The Case of the Missing WMDs

It seems the anti-Bush crowd has found a new way to attempt to discredit Bush and the war in Iraq. This time, it's the missing WMDs. After the swift liberation of Iraq and the worries of the peaceniks proven wrong, one would figure the anti-war crowd would finally concede. Somehow, the fact that WMDs haven't been found - yet - is supposed to prove the war as unjustified, and make Bush and Tony Blair liars. First the protestors predicted a messy quagmire of a war where thousands of lives would be lost. Massive casualties of both Iraqi civilians and American troops were predicted. As the war drew to a close, they turned to the looting as proof that the US had unleashed chaos and anarchy in Iraq.

After that argument lost interest, the protestors pulled yet another one of their contradictory arguments. They claimed that the US has left a power vacuum in Iraq, leaving Iraq vulnerable to further disorder, and possibly a regime worse than Saddam Hussein. These were valid concerns, except that many of these people also called for the US to pull out of Iraq and hand reconstruction to the UN and Iraqi people. It'd be foolish to give immediate control back to the Iraqis right now, in the current state of Iraq. Doing so would only let theocratic Shiites. Coalition troops carried out this war, so why abandon it now and listen to outsiders? Let the US be in full responsibility, so that in decade or two, if something worse does arise, the US can be held accountable. This might be why those who opposed the war, now demand a multilateral reconstruction, or immediate Iraqi control. They want reconstruction to be botched, so in the end they can act as if they were right all along.

Their latest attempt to discredit the liberation of the Iraqi people comes from the missing WMDs. Some have even called for the impeachment and investigation of Bush and Blair!

Excuse me? The debate was never whether Iraq has these weapons. This was fact, acknowledged by even France, Germany, and the rest of the UN. It is a documented fact that he had WMD during the Gulf War, and had them as reported by UN inspectors until 1998. The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) had confirmed that he possessed, and had repeatedly used chemical and biological weapons. There's no doubt he had these WMDs. Since the Gulf War, UN inspectors have confiscated nearly 700 tons of chemical weapons and agents, nearly 50 Scud missiles, and many traces of biological and chemical agents. Had UNSCOM and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors not closed the operation of Hussein's nuclear facilities, Israel not bombed one of Iraq's nuclear reactors in 1981, and the Gulf War not occurred, it is highly probable that Iraq would have nuclear weapons today. Prior to being halted in 1998, all previous inspections for these weapons had not been effective; inspectors had been frequently blocked and denied access.

The debate to go to war was never about determining if Hussein did possess these weapons. Based on these past UN inspections, and his bold use of WMDs against the Kurds, Shiites, and Iranians, the world knew he possessed WMDs. Instead, the war was about the proper way to disarm Hussein, and to ensure he wasn't building new weapons. It was also about the proper way to punish Hussein for violating some 17 UN resolutions, including Resolution 1441, passed unanimously in November 2002 by all 15 members of the Security Council. Peaceniks seem to have forgotten this fact, as if his possession of WMDs was uncertain all along.

Iraq, shortly before and after the Gulf War, even admitted to having a large cache of various WMDs. Hussein soon went on to claim that he had destroyed most of his weapons, when threatened with UN inspections. If Hussein was honestly disarming Iraq and destroying his WMDs, then why did he refuse inspections, and refuse the UN to oversee the destruction of his weapons programs?

Secondly, WMDs were never the sole reason for going to war. This is obvious by looking back at the speeches of Bush and Colin Powell. It had been clearly stated that the liberation and freedom of the Iraqi people from a repressive regime, and Iraqi sponsorship of terrorism were key factors. Establishing a stable democracy in Iraq will open the floodgates in the Middle East. Creating a model nation will be a tremendous influence for the surrounding Islamic dictatorships. This liberation of Iraq, and the hordes of Iraqis cheering Coalition troops was not an unexpected or lucky result that justifies the war in hindsight. The US has not used this to turn our minds away from the WMDs. It was one of the main goals from the beginning.

So where are the WMDs? They could still be hidden in Iraq's vast desert. Or, Saddam could have destroyed them during the ample time he had while the Coalition was presenting its case for war. This however, seems unlikely, for revealing this to the world could have easily averted a war. Or, the WMDs may be well out of Iraq by now - into Syria, or perhaps Iran. They could have easily been smuggled out of Iraq along with Iraqi weapons facilities and scientists. Either way, the WMDs exist and the war was never about determining if Hussein had any WMDs - this is undebatable. Nor does this discredit the new found freedom of Iraq from 30 years of Baathist oppression.

This "war of preemption", was really a war of liberation, and a war to disarm Hussein's already documented WMDs. With reconstruction underway, hopefully Iraq will turn out to be a model of democracy in a region so plagued with Islamic fundamentalism

You said:

Too bad Bush didn't use some other logic than WMD's. When none are found it gives the impression that he committed a breach of the truth (lied like hell). After chastising Blix for failing to find any and the fit at the UN, eating crow is hard to do.

Article says:

You did read this, right?

The point to be made is the WMD have been found, but it did not satify the media's requirements.

The various chemical weapons concentrations found in the river on the approach to Baghdad is a good example. It hit the media, flashed, and was gone to long lost archive before the war was over. Test showed Sarin, Mustard and VX gas, if I remember correctly.

