Weapons of Mass Destruction

Press Reproting of the Iraq story

The link below brings you to Donald Luskin pointing out the huge holes/mistakes/inaccuracies/lies that Krugman (one of the New York Times favorite editorialists) has printed about the Bush's administration and Iraq.

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2003_06_08_chronArchive.asp#200410769

The U.S. has not searched nearly the number of suspected sites they had before the war let alone what we have found out since. Has their been the smoking gun yet? Nope, but for an individual with no biological and chemical weapons he surely had plenty of artillery shells and missiles that were setup to carry them. In addition, we have no proof that the mobile chemical labs were used for WMD "YET", but if not for WMD why not install the equipment in a fixed building?

I suppose all the doubters are correct though. The U.S. has not found any WMD yet so they must not exist. The U.S. also has not found Saddam or Bin Laden yet so I suppose they never existed either.

In short, Bush gave many reasons why the U.S. should attack Iraq. There is little doubt that more than a decade of UN action had done nothing to lessen the future threat and Saddam desired to develop nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Saddam admitted to giving money to the families of suicide bombers. There were known terrorist connections in Iraq and signs that Al Qaeda were among them. Saddam was ruthless to those he ruled. Saddam had connections to the assassination attempt on Bush senior. Saddam had attacked his neighbors before. Saddam has continually fired on U.S. planes patrolling the U.N. authorized southern and northern no fly zones. Is any one of those reasons enough to decided to attack a country? Maybe not, but regardless of your individual opinion the argument can be made that those reasons, and the others not mentioned, could allow a reasonable person to decide that the war was justified.

 

I believe people may have a poor awareness of what we are talking about in WMD's. In 1970 the WHO estimated that 50kg (about 110 pounds) of anthrax would sicken 250000 and kill 100000. In 1993 a US Congressional Office of Technology assesment estimated that between 130000 and 3 million deaths would follow the release of 100kg of B anthracis. Roughly the equivalent of one nuclear weapon. The US Department of Defense reported that 3 defense employees, without expert knowledge but some technical skills, manufactured a simulant of B anthracis in less than a month for $1million.

These weapons are easy to make and easy to hide. That makes them preferable. That's what makes mobile labs ideal. Anyone who believes he did not have these weapons should take a drink from the Tigress. Some people act like we are looking around Wile E. Coyotes lair looking for "ACME BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS" drums to be used on the Road Runner.

What use would mobile biological labs have? Perhaps it was part of the oil for yogurt and cheese program? Perhaps Saddam was considering brewing his own beer and wine? Given his son's taste in perversion maybe they were to keep the Hussein family supplied with Rohypnol? Perhaps empty shells built to carry biological weapons were to simply scare us off. Maybe they were to carry cream cheese to the local Panera Bread store. Maybe we imagined the SCUD's being fired at us that he did not have either.

Ah, the rant is over. Now if you will excuse me I am going to teach my children how to play "Spades" using a deck of Saddam playing cards.