of those issues till you opponent has sawed sawdust refuting it, then go to the other. When your opponent has demolished the other one, just go right back to the first one as if de nova. Nice technique for setting the opponent's burden of proof to infinity--a specialty of leftists.Nice analysis.