Mr.Intel's Journal: WMD in Iraq?

So the debate is increasing its pitch with the anti-Bush crew harping the WMD issue into the President every chance they get. So what? I would like to ask you if anyone really believes that Iraq *never* had WMD. If there are those who don't, I would suggest they go talk with the thousands of Iranians and Kurds who's family members were gassed. Then explain to me where the hundreds of thousands of tons of bio weapons he admitted having went. We also found centrifuges and calitrons that can only be used for one thing, making nuclear weapons.

There seems to be this notion that there exists in Iraq this room, that has a sign on it which reads, "Weapons of Mass Destruction"; and finding this room is what needs to happen to justify Bush's claims. Bio and Chem weapons don't have to made until moments before they are used. Only nukes have to be assembled before hand. Chem weapons are made in the same places that pesticides are made. One literally switches a lever and you go from pesticides to chem weapon agents. Bio weapons are made in a similar vein and we *have* found the mobile labs they were using...

Where the anti-Bush pundits fail most miserably is that they are attacking Bush where it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if Hussein had WMD and if they are still in country. What matters is whether or not Iraq posed a serious enough threat to the United States to justify war. That is where we should be demanding answers. American's died and their families have the right to know why. What were they defending America against? Even if the whole thing was about freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator, then Bush should have been more up front about it. Instead, he chose to hide behind something identifiable to the American people. Everyone is afraid of WMD, but it was too weak of an argument and he is paying the price for it. Weaker still is any claim that America was threatened by Iraq. We are more threatened by North Korea than at any time by Hussein. At least Kim-jong Il admits he has a nuclear program...

Lots of this going around lately

[dragoncortez]

Funny, Friedman wrote something similar [nytimes.com] today. I guess it's not that funny, because it's on many people's minds these days. I'm not entirely sure where you were going in your JE, or if you even had a specific destination in mind, but I agree with most of what was said.

I like to think that Bush had loftier goals than control of Iraq's oil fields in mind (as some folks seem to believe), but the deception he used to get support for the war was a bad idea. It definitely undermines the moral clarity he see

Re:Lots of this going around lately

[Mr.Intel]

I'm not entirely sure where you were going in your JE, or if you even had a specific destination in mind, but I agree with most of what was said.

I'm sure either as I was just ranting a wee bit. I guess the main argument was: Bush made a mistake with justifying the war in Iraq, but it has nothing to do with WMD.

While I would like to see our leaders held responsible for their mistakes...

Which brings up an important point. *How* do we hold our leaders accountable? Impeachment? Just don't re-elect them n

Re:Lots of this going around lately

[dragoncortez]

paralyze them into ineffectiveness with constant badgering

lol, that's saying it plain and simple. I guess what I meant is that if the general public gave a little more attention to what we're doing over in the Middle East, our government might feel more inclined to make wiser choices there.
You're absolutely right in saying that the media won't profit from something the public isn't interested in, so I guess a little more level-headed coverage of world events and a little less coverage of "scandal!" is