Those arguments don't even pass the laugh test.
They could have been destroyed during the war.
If there were any quantities of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq such as Bush listed in his 2003 State of the Union address, and they were destoyed during the war, the traces would be evident. And the scientists and soldiers in Iraq would have been able to direct inspectors to the sites where they were stored. Bush's statement is simply not credible.
Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq.
Again, there would be evidence and witnesses. And what sense would that make at all? Saddam is about to be taken down, he has all these WMDs, and instead of using them he has them all destroyed? It's a silly thing for the President to say.
They could be hidden.
Unlikely in the extreme. There's no nuclear program. And despite all the talk about tiny vials, chemical and biological weapons can't just be stuck in cubbyhole somewher and still maintain their potency.
They could have been transported to another country, and we’ll find out.
What country? When? How? Does Bush have any grounds at all for suggesting such a thing? Not that he's sharing with us.
Bush isn't willing to let go of the WMD fantasy entirely even now. One has to wonder whether he realizes how bad it makes him look to have made all those extravagent claims about WMDs and not be able to find a trace of them.
2 comments:
I'm wondering if a country really would DESTROY it's weapons just at the point when they might possibly want to use them. In other words, if Hussein had WMDs, wouldn't the best time for him to have used them (not destroy them) be when the US declared war against Iraq? Isn't war the ostensible reason for having WMD-related programs, WMD-related program activities, and WMD-related-thingies???
Yeah, that whole line of argument never made any sense to me either. At this point, the only way anyone could believe it is with some credible physical proof that the WMDs actually existed. - Bruce
Post a Comment