- Country singer Tim McGraw not sorry for slapping female fan: ‘Things happen’
- Iraq vet cited for owning 14 therapeutic pet ducks
- White House takes credit for drop in unaccompanied children at border
- International crises be damned, Obama’s fundraising trip must go on
- Friend of bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev found guilty of impeding probe
- Train with MH17 plane crash bodies leaves rebel town in Ukraine
- Half of Colorado voters are OK with Hobby Lobby decision, poll shows
- HIV-killing condom to soon hit shelves in Australia
- Estonia pulls plug on Steven Seagal over praise for Putin
- Lawyer: Pelvic exam pics cost Hopkins $190 million
WMD multiple choice
Question of the Day
Vanity Fair, Time and dozens of other commentators, politicians and flacks are leaping on the weapons of mass destruction story. Their premise: Bush administration officials suckered the American people into a war based on assertions they knew to be false.
Here’s Time magazine: “How do you take your country to war when it doesn’t really want to go? … If you need a lot of troops to prevail and you would like to remind everyone in the neighborhood who’s boss anyway, then what you need most is a good reason — something to stir up the folks back home.” Now that’s a rather breathtaking accusation when you stop to consider it. The Bush administration, motivated only by a desire to throw its weight around, concocts a false story about WMDs to “stir up” the folks back home.
We have been the occupying power in Iraq for about 10 weeks, and many of us thought we would have uncovered stockpiles of WMDs by now. But why are so many prepared, on this basis alone, to begin throwing around the accusation that the Bush administration lied to the world? At the very least, other explanations ought to be considered.
Let’s start with the history. Saddam’s nuclear ambitions go back at least to 1981, when Israel destroyed the (French-built) nuclear reactor at Osirak. Following the Gulf war, Iraq acknowledged it had resumed work on a nuclear bomb. As for chemical and biological weapons, the United Nations has confirmed Iraq’s possession on multiple occasions.
The United Nations stated that “field tests of biological warfare agents started in late 1987/early 1988.” In 1991, after surrendering to coalition forces, Iraq presented a list of its banned weapons to UNSCOM, the U.N. agency responsible for overseeing the cease-fire. Iraq then acknowledged some 10,000 nerve gas warheads, 1,500 chemical weapons, 412 tons of chemical weapons agents, 25 long-range missiles and more. Yet these proved to be understatements, as inspectors found more than these declared weapons.
Throughout the 1990s, the Iraqis did everything possible to frustrate the mission of UNSCOM — hiding documents, playing cat and mouse, even on one occasion keeping the U.N. inspectors imprisoned in their cars in a parking lot outside a nuclear facility for four days.
In 1998, Saddam threw out the inspectors altogether, prompting President Clinton to launch a cruise missile attack on the Iraqi Republican guard. Our mission, Mr. Clinton explained to the American people, was to “attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological programs, and its capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
Other countries had such weapons, Mr. Clinton continued, but “with Saddam there’s one big difference; he has used them, not once but repeatedly — unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops [and] against civilians … .”
Ratcheting up the pressure in 2002, President Bush convinced the United Nations to resume inspections in Iraq. The purpose of these inspections was not to find Iraq’s banned weapons, but to see proof that Iraq had, as it claimed, destroyed them. For weeks, U.N. inspectors drove to sites of previous WMD production and found nothing.
To those who opposed the war and who, more to the point, passionately oppose President Bush, this — combined with our failure to find huge caches of weapons in the past two months — suggests conspiracy and bad faith.
But this is absurd. That Iraq once possessed these weapons is not in dispute. Are we to believe Saddam destroyed them voluntarily but refused to provide proof of that destruction to the United Nations even as U.S. and British forces massed on his border? He knew that proof of the weapons’ destruction would avoid the war and his own removal.
Surely it is obvious that only three scenarios are possible:
(1) Saddam secreted the weapons to Syria or some other country.
(2) Saddam hid the weapons extremely well and they will be found eventually.
U.S. appetite for drugs begets violence migrants are fleeing
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives
- Jewish woman booted from JetBlue flight over fight with Palestinian
- Edward Snowden to work with Russia on anti-spy technology
- MERRY: Handicaps in Hillary's way
- More immigrants deported from New Mexico center
- YOUNG: A sinking presidency, deeper after November?
- Ron Paul: U.S. partly to blame for Malaysia Airlines disaster
- PRUDEN: A deadly enemy within exacerbating immigration crisis
- Pro-Russia rebel commander suggests passengers died days before Malaysian flight
- Vladimir Putin pressured to aid Ukraine plane crash probe, rein in rebels
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq