Does anyone seriously believe that Saddam has no WMDs?

[SuaSponte]

debaser, he was temporarily banned (for two weeks, IIRC). After he came back, presumably he asked the mods to change his user name.

Sua

[december]

*Originally posted by CyberPundit *
**I don’t think there is any logical inconsistency in saying “Even if Iraq has significant WMD I don’t think invasion is the best way to proceed. However first show me that Iraq does in fact possess significant WMD” Think of it as a series of hurdles the hawks have to overcome in making the case for war. **

I agree that your position is logically consistent, CP. It may even be right. Nobody knows for sure the risks and costs of war and the risks and costs of not going to war.

The position I don’t like is one that says, “It’s too dangerous to let Saddam have WMDs. We’re sure he has them. The inspectors might or might not have the ability to locate them. We’ll do nothing unless the inspectors locate Saddam’s WMDs.” This is not consistency; it’s fecklessness. Unfortunately, I think a big chunk of the UN is on a track that more-or-less represents this position.