Rhadamanthus said:
It was determind when we occupied Iraq and there WHERE NO WEAPONS FOUND! we have the some of the greatest spy technology on the planet. Face it. There are no nuclear war heads burried in the sand.
Is this unsatisfactory to you? should i refrase is?
Your response is perfectly satisfactory. Don't change a single letter.
Now, think for a moment what this means. In terms that an attorney might use, it is 'ex post facto'. How so? Read on to find out.
On January 27, 2003, 'Shock & Awe' was triggered and the race to Baghdad began. In early April, Baghdad fell. Murmurs began to be heard; where are the WMD? Days passed. Still no WMDs. Murmurs grew progressively louder, rising, as more days passed, to the level of shouts. Still no WMDs.
Sometime in May, perhaps early June, prominent persons inside and outside the US were beginning to say; There are no WMDs.
Now rewind about a year. Prior to the commencement of hostilities, is there a single person of prominence who publicly said that Iraq had no WMDs? The intelligence services of France, Germany, Great Britain, Israel, and other countries all advised their heads of state that their investigation, information, and sources convinced them that Iraq did possess WMDs and would not hesitate to use them. When this information was passed to the administration, it was found to confirm what US intelligence services believed.
During the extended Congressional debate on the subject, members from both parties spoke on the dangers posed by Iraq by virtue of the WMDs it possessed. Members of the previous administration, right up to and including its President had spoken publicly about Iraq's possessing WMDs. The UN inspection team wanted to continue it's search. Why was that?
In the end, Congress voted to invade Iraq and bring about a regime change. The only decision left to President Bush was to determine the precise plan of attack, which, of course, he was bound to delegate to military planners, and the date on which hostilities would commence.
You might find it interesting to read the language of the Iraq War Resolution, which, by the way had bi-partisan support, paying particular attention to the various and sundry dates contained therein and noting how they spanned several administration. You can find a copy at:
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686
My point, which you have made for me, is that well intentioned persons, acting on information which was universally accepted as being valid and actionable, did what they considered best in the circumstances and had all of the support that could be required. Rather than being castigated, they should be commended.
Subsequently, when no WMDs were found, the opposition and its media supporters, siezed upon this as an opportunity to roll out the smear tactics. It was believed that this would provide the nails that could be used to seal the coffin of fate for the president's re-election bid.
However, reasonable persons, understanding the facts outlined above, ignored the 20/20 hindsight of the Monday morning quarterbacks and decided that irrespective of the question of WMDs, the president did the right thing.
They rewarded him with a second term. Considering the margin of victory, it is apparent that quite a few registered Democrats shared that view.
Did Iraq possess WMDs? I believe so. Where are they? Several possibilities exist. They were shipped to Syria, Iran, or some other sympathetic state. More plausible, however, is this. Considering that they could amount to a few truckloads of 55 gallon drums, and considering that US forces have uncovered operational jet fighters, wrapped, sealed, and buried under the desert sands in Iraq, they likewise buried the WMD.
Will we ever know? I believe so. Eventually, everything comes out. Perhaps, after the upcoming election, some knowledgable Iraqi, believing that it would then be safe to do so, will speak up. Will it make a difference then? Not at all.
If this explanation is not to your satisfaction, I trust you will let me know.