Then there is the pesticide issue. Either Iraq has some pretty monstrous roaches, or the pesticides they manufactured that made the troops guarding them show the exact same symptoms as nerve gas exposure were a little overstrength. The troops were not just sitting on top of the drums when they found them, so I would suspect the Iraqi use of dual use technology is at work here.
(Pesticide can be easily converted to a Chemical weapon)

Why hasnt anyone in the media used some imagination and seen the connection between the strength of the pesticides used and the Chem Weapons issue. Pesticides and Chemical weapons sometimes share the same symptoms.It isnt out of the realm of imagination that the Iraqis used pesticide formulas with concentrations enough to kill humans as Chemical weapons.

I suppose the media wants the WMD's found to have big, blaring signs on them with a skull and crossbones that grabs them by the neck and chokes the bejeesus outta them before they declare it.

Most pesticides are nerve agents. They are WMD's for most insects. They are also WMD's for people who use them. There is very little difference between them and VX or Sarin. We have pesticides on the farm that contain small amounts of sarin. As far as the mustard and cyanide they caused toxic levels according to the tests. X-rays contain dangerous levels of radiation but they are not WMD's. What it amounts to is the use that these various substances are used for.

As far as I know, there were no weapons of mass destruction used by the Iraqis in Iraqi Freedom. Therefore there were no WMD's in spite of all the speculation generated before. Bush and his administration made the calculation that WMD's would be used. They weren't and they have been backtracking ever since and diverting to other subjects to spin the reasons we went to war. The lesson to be learned is that war is too important and destructive to be made on speculation.

As far as I know, there were no weapons of mass destruction used by the Iraqis in Iraqi Freedom. Therefore there were no WMD's in spite of all the speculation generated before.

The fact that there were (apparently) no WMD used doesn't mean "there were no WMD's". Not by a long shot.

Bush and his administration made the calculation that WMD's would be used.

So did, essentially, every single person in the Western world, pro- or anti-war. Everyone was saying that Saddam would use WMD against our troops. I certainly thought and feared so. It proved not to happen (seemingly), and certainly I wonder why.

They weren't and they have been backtracking ever since

Who's been "backtracking"? About what? Be specific. Remember that virtually everyone thought these WMD would be used. The fact that they weren't doesn't mean anyone needs to "backtrack".

When you pay for auto insurance, but don't have any accidents, do you need to "backtrack" and "explain" why you were "wrong" to gamble that you would get into some accident? Course not, that's silly.

The lesson to be learned is that war is too important and destructive to be made on speculation.

Yeah, I mean after all, just look at the horrible result we have caused: Hussein out of power.

TRAGIC

I suppose I'd agree that war is too important "to be made on speculation". But what "speculation" are you talking about? Who was "speculating"? Cite your evidence.

Further, war may be "too important", but so is not-war. That is, if you're so reluctant to pull that trigger that you wait till attacks are made on your own soil... uh, that ain't any good either.

There needs to be some kind of balance between the two approaches.

I can't believe the stretches that people are going to, to defend the half-cocked reasons for rushing to Iraq without thinking of the consequences. We have 200,000 troops tied down indefinitely with no end in sight. Sixty billion gone now and billions more to get out gracefully.

I thought it was ridiculous to see the Democrats prostitute themselves trying to defend the impeached President but it is just as ridiculous to see the lengths conservatives(?) are taking to defend their President. After the propaganda was shown to be false, the denial sets in and every sort of theory is advanced to protect the mistruths.

I can't believe the stretches that people are going to

Such as?

to defend the half-cocked reasons

Such as?

for rushing to Iraq

"rushing"? It took a damn year and a half.

without thinking of the consequences

Who says we "didn't think of" the consequences? I thought about them quite a bit. (Still supported the war.)

Deciding to do something is not the same thing as "not thinking of the consequences of" doing something. It's possible to ponder the consequences of doing something and still decide that, on balance, it's worth doing.

How strange that you didn't know any of this.

We have 200,000 troops tied down indefinitely with no end in sight.

As we knew we would. Nobody said the war on terror would be easy; Bush has repeatedly warned us that this would be a long struggle.

Sixty billion gone now and billions more to get out gracefully.

Billion what? Oh, money. Yes, it's expensive to fight a war.

but it is just as ridiculous to see the lengths conservatives(?) are taking to defend their President

Who are you talking about?

Can't be me. You can go back and read Post #31 and #22 (to you!) where I advise you to vote against Bush.

On other threads I've even stated that if he is proved to have lied then I'd have no problem with him being impeached.

After the propaganda was shown to be false,

What "propaganda" is that, specifically?

What was "shown to be false", specifically?

the denial sets in and every sort of theory is advanced to protect the mistruths.

Ah, you're the guy who kept using the word "mistruth". Now I remember you.

Is "mistruth" even a real word? Is it the same as "untruth"? In any event, I remember asking you long ago to tell me precisely which "mistruths" you think were told. For some reason you never did, you kept on posting to other people but not to me. Odd.

Which "mistruths" were told and how do you know that they were "mistruths"? Please be specific.

Your points are well taken, however I will disagree with the gist of the argument. That doesnt mean I dont respect your opinion.

You are a veteran and so am I. I hate war just as much as the next guy, and I think its the stupidest thing the human race does to itself.

I dont support President Bush when he is wrong, but in this case I support him fully. Read some of my Israel policy posts and you will see proof of that.

I think the mass graves are proof enough for me that we did the traditional American thing of promoting freedom. I think the Iraqi's joyfully pulling down statues of the idiot were also enough. I think the revelations of the horrors that the people over there endured are also enough.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.