Right after the "Showdown in Iraq" began I remember going on the Air and saying, "because Saddam had deceived the US, UN, and others, even if he didn't have WMD he could rightfully still be attacked."
That argument,
in a nutshell, could hold, but who lives in a fucking nutshell!?!?
Guess who!
The
Duelfer Report makes clear the case Saddam did not have weapons before the war, and in all likelihood got rid of them years ago. That's all well and good.
But we should really step back and think about what went on here.
Saddam put himself in a bind over WMD. Whether or not he wanted them is pretty obvious. He did. I mean, after all, whoever has them is pretty much assured they will NOT be attacked. But we cannot group all WMD as the same weapons, and that's a major issue.
People at the highest levels of our government, primarily Dick Cheney, tried to convince the nation Saddam has NUCLEAR WEAPONS or the ability to make them, hence the whole
centrifuge garbage.
No one, or should I say, no rationale person thought Saddam was going to man a crop-duster and drop some type of nerve gas over Charlotte. That's ridiculous. But those are the types of weapons Saddam was accused of using, and those are the only weapons the US government could have hoped to find. Obviously, they found nothing.
Saddam's bind was his own. He assumed the US would not attack him, regardless, and he did not understand the realities of September 11th. Tariq Aziz, his spokesman, asked Saddam to address the Americans, claiming no responsibility, and sympathy for what happened on 9/11. He chose not to do it. He didn't believe the US was going to invade over WMD he didn't have. The
sanctions had been working. Whether or not he wanted people to maintain the intellectual know-how to create the weapons is really a ridiculous reason to begin thinking about starting an endless war in the Middle East.
Well, we obviously have some ridiculous people running our government. Where Saddam screwed up is claiming to have WMD, or being vague, for the single purpose of intimidating the countries around him, particualarly Iran. He still feared a possible war with Iran, so if those nations believed he had tactical WMD (VX and Sarin) they'd be less likely to cause Saddam problems. Therefore, he made it seem like he had them.
When confronted with the possibility the US was going to attack, Saddam turned over 20,000 pages of information relating to his WMD programs. NOTHING, and I MEAN ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NOTHING in Saddam's report has been refuted. At least nothing I have seen, heard or read. So the Iraqi report is right now the best answer for what exactly did happen to any WMD considering we have no answers to counter the report, still. (Hey Bush, maybe Kerry is right, that you may have wanted to protect the information ministries!)
The US and England did not believe the report to be true because of what it lacked. Tony Blair and Bush called it bogus. The report lacked specifics of what did happen to much of Saddam's weapons. The answer is seemingly obvious, but never really spoken about in the media. I only heard it once and it was from someone who was a big player within the Iraqi military. He made the case that Saddam bombed Iran and his own people with double the amount of chemical weapons than he admitted to. He did this to avoid trouble. For it was bad enough that he unloaded thousands of bombs, but in truth, it was at least double. He never admitted to that, but I believe it makes complete sense in answering where all the "missing weapons are." They were detonated on people, during wars.
It's like any lie. "David, did you take money from my wallet to play video games?"
"Uhh, yeah."
"Don't lie. How much?"
"10 dollars." Come on, we all know I took twenty!
Saddam played that game with his weapons. Simple.
The most important point of all this is the NUCLEAR WEAPONS case.
A Bit More
Look at how Team Bush deals with countries that actually do have Nukes! Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, these are nations that know having the Nuke is the ultimate deterrent. Strangely enough, the one country in the Axis of Evil that doesn't have them is the one we attacked. GO FIGURE! WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!!
This to me is Reason #1 as proof we knew Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons, evah! But they had to have their war. Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the George Bushes needed to remake the Middle East. Going to war with someone who actually did have a nuclear weapon, who if confronted would probably set it off and kill himself would be DISASTROUS for the United States. This is why I know there were never Nukes, and those up top knew as well.
They would take their bullshit WMD case to the UN, Congress, the American people, and continue to deceive. They'd constantly talk about Saddam the "mad man" and how he "used them on his own people." This was the game plan from the get go. I mean, heck, they're still doing it, EVERY DAY! You're living it!
Iraq was the only major player in this game that didn't have terrorist ties, nuclear weapons, and was a secular state. Team Bush thought they could pull this whole thing off. Ahmad Chalabi used them like a whore. Remember him?
Now what are we seeing? We're seeing Republicans go after the UN and their Oil or Food Program. But wait!!!
Americans were ripping it off as well! Ruh roh. What to do now? Well, I'm sure Republican defenders are praying the election comes real soon so they don't have to defend Bush anymore.
Finally
Now's the part of the show where we harken back to people like Scott Ritter, a soldier, a man who worked inside Iraq looking for weapons. First he was a hero, but then when he went after the Bush case for war he was Public Enemy #1.
The guy was right, and like General Shinseki, cast aside as wrong, or clueless. The media stopped interviewing Scott.
This is not a make believe story. This is crazier than fiction. This all happened and continues to happen.
What's next, you really have to wonder? These people never admit to mistakes, so one must assume that if they win on November 2nd things will only get worse in the Middle East, the United States, and around the world.
The initial argument that I claim "holds in a nutshell" is really irrelevant now. Team Bush knew, even though they may have been deceived on some level, Saddam didn't have what they deceived the public into thinking he had, and that's the problem. Plus, there are no nutshells in the Middle East, so that should be considered as well.
While I as a citizen am not privy to the details the White House and Congress were, at the time I thought it's an argument worth considering. But looking back, knowing that the
Bush White House created their own intelligence agencies within the Pentagon, and elsewhere, to get them the info they neeeded Congress to see, while shelving and firing anything countering their beliefs, it's now impossible to even look at the "deception" issue as a justification on any level.
But that's what I'm seeing in the news these days...