Other than the mobile labs that Powell talked about at the UN, and the scientists who've come forward to acknowledge that they were working on WMD programs, nothing more than a few small caches of WMDs will ever be found in Iraq.
Since those labs and those scientists would, all by themselves, constitute a WMD program in clear violation of Saddam's surrender terms from the Gulf War, and sufficient provocation for war, this should satisfy the Bush-bashers.
But, for the most part, it won't. Having an excuse to shriek, "lies! lies!" is far too satisfying, you see.
* Update * Chris points out in the comments that I forgot the Al Samoud II missiles, the chemical warfare shells, and the chemical warfare drones that have all been found. He also mentions the mustard gas that was reportedly dumped into the Tigris during the first two weeks of the war. Each of which qualifies as a "WMD" that was in clear violation of UN requirements for Saddam. So, add those in, and then go back to my original prediction: nothing more will be found. Not that it needs to be, because what's been found already should be more than enough for any rational person.* Update II * -- Bill Hobbs has the best overall summation I've seen. He also has devastating quotes that should shut the critics up, but won't. Although Hobbs doesn't say so, he has probably also just demonstrated why this non-story will not die. It's politically useful to certain people, and emotionally satisfying for others, and that's the only reason it will stay alive. Pity, eh?
Alternate Prediction
The US and Britain has found most of the WMDs to prove that Saddam did have the weapons. However due to technical or intelligence reasons, the final proof the world is asking for is on hold until the final stocks can be traced down.
Don't forget the Al Samoud II missiles with the extended range, or the chemical attack drone. Or the chemical shells that were known about and never destroyed.
Little other than what you mentioned and those are likely to be found.
Oh, and what was the final word about the mustard gas dumped into one of their major rivers during the first two weeks?
Dean, this is just turning into a blind partisan issue now. There's absolutely nothing that can be said to convince the "Bush lied" people that they're wrong. I saw we post a little (I have a small post up the subject, too) and walk away and let the critics stew in their juices.
The only other rhetorical tool I can think of is to compare Saddam's suspected WMD to the suspected genocide in Kosovo. As it turns out, the WMD and mass graves didn't turn up in the numbers claimed by either administration involved. But I'm not going to say that Clinton lied about it and/or that the war in Kosovo was illegitimate. Milosevic was a threat to the peace who deserved to be removed, just like Saddam. Both men deserved to go, and both military operations that removed them from power were just wars.
Conversely there is nothing that will convince the "Bush is right" folks from acknowledging that there was really no "imminent threat" to the people of the US that needed to be addressed by the lives of US soldiers.
Besides the imminent threat of terrorists, you mean?
Well, yes Rick. But that would be because the threat was there, and real. That has already been demonstrated to most Americans' satisfaction.
The anti-war position was based on the morally wicked and despicable notion that keeping the Iraqi people in bondage was preferable to war. It's about time you guys admitted that, isn't it? While you're at it, will you admit that most of the dire predictions about what would happen as a result of war did not pan out?
Blathering about "hoaxes" and "lies" says far more about those making the charge than anybody else.
Matthew: Honestly, I opposed going after Milosovic simply because he was not a security thread to the US. But he was a monster who richly deserved his fate, and there was no "morality" in opposing taking him out. I had strategic reasons for opposing it--I don't think we should be running around toppling every dictator on the planet--but in retrospect I won't cry over it.
I never believed Clinton "lied" about the Kosovo situation, any more than I believe Clinton "lied" about Saddam having WMDs. Nor do I believe that Bush "lied" about Saddam's WMDs.
Because both Presidents told me the truth: that Saddam was a threat, had WMDs, and would happily use them if given a chance.
I should be "embarassed" that Saddam's efforts to hide things also concealed that he had less than we thought? Assuming he didn't ship them off to Syria, that is? Spare me.
24 million people are freed from slavery. Our position in the War on Terror is stronger. That, for me, is more than enough.
The Left has already prepared its new lie if the WMDs are indeed found: They were planted.
