Can we say FOR CERTAIN there are no WMDs? Well . . . almost. [View All]

[skip fox]

Nothing's for certain, but the 'logical reasons' the conservatives trot out to 'prove' the weapons exist or existed are weak, whereas the practical logic of the current situation suggests (STRONGLY) that WMDs do not exist in Iraq and did not exist in Iraq during America's build-up to the war in 2002.

Conservatives' "reasons" for the existence of WMDs:

1. We know Saddam had WMDs (circa early 1990s) and he never gave us proof of their destruction. No rational person would subject his country to potential attack if the reason for the attack did not exist. (Note: these are the same people who call Saddam a madman.) This argument is moderately compelling, but ignores many other reasons Saddam would not want to prove that he had destroyed his WMDs like saving face (his prestige in standing up to the US was extraordinarily important to him) or like not signalling potential enemies (like Iran) that he had only conventional weapons with which to defend his country.



Practical reasons indicating the absence of WMDs:

1. He didn't use them when attacked, even when his back was against the wall. This is a strong argument and is only countered with: "He mistakenly hid the WMDs in such a way they were not quickly accessible," or "He was worried about what the US would do in retaliation." Perhaps. But on the face of it, this reason for the non-existence of the WMDs is AT LEAST as compelling as the only reason for their existence.

2. We captured damned near the entire deck of cards and nobody has yet pointed out the whereabouts of current WMDs (the closest we came was a scientist who pointed to his backyard with decade's old equipment beneath a rosebush). As desperate as we are to find and proclaim the existence of WMDs or a viable program for their devrlopment, we have threatened, cajoled, injected (truth serum), and made promises (of immunity, of save havens with houses for their families in other countries) to every high-level (and many low-level) prisoners in an attempt to have them point out the weapons' location. Although far from reluctant (note how the prisoners have quickly given up colleagues and Saddam's other minions), none have pointed out WMDs. This reason seems far more compelling than the sole reason the conservatives use to 'prove' the existence of such weapons.



Only one argument gives me the slightest pause: That we (Lay & Co.) have already discovered WMDs but are carefully cataloging them and making sue of their proofs before going public.

BUT . . . would an administration that touted two mobile helium labs as WMDs in a speech in France (W. himself) even as their use was still in doubt, be cautious or concerned about the niceties of accuracy before announncing what they have been so desparate to announce for over 4 months now? I really doubt it.



So . . . Although we can't say for certain, I think we can safely bet that no Iraqi WMDs will ever be discovered. In other words: "This one ain't comin' back to bite us in the butt."