Replies

Too bad Bush didn't use some other logic than WMD's.

Maybe, but there are always tradeoffs in life. If he hadn't "used" WMD as the "logic", he wouldn't have been able go through the UN at all (because that's what the "resolutions" were about), which would have meant no help from Tony Blair and Britain (since Blair evidently thought at least attempting to use the UN was necessary for him politically), which perhaps would've meant more dead American soldiers.

So, take your pick: increased American casualties, or decreased American casualties + yapping critics afterwards. Hmm, toughie.

The WMDs existed in 1998. There was no accounting provided regarding the disposal of the quantities indicated at that time. Therefore, in the absence of any credible evidence of their destruction, the WMDs still exist somewhere.

Let us hope their existence is not revealed by a massive terrorist attack on Berlin or Paris or Riyadh or Tokyo.

When none are found it gives the impression that he committed a breach of the truth (lied like hell).

Except for all of that circumstantial evidence that has come up during and after the war. The anti-Bush crowd likes to pretend that that evidence doesn't exist. Doesn't fit their agenda.

Mobile labs
Caches of atropine vials
Caches of chem/bio suits
Large amounts of mustard and cyanmide in the Eurphrates
Large stocks of suicide vests

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:

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.

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.