Donald H. Rumsfeld, referencing the fabled Iraqi WMDs, doesn't "think we'll discover anything", because, "It is not like a treasure hunt where you just run around looking everywhere, hoping you find something." (Dubya will surely become cross upon learning of this piss-poor display of Easter spirit!) He says that we'll instead "discover people who will tell us where to go find it."
Right, well, this squares nicely with the Administration's repeated pre-war assertions that U.S. intelligence had proven (to the Administration, if not to its own agents, nor to anybody else) that Saddam had "failed to disarm" -- thus the critically urgent need to for the second time in a decade blast the holy fucking shit out of the country's beleaguered millions.
U.S. Brig. General Vincent Brooks insists that, "We remain convinced that there are weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq and we remain unwavering about that." But he doesn't say why they remain convinced. It must be based on some evidence, right? If so, then, what is the evidence, and where are the weapons? Maybe the Bush Administration is now tangling its feet in the inverse of its, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" axiom. Existence of evidence is not evidence of existence, apparently.
It is, in fact, now fairly widely assumed that WMD will not be found in Iraq unless planted there by the United States. Given that the U.S. is unwilling to allow the UN inspectors back into the country, preferring its own "more muscular" inspections, one could hardly be blamed for this suspicion. But here's a question for scientist-types. Can the U.S. really hope to get away with planting weapons? If a few weapons are uncovered in the absence of an active programme or facilities, won't it be pretty obvious that something isn't quite adding up? And even if Saddam had air-mailed his entire arsenal to Syria, evidence of an ongoing programme capable of producing such an arsenal would stick out like a sore thumb, yes?
While it's an issue this author has discussed before now, it may be worth noting that expression of the glaringly obvious logical corollary to the widespread assumption that the "legitimacy" of the war could only be retroactively "repudiated" (that'll make the hurt go away) by a failure to unearth an Iraqi weapons programme -- viz., a devastating military attack and occupation of the United States would be a legitimate avenue for dealing with its weapons programmes -- has not yet found purchase in the mainstream media.
If we actually gave a damn about WMD in the Middle East (ignoring that we have the largest programs in the world) then we would back the syria UN resolution to create a Region free of WMD. Unless, of course, we think that only we and our alloes can have WMD.
Posted by: ted on April 21, 2003 12:02 AMWait a minute. They are brown people. Syria threatens their neighborsits neighbors while Israel obeys the UN. I want to thank CNN for reminding me of that.
Posted by: ted on April 21, 2003 12:10 AMSorry about the errors in the last 2 posts; I was a little drunk when I came in last night and posted them. Here is what the 2nd post was meant to be:
Israel is not a rouge state and Syria is the aggressive neighbor. Just want to thank CNN for reminding me of that.