Where are the WMD? (Robert Novak)

townhall ^ | April 7, 2003 | Robert Novak

[TLBSHOW]

Where are the WMD?

WASHINGTON -- As U.S. forces closed in on Baghdad Friday, a civilian official at the Pentagon rejoiced at the success of American arms but worried about things that had not happened. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) neither have been used by Saddam Hussein's legions nor found by the invading Anglo-American coalition.

The absence so far of WMD does not diminish justification, in the view of U.S. policymakers, for changing Baghdad's dictatorial regime. Nevertheless, they would like to collect real evidence of weapons. "If we don't," said the concerned Defense Department official, "you can bet the liberals will make a big deal out of it."

White House and State Department officials were saying the same thing two weeks earlier. On March 24, a mid-level Bush administration official told me he feared that modest quantities of chemical weapons would constitute the entire cache of captured WMD, but added that he would be grateful for that much. The official, an early advocate of Iraqi regime change, is not fretting about the decision to go to war but about the global reaction to it.

The real reason for attacking the Iraqi regime always has been disconnected from its public rationale. On the day after the U.S. launched the military strike that quickly liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban, my column identified Iraq as the second target in President Bush's war against terrorism. I did not write one word about weapons of mass destruction because not one such word was mentioned to me in many interviews with Bush policymakers.

The subsequent debate over WMD ensued when Secretary of State Colin Powell, over Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's objections, talked the president into seeking United Nations sanction for military action. Pre-emptive elimination of Hussein would not win over the U.N. Security Council, which had to be convinced the Iraqi dictator was a present danger. Failure to supply hard WMD evidence at the United Nations doomed Security Council approval.

Sen. Carl Levin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee and an opponent of military action against Iraq, has argued a military attack might impel Hussein to employ weapons that he had been deterred from using. But what weapons? He clearly is not close to developing nuclear capability or weaponized biological devices. That leaves chemical weapons, which few military experts put in the WMD category.

When the first air raid sirens sounded in Kuwait City as this war began, U.S. troops hurriedly donned their anti-chemical body armor. The reason stated by U.S. officials why there was no immediate chemical counterattack was that Hussein might be waiting to draw American troops into Baghdad -- not firing until he sees the whites of American eyes. Yet, military experts say it would be less effective for the Iraqis to launch chemical assaults in the close quarters of possible Baghdad urban warfare.

In his daily rant over Iraqi television Friday, Information Minister Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf declared that weapons of destruction would not be part of his regime's tactics in the battle of Baghdad. That could be a truth embedded in a web of lies.

Last Friday, U.S. authorities told reporters that they may have discovered the smoking gun at the Latifiyah industrial complex, 25 miles south of Baghdad. A U.S. Army engineer brigade found boxes of white powder, nerve agent antidote and Arabic documents on chemical warfare. This looked more like a chemical-biological training unit than a real command post, and early testing of the suspicious powder showed it to be explosives.

"If we end this war with Iraq WMD-free, we're in trouble internationally," a State Department official told me Friday. "But I cannot believe that is going to happen. This isn't over yet, and you cannot make such a judgment over just two weeks."

There is, therefore, a double mission for U.S. forces. The primary mission is to destroy an evil regime, for the benefit of the Iraqi people and the peace of the region. The secondary mission is to come up with substantiation of the avowed reason by President Bush for asking the world to remove Saddam Hussein from power. At stake may be the ruptured international relations of the United States.

[poet]

Next mis-direction should read: neat mis-direction.

[TLBSHOW]

I ran into a war protester from my Bomb Iraq thread at the store today. He told me if we don't find wmd we will plant them there. That is the way the left thinks.

My opinion is forget Wmd since no matter which way it goes as far as the liberals are concerned they won't be happy ever. (as far as I am concerned a unhappy liberal makes my day)

bottom line is

The people of Iraq are liberated from that pig Saddam and we are liberated from that pig saddam.

[TLBSHOW]

WAR IN THE GULF: SAS TO SNATCH SADDAM'S SCIENTISTS

Apr 7 2003



SAS squads have been sent into key cities in Iraq to snatch scientists before Saddam Hussein can have them killed to ensure their silence.

Allied intelligence chiefs believe Saddam has scattered his weapons of mass destruction teams to various locations to try to avoid capture.

They fear the tyrant and his sons may order the scientists' deaths rather than risk them revealing the truth about the regime's chemical weapons stockpile.

A special forces source said: "The scientists are top priority, we have to get them quickly. They know where all the stuff is and we want it."

Units of Britain's SAS and SBS will work with US Special Forces, including the elite Delta Force, US Navy SEALS and the Australian SAS.

The SAS source said: "We believe we are close to the hiding places."

Another special forces officer said: "We also have to get the Baath party officials who run the death squads.

"They are a scourge on mankind, as bad as the Nazis."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/page.cfm?objectid=12817335&method=full&siteid=89488

[TAdorno]

We'll find them in one of the presidential palaces which Hussein always insisted were off limits. We haven't searched those yet.

[dead]

The fact is, if Saddam is alive, he cannot deploy these weapons by himself.

He may not have any methods of communications to relay his orders to those that control those weapons. And even if can give the order, there is no guarantee that those in the field will follow his orders. The guy is a douche bag who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. I doubt that has engendered much loyalty amongst his troops.

