WMD: Whose Fault Is It If They ARE In Terrorist Hands?

8/31/03 | Maryellen Davies

[Wondervixen]

Just a thought...

If Weapons of Mass Destruction from Saddam Hussein WERE moved to Syria (where terrorist organizations can freely get at them) in the days and weeks before the United States Military moved into position to enter Iraq, who takes the blame for allowing it to happen?

Bush, for not acting (against all of the domestic & world opposition) sooner?

The United Nations, for unwittingly stalling operations in the name of pacifist solutions?

Domestic (ie; Hollyweird) Activists, for raising hell over the operation in an effort to prevent action because they're such "important" people who deserve to have the final say-so over ELECTED OFFICIALS?

Dummycraps in Congress, who fillibustered and stalled the operation?

Remember folks, we were in limbo for ALMOST A YEAR from the time we announced our intentions to disarm Hussein until we moved on him. If the Iraqi WMD that Operation Iraqi Freedom opponents ridicule the Bush Administration for not being able to find (or for claiming to exist when they didn't) WERE MOVED to where Islamic terrorists can get them before the war, the fault for it needs to be affixed and whomever is to blame needs to pay a MAJOR price for it!

[Wondervixen]

Not only were the Garafalo's and French annoying as hell in their efforts to stop Bush, their roadblocking caused the very delays that made movement of the WMD possible while the President sought an unwinnable quorum in the World community to join us in getting the job done.

[WestPacSailor]

who takes the blame for allowing it to happen?

It's the Presidents fault, of course. Just ask Madame Hitlery.

[Wondervixen]

Or Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Not-very-bright.

I'm sure their argument would be "Bush is uncouth at diplomacy and any Democrat President could have gotten the quorum within minutes of their first attempt."

[mikegi]

I've always said that the fact that Saddam is no longer in power doesn't mean there is no threat from his WMDs. If he actually destroyed them, which I doubt, then that's fantastic. Until we find them or find proof that they were destroyed, they're still a threat to us.

[BigAndy]

Whilst I respect the perspective of this answer, I am forced to be sceptical because frankly there hasn't been any evidence yet that these WMD's were in Iraq in July 2002 when this first hit the Administration's public agenda. So much is becoming clear from the inability of the British Prime Minister Tony Blair to defend the actions of his government against bipartisan scrutiny. I'm starting to worry now that we didn't have the evidence: if we did, why aren't we supporting our strongest ally - why are we letting him be hung by the British Parliament?

[bulldogs]

"their roadblocking caused the very delays that made movement of the WMD....."


They are somewhere. We will find out soon. I can't believe any reasonable person would believe that these weapons do not exist.

What's a Wondervixen?

[eyespysomething]

I'm starting to worry now that we didn't have the evidence: if we did, why aren't we supporting our strongest ally - why are we letting him be hung by the British Parliament?

Are we?

[Alas Babylon!]

I see that you just signed up today--perhaps to make these very comments? Anyway, not that there's anything wrong with that--everyone's got to start somewhere...

To answer your questions lets go over some facts. First of all, did Saddam EVER have WMD? This is proven, beyond a doubt, as he used them against both the Iranians and the Kurds in the late 1980's. After the Gulf War in 1991, Saddam agreed to destroy all his WMD. The United Nations were supposed to verify this. The question is, did he do it, and did the UN verify they were destroyed? Only the second part can be answered, and the answer is no. The UN never verified the destruction of these weapons. Whether Saddam destroyed them or not, we do not know, and that quest continues even to this day.

To say that the WMD were not there and the British government was lying or duped; well, that ignores everything that had been the topic on Iraq since April of 1991.
The UN knew Saddam had WMD.
Saddam was supposed to destroy them IAW the Ceasefire.
This destruction was supposed to be verified by the UN, via the Inspectors.
The inspections were not completed due to the Iraqis preventing the UN inspectors from doing their job thoroughly (which went on from 1991-98).
The UN inpsectors were thrown out of Iraq by Saddam in 1998.
Clinton bombed Iraq for this in Operation Desert Fox in December, 1998 (during the Impeachment hearings and vote, coincidentaly).
No serious inspections took place from 1999-2002.
After 9/11, the USA through GW Bush fought back against Muslim terrorists, and brought back the issue of Iraq's WMD that the UN were supposed to verifiy after the Iraqis were supposed to destroy them.
Then Bush went before the UN in September 2002 in order to bring them back to enforcing their demands on Iraq vis-a-vis the WMD and verification of them being destroyed.
Finally Bush ordered the Coallition to remove the Saddam regime and the WMD in March.

That leads us to now. Where are the WMD? They did exist once, but are not being found. Who lied? Seems to me the whole issue comes down to Saddam abiding by the Ceasefire he signed and the UN resolutions he failed to fufill. So, we're left with four possibilities:

Saddam never had WMD (we know, from above, this is not true).
He destroyed them but refused or at least wouldn't let the UN document that (That seems crazy, but it is possible--very unlikely though).
Our extensive bombing destroyed them all (There would be chemical/biological/radioactive proof of this somewhere, no?).
He hid them/sent them out of the country. (Most likely in my opinion).

Can you come up with some other ideas?

[BigAndy]

"Are we?"

