[Vision2020] US May Already Have Iraqi WMD Evidence

[Tim Lohrmann]

Visionaries,
    Some interesting speculation/rumor here.
    TL


US May Already Have Iraq's WMD's
July 31,2003

By Joel Mowbray(townhall.com)

As WMD hysteria reaches a frenzied pitch, comments by
the head of the U.S. team searching Iraq for WMD
evidence should give pause to the "Bush lied" crowd. 

  Dr. David Kay—the 63-year-old former U.N. weapons
inspector now heading up the American WMD
team—recently remarked that the United States will be
“starting to reveal” WMD evidence in six months. 

  Though he was circumspect at best, Dr. Kay’s
comments could indicate that U.S. investigators know
quite a bit more than they have revealed thus far. 

  Buzz inside the beltway has been intensifying in
recent days that the administration may have
significantly more evidence than it has publicly
released, and Dr. Kay’s comments have triggered even
more chatter. Some of it may be wishful thinking, but
considering that some of the people doing the talking
are administration officials, declarations that there
are no WMDs may be premature. 

  Why would the Bush folks keep such politically
high-value information secret? 

  Possibly because, given the sheer number of
guerrilla forces present inside Iraq, U.S.
investigators believe it would be foolish to leak
evidence piecemeal. Sources and methods of
intelligence-gathering could be “compromised”—a polite
way of saying those helping us or their families could
get killed—and the U.S. team's efforts could be
hampered if other would-be informants hold back out of
fear. 

  And with many of Saddam’s former henchmen still
around, U.S. investigators tipping their hand could
make it easier for Baathist thugs to destroy evidence
or sabotage discovery efforts.

  Not that critics of President Bush—the people who
wanted to wait endlessly while U.N. inspectors played
footsy with Saddam—are waiting for the canvassing to
be completed before slamming the commander-in-chief. 

  Liberal legend Teddy Kennedy (D-MA) has charged that
President Bush led the country to war "under false
pretenses." His colleague and presidential wannabe
John Kerry (D-MA)--who voted for the war--now is
retreating to the warm embrace of his liberal base,
claiming that, in essence, Bush duped him into
supporting the liberation of Iraq.  Mincing no words,
New York Times Paul Krugman stated flatly, "There is
no longer any serious doubt that Bush administration
officials deceived Americans into war." 

  That there is WMD evidence inside Iraq - or possibly
Iran or Syria - makes logical sense, as there are
really only three WMD scenarios: 1) Saddam didn't have
any WMDs, 2) Saddam destroyed everything just before
the war began (or snuck it into Iran or Syria) or 3)
the evidence stuck around longer than Saddam did. 

  As Rumsfeld said before the war, “Any country on the
face of the earth with an active intelligence program
knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.” No
one argues, in fact, that Saddam didn't have active
WMD programs when the U.N. inspectors left the country
more than four years ago. So for the first possibility
to be correct, Saddam would have had to have
voluntarily ceased an operation that had been his
primary obsession for some two decades and kept no
records of having done so. 

  Which leaves us with two other possibilities, either
of which confirms Bush's pre-war arguments. It is
possible that Saddam destroyed stockpiles and his
mobile labs on the eve of war, but it is at least as
plausible that he would not part with his treasures so
easily. With a high street value and relative
portability, though, it is also possible that Saddam
sold off at least part of his stash. Or he could have
used the time-honored tradition of simply hiding his
arsenal. 

  But until we have examined every last square inch of
Iraq—and Syria and Iran—the entire WMD debate is
premised on a hypothetical. 

  In the end, the investigators may only find indirect
evidence of WMD programs - human sources and documents
- as opposed to the kind of weapons “stockpiles” for
which our image-driven media salivates. A lack of
camera-ready evidence could be a problem, but a
mountain of documents and numerous human testimonials
from Saddam's former scientists could be enough to
reaffirm the obvious: Saddam had WMDs. 



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com