I've said before that Saddam probably moved his WMDs to Syria before the war started. Now, I believe, explosive-gate lends credence to that theory.
By now we have all agreed that the explosives at al Qaqaa were already gone in April, 2003, when U.S. forces arrived at the scene.
We knew the weapons were there at one time. The U.N. inspectors saw them. Saddam admitted having them in his December, 2002 report. We arrived at al Qaqaa expecting to find them, and found...
Nothing.
Just like the WMDs.
Where did the WMDs go?
The possibilities are 1) they never existed, 2) Saddam destroyed them to comply with U.N. resolutions, 3) Saddam lost control of them and they found their way into the hands of terrorists, or 4) Saddam hid or transported them elsewhere.
I can tell you with the utmost confidence that 1 is false. Not only do I have the reports from Hans Blix and co. to reply upon, but remember that my old job was a weapons inspector in the U.S.A.F. My old division chums assured me the weapons were there, and that was good enough. Besides, the bodies in the mass graves are proof that Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people. He had them. End of story.
Scenario 2 is utterly without merit. Saddam knew that we were going to invade and destroy him for non-compliance. If he were the complying sort, surely he would have come clean, given proof to the world that his stockpiles were destroyed, and welcomed further inspection. He also would have had all the sanctions on him lifted. There is no way you can convince me he destroyed them himself.
We can thankfully rule out number 3, for now. If terrorists had taken control of WMDs, they would have used them on us by now. They would have used them in Spain in the railway bombings, probably set to go off a half-hour after the conventional explosions, to cause the most havoc to emergency personnel and the news media. No WMDs in terrorist hands, at least not yet. But, since I believe in scenario 4, the WMDs are still out there, probably in Syria, and could potentially eventually wind up in the hands of terrorists.
So it's number 4. There is no remaining logical alternative.
But the MSM and the liberals won't recognize option 4. They only recognize options 1, 2 and 3. And they have, for the purposes of political gain which, in their warped minds, supercede the need to protect the United States against terror threats, glommed on to option 1, as it is most damaging to President Bush.
But now we have the weapons missing from al Qaqaa.
Suddenly, where expected weapons stockpiles turned up missing in the form of the vanished explosives of al Qaqaa, the MSM and the liberals are ready to jump up and change tactics from scenario 1 to scenario 3.
Why is this important? Because option 3 requires you to believe that the weapons were there and now they aren't. So tell me, if we can be asked to believe that the weapons of al Qaqaa were there but now, since they aren't in the bunker, must be somewhere else, possibly waiting to be used against us...
WHY CAN'T THE MSM AND LIBERALS ADMIT THAT THERE WERE WMDS, AND THAT TAKING SO LONG TO GO TO WAR GAVE SADDAM THE OPPORTUNITY TO HIDE THEM?
Because al Qaqaa isn't about missing weapons. They don't give a rat's behind about the weapons. It's only about attacking Bush. That's why this non-story, over 18 months old and ignored by liberals and the MSM at the time, is hitting the airwaves now. A week before the election.
But now the seeds have been planted in the minds of more than one pundit: if the Left is admitting that explosives we thought were there but aren't now means they have slipped away--instead of never existing--then maybe we should explore the possibility that the WMDs slipped away--instead of never existing. And WMDs that have slipped away because of liberal stonewalling over building a bigger multinational coalition so we could pass the global test pretty much sink the Left's whole argument about the war in Iraq.
Recent Comments