I think so. PM Blair's Press Spokesman has just resigned following the flak from the Hutton Inquiry that he "sexed" up the Intelligence Dossier. The press has reported that the resignation was pre-arranged, not related to the inquiry, but public opinion doesn't believe it. PM Blair has been personally damaged by the lack of WMD's and his inability to produce credible pre-war evidence that these existed or represented an imminent threat. A majority of people polled in the UK don't trust PM Blair to tell the truth - which is a damning position for a leader to be in.

I'm just concerned that the Administration isn't making available more of the pre-war evidence they had access to (but maybe haven't released) to stop PM Blair being berated in Parliament and to shore up public trust in the one guy who stood shoulder to shoulder with us in our time of need. He deserves better from us.

[BigAndy]

I think you're missing my point: not that there's anything wrong with that either, but I'll try to make it more straightforward.

I am not saying that there were no WMD's. I am expressing a concern that we are unable to support our strongest ally by providing him with the pre-war evidence he needs to restore public trust in him and his administration. I don't understand why, if we had that evidence, we aren't making it available. That raises a question in my mind as to whether we had that evidence.

You're right to say that "Whether Saddam destroyed them or not, we do not know." That's a different position from the one that PM Blair sold to the British people, and that's why he is in difficulties now.

[mathluv]

Of course, we also know that no dim prez would have EVER done anything but talk and threaten, maybe throw a few missiles.

[Wondervixen]

LOL...Ask my husband

;-)

[Alas Babylon!]

I'm afraid you missed my point as well :-)

My point is, everyone (including the French, Germans, Russians, etc--who all had their OWN intel) believed Saddam had WMD. Perhaps even the older evidence collected by inpsectors prior to December 1998 was the proof they were using.

Anyway, we get into Iraq proper, and no WMD! Where are they? Are we truly letting an ally down (or ourselves even) if we thought we'd find them and then we didn't? Did our intelligence fail us all? Obviously, but unlike so many, I don't blame anyone except Saddam. Let's instead focus on where the WMD are, or exactly how/when they where destroyed. The US can't bail out the British because we were all duped as to Saddam's WMD, or as an alternative to this he hid them so well we just haven't found them yet, OR we have found them but for unknown reasons aren't telling the press.

In any case, we cannot come up with a way out for the British if both we and they had bad intel. Maybe one of our other so-called allies knew that Saddam was moving them but fed both the US and Brits with bad intel?

[BigAndy]

My point exactly. We had bad intel and so did the Brits. What that tells me is we DIDN'T have the evidence. And that's exactly what I'm worried about.

We allowed our staunchest allies to follow us into war. PM Blair's clear justification to the British people for this war was that Saddam's WMD's presented a clear, imminent threat to their security. I'm even more worried now we've had this discussion that we didn't have the evidence to support the assertions that PM Blair was making, and neither did he. And yes, that concerns me. It should concern all of us. We can't afford to let our allies down in this way.

[bulldogs]

Lucky Man!!!!

[Gritty]

Let's instead focus on where the WMD are, or exactly how/when they where destroyed.

It is highly unlikely we were duped.

The Administration is putting together a very strong case on these WMDs as we speak and will release it at the appropriate time.

Have you noticed the Democrats have stopped carping on the "missing" WMDs or even Bush's "SOU uranium lies"? This means the word has gotten out - probably through the Dems on the Intelligence Committees, who have had secret briefings - that we have now found plenty of WMD evidence.

So, now they are avoiding that subject and have gone into "quagmire" mode.

[Alas Babylon!]

We can't afford to let our allies down this way.

That's my point. We didn't. We share the same "let down". Removing Saddam was worth it, IMHO. We could've done the same with Hitler, and avoided all the horrors of WWII in the process. If so, who would have known what would have happened then? Once again, we didn't let Blair down, if we ALL suffered from the same intel. Now as others on this thread are saying, it remains to be seen that the WMD are not there. If so, you and I will then have to agree there was no let down for anyone, save Saddam.

[GOPyouth]

Saddam Hussein is to blame if these weapons were moved out of the country. This is exactly what President Bush warned of.

[joesbucks]

Did our intelligence fail us all? Obviously, but unlike so many, I don't blame anyone except Saddam.

Yes and no. Sadam bluffed and bullied his way post Iraq I. However, when he was allowing inspections via Blix, we bullied our way and told Blix he had no idea what he was doing and he was looking in the wrong place as we KNEW where they were. Fact appears, we didn't. I've also heard of the "September Release" of WMD proof by the White House. Tomorrow begins day 1 of that "release". I frankly don't think we will have WMD's. Possibly proof that a program existed. But that certainly is fuzzy at best and fraud at worst. A program may have existed pre Iraq I, but not since or at least in the recent past. For the WMD program "proof" to fly, it needs to have been active just prior to or during the invasion. I don't believe we will find that.

So, yes Sadam in effect did cause an invasion, but also we decided to circumvent the UN's 11th hour inspection with our raid.

[BigAndy]

"It is highly unlikely we were duped.

The Administration is putting together a very strong case on these WMDs as we speak and will release it at the appropriate time."

Once again, this gives me some concern. Didn't the Administration have a very strong case on these WMD's BEFORE we went to war?

I believe we need to support the President on these issues, but we need the Administration to come clean IF they were wrong at the time. As Alas Bablylon! says: "Did our intelligence fail us all? Obviously."

If the Administration were as honest as Alas Babylon! we could help them move the agenda on to the things that really need to get done, like the reconstruction of Iraq. At the moment I feel like we're always trying to defend the indefensible.