There's a credibility issue here.
Let's start with what we
know:
- Decades ago Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranians and Iraqis.
- It appears that Rumsfeld brokered a deal back then that allowed Saddam to buy chemical weapon precursors from the US in order to build those weapons. It's OK though, because Iran was the bad guy back then.
- Chemical weapons have a shelf life, just like milk. The stuff he had back then can't still be chemically active, or at least it doesn't present a "WMD" threat any more (I don't doubt it's caustic)
Now, more recently we had the US leadership stating that they had, clear, convincing, undeniable, yet unfortunately secret proof that Saddam had active weapons programs, and even worse -- was planning on using them against the west.
My complaint at the time was that we weren't acting like we had that information.
If the UN was still in charge of inspections (they were), and were saying they couldn't find evidence of WMD possession or manufacture (they were), and were asking us for help in finding them (they were), then why didn't we load a UN team on a pave-low and take them to even
one WMD site at 160 MPH -- so fast they couldn't be moved before arrival?
Would have solved the whole problem, wouldn't it? Doesn't sound too hard, does it? So, why didn't we do it?
Because either
- We didn't have that proof, but thought we'd get it soon enough as soon as we had occupied the country (I doubt many in the US would have disagreed that WMDs would be found once we had free run of the place)
- We had evidence we trusted, but were more interested in an invasion than we were in disarming the guy.
I'm going with the first option, thanks.
The argument that "it's such a big country -- I'm
sure they're just buried somewhere" is crap. You can use that argument for
anything, because it can't be disproven. Worse, there's no evidence
for it, unless you consider the lack of WMDs in Iraq as
proof that they actually exist, and are so well-hidden that they'll never be found. Because, you know, Saddam spent all that time and effort creating them so he could
not use them when we invaded his country. Riiiiiiiiiight.
At best, I think the administration was mistaken in its vigor to pursue a war against Iraq. I'm more pessimistic than that -- I think they were selling whatever lies they could in the short-term, with the assumption that the long-term would take care of itself. Unfortunately, the "common knowledge" about WMDs seems to have been wrong...
As for a connection to terrorism, how's this for a plausible attack on terrorism:
- The terrorists are Muslims who have taken their beliefs to a level so that it's no longer recognizable as Islam.
- The number one target of these terrorists is the "non-Muslim" regimes in the middle east -- Saudi Arabia (where they can't foment change because of US backing) and especially Saddam Hussein, since he brands himself a Muslim but is actually running the most secular regime in the region.
- It's been argued that OBL hated Saddam more than the US, and I haven't seen any refutation of that.
- So, knowing this, Saddam hooked up with his biggest enemies, and was planning on giving them his most potent and effective weapons.
- So, in order to fight terror fomented by islamic extremists, it's our American duty to topple the least Islamic government in the region. Because, of course, once national elections are held later, in a nation right next to Iran, we're certain that the radical Islamists won't gain any power.
Guys, I'm not buying it.
