Bush the Lesser is having a hard time justifying a pre-emptive war to his critics at home and abroad, because UNMOVIC has discovered scant evidence that Saddam is hiding weapons of mass destruction. He keeps repeating that “We know he has them”, but in SDMB parlance, the rest of the world is crying “CITE!!!”.
Assuming that Bush is correct, and Saddam does have hidden caches of WMD’s, does anyone think he would hesitate use them against US forces if he thinks he is about to be captured or killed? Has Bush come to the same conclusion, and now feels he can go ahead with the invasion without world support, because he will be vindicated when thousands of American soldiers are killed by chemical, biological or nuclear weapons?
Preparing for a WMD attack is certainly different than inviting one. More likely, the goal is to overthrow Saddam and break his totalitarian control, which can allow individual Iraqis with knowledge of WMD programs to speak out and lead U.S. soldiers to stockpiles. They could even do so gladly if offered cash rewards and/or places in the provisional post-Saddam government.
In any event, the American soldiers in the region are all volunteers and have been made aware of the potential threat. I seriously doubt any president would toss their lives away to make some political point (or if he tried, that the joint chiefs wouldn’t resign en masse) and in this case, the price of doing nothing to eliminate such stockpiles (if they exist) could be far far higher.
Far from smoking guns, it sounds like a lot of circumstantial evidence and speculation that bears investigation. Your cite strongly supports continued weapons inspections, not pre-emptive war. I stand by my judgement that the evidence has been scant.
I predict that when we invade Iraq, Saddam will use WMD against our troops, causing massive casualties. I also predict that GWB will then go on TV and say something to the effect of “See. I told you all that he had these weapons and was planning to use them against us.” And I also predict that some people will be stupid enough that they will follow his tortured logic and not realize that it was our invasion, and only our invasion, that would ever cause Saddam to use a WMD attack against us.
I don’t think the question is whether or not Saddam has WMDs – odds are good he has something, if only for self-defense against hostile neighbors (e.g., Iran).
The questions are (a) How many WMDs does Saddam have? And (b) can he be disarmed through non-violent means?
George W. Bush is saying “lots” and “no!” Hans Blix is saying “dunno” and “maybe.” France and Russia are saying “maybe” and “yes.” And therein lies the dispute.
