Replies

I think it highly likely at least some chem weapons were destroyed as war became imminent or soon after it began. Put yourself in the shoes of the Iraqis in charge of those stocks--the best thing for you personally is to make that stuff disappear! And, if you recall, there were reports of traces of mustard agent found in the Euphrates--dumping it in the biggest river around makes sense to me! (Bob--it is not an assumption that they had the stuff; the UN inspectors had seen it, the Iraqis admitted it, and even Al Gore and the French said they had it). The question is not whether or not they had WMD, but what happened to it?

Kosta, you give our surveillance capability too much credit--first, we don't have enuf to even cover all of Iraq with actionable levels of resolution. Then when you add in the competing demands in Afghanistan, supporting the search for our downed airmen in Colombia, trying to identify Abu Sayef boat traffic in the Philippines, etc, etc; that leaves even less for Iraq.
-second, darkness, rain, cloud cover, & sandstorms all degrade our surveillance capability.
-third, Iraq has played this game for years & knows our capabilities very well: we can't see through roofs or trees or underground or even through the canvas tops of cargo trucks. There is a lot of normal military and civilian traffic and activity that can be used to disguise WMD movement. Again, put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi who has been told to surreptitiously move some WMD--you could easily figure out a way to do it & so could they.

Bob, I don't know why Hussein did not use what he had while we were building up and concentrated in Kuwait--at that time we were a large, stationary target. One theory is that he had moved the stuff out of the country and/or hidden it very well with the expectation that the UN/international community would prevail on the USA/UK not to invade and all he had to do was to wait out the next round of weapons inspectors. Then when the invasion came, he wasn't ready. Who knows for sure? Time will tell.

It wouldn't just be ironic, but tragic if some Iraqi bugs & gas is floating around in the hands of international terrorists/criminals because Rumsfeld, in his arrogance and hubris, did not allow the operational commander sufficient troops to quickly and adequately secure the country. There are STILL some places in Iraq where no American troops have gone, much less searched or established positive control.

Your points are valid, Mark. However, without any solid Hussein-Al Qaeda connection, the urgency was lacking. Remember, we couldn't wait for Hanx Blix and his team to finish the search. But now, Tony Bliar is asking us to be "patient."

A lot of things were also exaggerated. Take for instance the Iraqi deadly "drone" -- an RC plane. One single toy plane! Or the one hundred or so missles that had a 15-mile longer range than allowed -- hardly a WMD threatening us, or something the terrorist could use against us, and so on. The question that remains unanswered: what was the sudden urgency? Was it Dick Channey's assertion almost a year ago that there is "no doubt" that "Hussein has weapons of mass destruction?" And we believe him because hes says so? Or is it because of Tony Blair's government made-up fairytales and a 45-minute ready-to-fire lie?

The plan to invade Iraq, Syria and Iran were made in tghe middle 1990s by the people who call themselves the "Cabal." From a geostrategic point of view, I would recommend that we control the earth's richest oil reserves as well. That's just like the gestrategic proposal that was circulating and influencing American policy before the Spanish war -- that called for US to take the Caribbean islands, Hawaii and the Philipies before the war was even close. Things don't just happen, Mark. Foreign policy is "shaped" with determined goals and outcomes.

Knowing to what lengths will the government go to "save face" I am skeptical as heck that we are being told the whole truth.