The bottom line is, Iraq, which had known stocks of WMDs in the past and had used some against the Kurds, continued to act as if it had them, often threatening to use WMDs against Isreal, for example. By removing Saddam we ended either a real threat or an ambiguity that threatened world peace.
And, btw, freed 24 million people from a guy who liked to feed them into shredding machines and to slaughter children and put them in mass graves. The Left has no answer for that.
The "they were planted" line was ready and on deck before the shooting even started.
Early on, I heard Mike Francessa on Imus opine that they'd find WMD in Iraq if they had to FedEx 'em in.
Funny thing is, neither one of them is a wild eyed liberal. Just street-smart New Yorkers.
Dean: what's the fancy term for "arguing from a conclusion," cuz that's what Ara's doing. :)
Ara: you keep talking about how Dubya lied. So, prove to me that he did lie, ok?
The only line of so-called reasoning so far is that Bush talked about WMDs before the war, that we've found zilch, ergo he's lying.
This is reasoning? Not. I gotta admit I expected them to find something; not much, maybe, but something. And you need to admit that Hussein was a smart man, in his way. If he really didnt' have WMDs, it would be 200% to his advantage to let the whole world know that! Hell, if nothing else it would have lifted sanctions.
I can think of at least three scenarios where Bush didn't lie, off the top of my head. All of them are reasonable, explain the known facts, and jump to no conclusions. None of the "Bush lied" scenarios I've encountered satisfy those conditions.
Casey my good friend,
My response to you is here, in the comments section of the article.
Ah, there's my post!
Dean: you are putting up too damn many articles! I lost track of where I posted last time so I put my reply up in "WMD Roundup".
I think I'll repost here so other folks can follow the thread more easily. If you prefer we can limit any further discusssion to this article. Sorry if this seems kinda harsh, but you're a smart guy and it amazes me that you can keep saying something like that without proof. :)
-----------
Ara, you haven't produced one single fact to support your claim that Bush lied. Not one. You can quote MSNBC or Tom Friedman opinions all day long, as they contain no factual data either.
So, to reiterate: you say Bush lied. Prove it. That's not hard, is it?
On Dean's World you have not yet cited ONE fact indicating that the president lied. Not one. The best you've come up with is quoting two editorials that contain no facts as well, and a link to a baseball story.
I checked the arguments you presented at your blog:
"I think he lied.
There's too much at stake to believe that this was an "oopsy-daisy" moment, that the intelligence was bad.
And I don't believe that Rumsfeld and Tenet are running the Oval Office, i.e., that the intelligence was cooked and spoonfed to POTUS.
Me? I think George W. Bush lied. "
(emphasis added)
So. We have two "I think"s, an "I don't believe", and your personal inabilty to believe that the intel was bad.
Not good enough bunky.
To repeat: I can provide at least three scenarios that explain how the president could, in good faith and honesty, claim that Iraq had WMD's, and why. I guarentee you won't be able to come up with any facts to counter them (sorry, personal prejudice and incomprehension don't count).
I asked before: where's your PROOF? I'm still waiting...
So, what are they saying about those mobile labs today? I suppose that's a leftist conspiracy, as well? Why of course, all the weapons inspectors are leftists - I should have known. Silly me.
Of course, one alternative to lying is that Bush and his administration haven't the first clue what they're doing. A comforting thought ... not.
biscuit, I have to say (as loyal Bush supporter) those three trailers are, at best, a weak indicator. :) Hussein is gonna more than three trailers to cause problems. Where's the rest of them?
(1) What was on the dossier was way out of proportion to what was found--very little.
(2) Intelligence was handpicked to paint a picture that did not correspond with reality.
(3) Saddam did not have the capability to launch a chemical weapons strike several hundred miles away.
(4) Bush used forged information in his State of the Union Address
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also found no other evidence indicating that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from Niger. The evidence in U.S. possession that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Niger was transmitted to the IAEA. After reviewing all the evidence provided by the United States, the IAEA reported: "we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." Ultimately, the IAEA concluded: "these specific allegations are unfounded."