May 18, 2004

About Those Weapons

Though the story is being downplayed, the discovery of a few chemical weapons in Iraq is a big deal-- not just for what it says about the Bush administration's case for war, but what it says about the threat that missing WMDs still pose. So I argue in my newest American Spectator online column.

Posted by John Tabin at May 18, 2004 01:58 AM
Comments

The reason WMD discovery is downplayed is because it might help Bush. Blix immediately came out and said it didnt mean anything. Ratherbiased.com is an interesting website.

Posted by: lee tabin at May 18, 2004 09:39 AM

Having understandably changed his rationale for going to war several times, the case for WMDs is several times removed from Bush's recent argument. This might be part of the reason his numbers are still tanking.

That said, I also am willing to put politics aside and look at the implications of finding several non-working chemical mines in Iraq.

*If* a larger 'stockpile' does exist, and *if* the weapons are in working or servicable condition, and *if* it is found, and *if* it is found by terrorists first, and *if* they are possessed of the knowledge and will to use it, then these weapons are of utmost concern.

But the fact is, as I see it, that the animosity that we have created and the hatred that we have illicited in the past year will only serve to make the last contingent so much more likely. If, God forbid, something happens to our troops involving chemical weapons or if there is an attack at home involving them, I will place the blame squarly on Bush and his policies. They would have allowed his worst case scenario to become reality by inflaming the arab world.

I guess I lied about putting politics aside. I did try though.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2004 11:23 AM

as with a swallow and spring time, neither does one sarin-laced artillery shell make for a stockpile of wmd's. should a stockpile be found then there may be some substance to the shrub's ever-changing rationale for going to war. right now, we seem to have evidence that at least one sarin-laced artillery shell was available to terrorists, who unlike saddam, have no compunctions about using them.
way to go, shrub!!

Posted by: ted church at May 18, 2004 02:15 PM

Considering the fact that satellite photos showed convoys of trucks going into Lebanon, and considering the fact that Saddam did not account for his stockpile, and considering that Saddam hid weapons prior to the first Gulf War, and that this was the most telegraphed war in history, I think it is fair to conclude that those weapons are either in Syrian or terrorist hands. If the weapons were destroyed we would at least be able to identify WHERE they were destroyed!
If the enemy has these weapons why haven`t they used them? Any good poker player knows not to throw away his hole card. Once you use a WMD you vindicate the President and lose any hope of winning a Vietnam style political victory. The terrorists know they MUST keep America blaming Bush for a needless and bloody War. The time to worry is when victory becomes assured.
Syria, likewise, would have every reason to hide them. Even if the President knows they are in Lebanon, he is constrained by politics. Imagine Bush going to Congress asking for authority to invade Syria to get Saddam`s WMD`s! Our liberal friends would turn purple! You will not be able to find a single copy of John Lennon`s GIVE PEACE A CHANCE! If American troops start getting gassed, however, the tables will turn.

Posted by: Tim Birdnow at May 20, 2004 06:39 PM