Saturday, June 14, 2003

Answers for Rob Bernard About WMD
Rob had a few questions for those who are concerned about the US not finding WMD in Iraq yet. I'll leap to a conclusion this might have been a rebuttal to my questions from Thursday. I'll take a stab:
1. Would you concede that Iraq had WMD before Gulf War I?
Obviously yes.:
2. Would you concede that a large number of these weapons were unaccounted for when the inspectors left in '98?
Unaccounted based on UN inspectors, yes. Whether this was true or not, this was the paper accounting.
3. What do you suggest Iraq did with those weapons? Do you really think Iraq destroyed them and just decided not to show us just to be petulant?
These are the possibilities:

  1. Iraq overstated its WMD program before 1991, therefore the 1998 accounting was overstated.

  2. The accounting of WMD materials in 1998 was wrong, for reasons other than listed in #1.

  3. Iraq destroyed its WMD at some point. Could have been anytime after 1998 right up to now.

  4. Iraq transferred its WMD to another country or terrorist group.

  5. The WMD were looted in the chaos following the fall of the Regime and could be anywhere.

  6. The WMD are still hidden somewhere in Iraq.

Rob’s questions confirm the problem of revisionism that has gripped the Bush Administration and its supporters. Bush made the claim that Iraq possessed WMD. He claimed that his administration had clear and certain evidence that Iraq possessed these weapons. Possession of WMD was the tantamount threat to the USA, US interests, and US allies that was made as the basis for going to war. What is becoming more clear is that the only evidence Bush had was circumstantial, at best.

Current efforts at find WMD in Iraq support two conclusions. One is that the US did not have any firm knowledge of where the WMD were located. Also, the low priority of the search indicates that now the unguarded existence of those weapons must not be a threat, because no actual weapons currently exist. This is where the lie/exaggeration/manipulation arises. Bush used the imminent threat of WMD as the focal point for going to war. We were under a threat, and had to defend ourselves. He claimed such, but it is clear now that were we not under such a threat. We may find some WMD, and we will surely find evidence of a WMD Program. Having a program is not an imminent threat to the US. If it were we would have declared war on half a dozen other unfriendly nations. Bush could have just used bad judgment, which will be his defense. The CIA will undoubtedly be the scapegoat, but may end up being Brutus in the end. Bush may have relied on faith-based intelligence. This possible lapse in judgment is a factor and action that a President should not shirk from. He should take it beg forgiveness. He should suffer the defeat at the next election. If Bush did knowingly put forth this threat of WMD without any reliable support, then I have to wonder if anyone can say lying about the reasons for going to war is not an impeachable offense, but lying about a blowjob is. Bush still might get lucky. He might find a bunker full of chemical weapons that could have been used on the US military. If he does, then everyone, including me will have cake on their face. Short of that type of find, I will personally remain angry. I trusted that Bush would not lie about WMD. I assumed Iraq still had a significant cache left. If Bush or anyone in his administration knew before hand that this was not the case, Nixon will begin to look like a light weight.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't be an idiot or your post will be deleted.