A United Nations Document states, "Up until they were withdrawn from Iraq on 18 March –- the day before armed action began -- United Nations inspectors had found no evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction, Hans Blix told the Security Council this morning, as he briefed them for a final time before stepping down at the end of June as head of the inspection team."
So if Bush states there is "no doubt" and the UN reports there is "no evidence", then where did Bush and the neo-cons get their intel from? The United Nation had the only large, active human intelligence on the ground in the months preceding the Iraq Attaq. The "evidence" for WMD was nothing more than neo-con propaganda.
You appear to have no doubt there were no wmd. So please answer a few questions.
Why did Saddam's regime put so many obstacles in the path of UN inspectors, if there were no WMD and no WMD programs? Why did the Iraqi regime threaten the family members of those involved in Iraq's WMD programs with death if that family member cooperated with the UN inspectors? Why did Iraq delay UN inspectors from getting to inspection sites after they were announced? Doesn't the fact that when this happened in earlier years there is clear proof the Iraqi regime was removing WMD related materials from the sites before inspections create a little doubt in your mind as to what was happening in 2003?
You quoted Blix to suggest there was "no evidence" but do you know that even as late as March of 2003, UNMOVIC was STILL unsuccessfully seeking interviews with people they thought connected to the WMD work? Do you know that Blix noted "there have been reports, denied from the Iraqi side, that proscribed activities are conducted underground"? Do you know that after the invasion the ISG did indeed discover proscribed underground labs? Do you know that Blix noted "the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council"? Do you know they didn't and after the invasion if was discovered that the Iraqis had plans for much longer range missiles in the works? Don't any of those facts leave at least a little doubt in your mind regarding your claim that there was "no WMD"?
If there was no evidence of WMD programs in Iraq, why did the ISG conclude that Iraq retained the seed stock, knowledge and equipment needed to quickly restart its biological munitions program? Why did Duelfer tell Congress in 2004: "Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in a period of months and nerve agent in less than a year or two"? If there was no doubt, why did Duelfer say "we cannot yet definitively say whether or not WMD materials were transferred out of Iraq before the war. Neither can we definitively answer some questions about possible retained stocks"?
Why did David Kay at the time he stepped down from the job of Head of the ISG, say "we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme." Yet you seem to have no doubt?
Why did the final ISG report state "there was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation"? Doesn't the fact that Duelfer said he was unable to complete that aspect of the probe because "the declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive" suggest a degree of doubt? Why are you acting like you are 100% sure there were no WMD?
Where did that viable binary sarin warhead that turned up as an IED come from? And why did the ISG say "the existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist"? Shouldn't "a possibility" equate to doubt?
If there were no WMD in Iraq, why did the ISG concluded that Iraq systematically destroyed files, computers and facilities thought to be related to WMD just prior to, during and even after the invasion? Tell us what they were hiding to remove the little bit of doubt that I have regarding your assertion.
If there were no WMD in Iraq, why would ISG inspectors and those they sought to interview post invasion regarding WMD have been targeted for assassination (that was the claim of the ISG)?
And what was in those trucks that were seen moving to Syria before the war? There are number of well connected individuals, including the #2 General in Saddam's Air Force, Syrian Journalists, the Israelis, and members of the US Armed Forces who entered Iraq looking for WMD after the invasion who say the evidence points towards those truck containing WMD related materials. Isn't this cause for at least a little doubt on your part?
And what about the contents of the many Iraqi documents the Coalition discovered after the invasion ... documents that clearly suggest that Iraq did continue efforts to acquire or hide WMD right up until the start of the war? Some of those documents clearly show the Iraqis were buying large quantities of precurser chemicals that were specifically banned under the sanctions. And there are documents talking about construction of and movement (even hiding) of WMD related items. Don't those create any doubt in your mind? Shouldn't you mention these doubts rather than give your readers the impression there is no doubt at all? Is it democrat propaganda if you don't?
And finally, because I suspect you are an Obama supporter, Obama and the rest of the democrat leadership now claim the surge failed and that we've either lost the war in Iraq or can't win it. Obama's website says "The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war." But in light of all that's been noted by the media in recent weeks (including liberal mouthpieces like the Washington Post), it is clear those statements are untrue. So tell me ... is Obama lying to his supporters and the public because he doesn't show any doubt?
Oh ... one more question. Did you support Clinton's war in Kosovo? If so, I hate to break it to you. Clinton, his administration and his oh so supportive media told you a lot of things with absolute conviction that were outright false or for which there was considerable doubt. So did they lie to you?
