Thursday, November 17, 2005
Where are those pesky WMDs?
Michelle Malkin linked to a really great interview from Jamie Glazov. He interviewed Bill Tierney, a former military intelligence officer, who was in Baghdad in 2002 with weapons inspectors UNSCOM. It is a must read. Why hasn't this guy been on the interview circuit. I bet the MSM will say because his stories can't be verified, yeah right, like they bother verifying anything these days. I've always thought that the WMDs must have been moved. It's not as if Sadaam didn't have the time or man power.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
My Summary: In this guy claims to have strong evidence that in 2002 Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons program and had possibly built nuclear and biological weapons alongside the chemical weapons we allways knew he had (because we sold them to him).
ReplyDeleteLets assume that he is credible, what are the implications of this? Since neither the USA or the British recovered any WMDs this means:
A. There were no nuclear weapons, he was mistaken or mislead
or
B. There were WMDs but they were destroyed before the 2nd gulf war.
or
C. There were nuclear weapons but they were exported by the reigme to another rogue state (possibly Syria, Iran, Pakistan) and now the same WMDs remain in dangerous hands.
or
D. There were nuclear weapons but they were pilfered as the Iraqui army colapsed. These weapons are now in the hands of insurgents and Islamic militants.
If A is true then the rationale for our mission was bogus. It means we should never have gone to war.
If B is true then our mission was accomplished before the first gun was fired. Why are we still there?
If C is true then we are starting to look a little stupid; Knowing the kinds of weapons that exist we should have known that they could be so easily concealed and exported. As the guy said, Saddam had the manpower and this is one of the things military intelligence expected him to do.
If C is true, we just lost the war because we spent money and gave our soldiers lives to defeat a threat that had already moved on by the time the first shot was fired.
If D is true then our worst nightmares are real. That means the military resources are now in the hands of our worst enemies; We may have won the war but it was a pyrrhic victory. D means we failed to secure the WMDs which were the primary reason for waging war in the first place. D means the next urban bomming will be chemical, biological or nuclear. D means we screwed up big time.
Can anybody think of another scenario? These are just too upsetting!
Ok soo..
ReplyDeleteA. There must have been WMDs cuz even President Clinton in 1998 said he did or did he lie too.
B. If he destroyed them, why did the UN not find proof of said destruction.
C. The only avenue not being investigated by anyone??
D. If the insurgents have them wouldn't they have used them.
E. This is all Karl Rove's evil republican mind meld on the entire world population.
Yeah E. That's it.
A. There must have been WMDs cuz even President Clinton in 1998 said he did or did he lie too.
ReplyDeleteIts possible; Its also possible that the clinton-era containment and investigation policy forced Iraq to abandon it's arms program. Its also possible that Clinton was mistaken.
B. If he destroyed them, why did the UN not find proof of said destruction.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. How did they know where to look for the weapons dumps? A destroyed weapon is easier to hide than a functioning one; You can cover the debris in sand and who would even know they were standing on a load of waste plutonium (until your hair sarts falling out).
C. The only avenue not being investigated by anyone??
And the republicans wouldnt want their "Mission Accomplished" style victory tainted by the notion that the mission just slipped away. They are not likely to investigate this either because it would make them seem rather foolish. Seriously, imagine how bad this would seem:
1. Bush and Blair say we have to invade Iraq because Saddam is building WMDs.
2. Army goes in, kills lots of people, spends BILLIONS of taxpayer money.
3. Intelligence cannot find any WMDs, because they have been exported to Syria.
4. Bush to congress: "We just spent BILLIONS on a wild-goose-chase. Those pesky arabs moved the weapons before we could secure them. Can we have another 10Bn of taxpayer money so we can bomb Syria?"
5. Congress to bush: "Why sure! We dont care about schools, hospitals or basic scientific research. We just want to see fireworks"
D. If the insurgents have them wouldn't they have used them.
Or perhaps they are taking their time to dig up the weapons and export them to the USA and England where the terrorists can really hurt the people they hate.
E. This is all Karl Rove's evil republican mind meld on the entire world population.
Possibly! :-)