As far as Cuba and Zimbabwe are concerned, they don't threaten us directly. That is bad news for the civilians who live under those totalitarian regimes.

Our resources are limited, and we cannot save every soul on the planet. Marxists will continue killing their civilians for decades. Those bastards killed 100 million this century, to the cheers of the NY Times and other leftists in this country. But eventually, freedom will out, and liberals will have to find new outlets for their blood lust.

As far as NK is concerned, Kim Jong Il has some decisions to make. He may have looked at Afghanistan as a fluke, but he can't any longer. He has to decide if he wants to be the next tough guy to take on the Amercian military regime.

Jong is a total psychopath. But I think China may knock him back into his box. China doesn't want the US to project their military might into Asia in the way they have in the Middle East.

The bottom line is that US military power is the only force on earth that can bring peace to this planet. Hippies can sing kumbaya till the ozone hole is filled in, but they can't protect my children or yours from being killed by islamic fundamentalists or any other group of blood thirsty villians.

[Leclair10]

Poet, the only people who seem to be complaining are people in the entertainment industry who find it odd that people bad mouthing the country in time of war was actually starting to hurt them in the wallet and the can't understand why.

[Leclair10]

So let me get you on the record now your for a war with North Korea yes or no? No getting around the question yes or no?

[xm177e2]

That leaves chemical weapons, which few military experts put in the WMD category.

The UN definition of WMD includes chemical and biological weapons. The whole pretext for this war was Iraq's flouting UN Inspections.

[Alberta's Child]

I'd like to believe that the scenario you've presented is true, but it probably isn't. Saddam Hussein's contribution to the terrorists in Israel is probably dwarfed by the contributions of almost every other Arab state in the Middle East.

[Cold Heat]

Novac needs to lighten up a bit. All will be revealed in due course.

This stuff is largely being held for a full investigation later. I would think about a week or so, they will have some running totals on quantities and maybe even some shipping documents to Syria.

[Cold Heat]

I could give you a dozen reasons why the stuff has not been used yet.

One reason is that Saddam never believed he would lose control. Another is that they have been threatened with summary execution for months.

The stuff is there. We know it.

[VMI70]

Bump so I can insert it into every WMD thread that is started by the wolf crying FReepers.

Starting these threads without incontrovertible evidence makes us the DU of the right. It's not so much the articles themselves, as it is the idiotic replies.

[thegreatbeast]

All Novak is saying is that it will be embarassing if we don't find large caches of WMDs after all the talk of them. We made WMDs the rationale for our invasion in front of all the world, and against their organized opposition. Anything less than flowing piles of the stuff is going to look like nitpicking to many. That is just the way things are.

[benjaminthomas]

That leaves chemical weapons, which few military experts put in the WMD category.

Huh? Now chemical weapons aren't WMD? I can see the spin now:

"Well, we found 11 neutron bombs, but those aren't really WMD because they only kill people. They don't even knock down buildings or anything..."

And in a multi-purpose post, kudos to Dead on the use of term "eurinal". Don't know if you coined that, but it's the first time I've seen it and I'm LOL.

[G Larry]

Report: U.S. Finds Missiles with Chemical Weapons

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. forces near Baghdad found a weapons cache of around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons, the U.S. news station National Public Radio reported on Monday.
NPR, which attributed the report to a top official with the 1st Marine
Division, said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire." It quoted the source as saying new U.S. intelligence data showed the chemicals were "not just trace elements."

It said the cache was discovered by Marines with the 101st Airborne Division, which was following up behind the Army after it seized Baghdad's international airport.

U.S. Central Command headquarters in Qatar had no immediate comment.

The United States and Britain launched the war against Iraq (news - web sites) to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq denies having such weapons.

[Salvation]

[TLBSHOW]

bttt

[poet]

Only if war is Officially declared by Congress. Unless, of course, the Pres was wrong and they are no longer a member of the Axis of Evil. I believe his criteria of an enemy is: Any country that aids, abets or harbours terrorists.

Bottom line, since we are now an aggressor nation and can no longer take the high moral ground, let's go after All the evil regimes, but, let's do it Officially and NAME the enemies which is what a Constitutional Declaration of war requires as opposed to a "Sense of Congress" which is what a Resolution is.

Hmmm, let me see, would Saudi Arabia be one of those countries who aids, abets & harbours terrorists? Nyah, they are our friends and that "friendly" country's government wouldn't have telethons in honor of 16 of their citizens involved in 9/11. now would they?

Now, let me ask you a question: Should we invade Zimbabwe because of what Mugabe is doing to his people? Should our Pres give him 48 hours to get out? How about the guy in N. Korea, or should we arm and train the opposition in these countries and let them take these guys out and let them choose whom their leaders are going to be? Remember, our administrations ( both parties) have a history of backing dictators. Sort of like, my evil is less evil than the other guy's evil.

FReegards

[aculeus]

At stake may be the ruptured international relations of the United States.

Solution to "ruptured international relations": Truss, but verify.

[elbucko]

Saddam Hussein's contribution to the terrorists in Israel is probably dwarfed.....

Oh, I admit it's my own speculation. But the homicide bombing has stopped, or nearly so. What effect the monies from the other Arab states have on the future does remain to be seen. However, I'll stick with the drift of my post. Bush used a conventional war to prevent a nuclear war in the Middle East.