The Real Intelligence Failure: What if it turns out Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction?

Opinion Journal ^ | 08/05/03 | FRANCIS FUKUYAMA

[Pokey78]

The media has been focusing obsessively on the relatively minor issue of how an incorrect assertion about Iraq's nuclear ambitions got into the president's State of the Union speech. In doing so, it has missed the much larger issue, which is that of Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction. The inability to locate these weapons is vastly more consequential to American credibility than the fact that the White House staff failed to vet 16 words in a single speech. The missing weapons reflect a much more fundamental institutional intelligence failure.

[cyborg]

Maybe it's watching World Vision or something... I don't know could be me but I always thought liberating people from misery was a GOOD THING.

[RLK]

The Real Intelligence Failure: What if it turns out Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction?

---------------

I doubt that he did.

[MissAmericanPie]

"The Real Intelligence Failure: What if it turns out Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction?"

When we shoot Saddam they can search his pockets for them. Who, besides treasonous liberals, gives a rat's patooty if there are WMD's or not? Attacking Afghanistan and Iraq has put terrorist organizations on the run, all but eliminating them. That was the goal and it has been a touch down all the way.

[umgud]

What if it turns out Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction?

Then he is the stupidest man in the world to loose his country and his seat of power over something he didn't have.

[RLK]

I don't know could be me but I always thought liberating people from misery was a GOOD THING.

--------------------

It is a good thing. However, that was not the original stated purpose of the war. The attempt is being made to substitute that argument as it becomes clear the original stated purpose was not justified. We're being suckered with a switcheroo.

[Judith Anne]

Of course he had them. They'll be found.

This article is ridiculous.

[ladyinred]

It isn't that he didn't have them, however it might be that he had plenty of time to destroy and hide them. No way he had none at all.

[vbmoneyspender]

The original purpose was regime change based on Hussein being a murderous thug who was a long time sponsor of terrorism. WMD's didn't become a major focus of the debate until Blair got involved in October of last year.

[supercat]

Then he is the stupidest man in the world to loose his country and his seat of power over something he didn't have.

Yes, but the premise of the article is that Saddam believed he had usable weapons of WMD's, because his own people told him so. Interesting notion.

[cyborg]

I think we took too long personally. However, what are we going to do about North Korea and Saudi Arabia? I'd like to have a bit more clarity on the topic.

[Jerez2]

He did have them. We have found them. The way they use them is to mix the chem or bio ingredients on-site then put them into the weapons. We have found the ingredients, the weapons, and the mixing facilities (the mobile labs).

This is a moot question. It is time to stop asking it.

Just like Mr. Fukuyama's (cq) previous stupidity:
"The End of History." Yeah. Right.
It is wrong on its face.

[Reagan Man]

>>>We're being suckered with a switcheroo.

Keep up the leftwing propaganda. You sound like a good liberal. LOL

[RLK]

When this mess started 9/11 was the central issue and was supposed to be the central issue. Somewhere it's been lost. I keep hearing "but" arguments. But Saddam was a tyrant. But kid kids were perverted sadists. But...but...but... That was not what this was supposed to be about.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Look in Syria.

[vbmoneyspender]

9/11 was and is about preventing terrorists from destroying us. Terrorists cannot effectively operate without state sponsorship. As a result, the focuse of our war on terrorism has been to go after the state sponsors of terror. First on the list was the Taliban in Afghanistan. Second on the list was Hussein. Third on the list is either going to be Iran or North Korea. This is pretty simple stuff and the only people I see trying to complicate the matter are liberals who apparently have a death wish.

[RLK]

I think we took too long personally.

-----------------

Hussein should have got two more days of Schwartzkopf the first time around. That would have ended it there. However, Bush the First didn't have the belly for it.

[pierrem15]

Succinctly stated.

Thanks

[lepton]

And why have U.S. forces, with complete access to the country, not been able to find evidence of their recent disposal?

Because the quantities discussed could easily fit in a typical Hallmark. Because Hussein was upset enough about the constant leak that regardless of how many people were involved in production, only a few dozen people knew where they were actually stored. Illiterate Iraqis could have been put to work unknowingly moving them by hand, or further, political prisoners could have stored them away before being executed. And because "complete access" is still only a few hundred people looking, while combat operations are still being conducted, with the specter of a living Sadaam, in an area the size of Iraq.

[RLK]

Keep up the leftwing propaganda. You sound like a good liberal. LOL

-------------------------

I am as liberal as Barry Goldwater was.