Apr
21
WMDs…Don’t Want to Know
April 21, 2007 |
Go read Melanie Phillips.
Dave Gaubatz, however, says that you could not be more wrong. Saddam’s WMD did exist. He should know, because he found the sites where he is certain they were stored. And the reason you don’t know about this is that the American administration failed to act on his information, ‘lost’ his classified reports and is now doing everything it can to prevent disclosure of the terrible fact that, through its own incompetence, it allowed Saddam’s WMD to end up in the hands of the very terrorist states against whom it is so controversially at war. the spectator
I’ve never had the slightest doubt that Saddam had WMDs of at least the chemical variety. And, I suspect, they are sitting in Syria or Iran or both at the moment.
Mind you, taking down Saddam was a good thing even without the WMDs; but the worry here is that two states which are certainly dangerous to the rest of the world may well have benefited from the Bush admin’s incompetence. And, yes, it looks a bit like the CIA was covering up - so what? The Administration controls, or should control, the CIA and it is increasingly clear that it didn’t and doesn’t.
Comments
5 Comments so far

You guys have really gone off the deep end now.
MAy I offer a helpful suggestion? Go check out these stories a bit more before making such a complete clown of yourself.
Yo Joe, I often wonder why people are so heavily invested in the idea that Uncle Cuddles never, ever had any WMDs except for the ones he used on the Kurds.
There is plenty of evidence that there were old chemical munitions in Iraq. A bunch of Poles ran across chemical shells. These bunkers are highly suggestive. Are they proof positive? Nope. They merely suggest that the intelligence agencies of pretty much the whole of the West were not completely insane.
Of course there will always be people who like the certainty of their convictions. In general these are the sorts of people who figure there could not be an WMDs and that Global Warming is a done deal. I am a bit more skeptical.
Skeptical is not the word.
Delusional, maybe. Or desparate to believe any huckster that tells you what you want to believe.
But thats what you guys specialize in, right? Imagining your own version of reality, then fitting the evidence, or making up the evidence, to support the fantasy?
Mr. Bloe,
It could very well be that Jay is delusional, but were you going to bother to prove this? Sorry, but a reasonable argument has been made and all you’ve done is attack Jay’s character–and, of course, those of the other members of the “You Guys” Conspiracy … I mean, I have no doubt that many reasonable arguments are false, but the rather obvious fact remains that such a judgment (of falsity) can only be made in light of another, better, reasonable argument.
As it happens, I also think that Melanie Phillips’ revelations about Dave Gaubatz are a little thin. But I wouldn’t dare to call them fantasy unless I could actually demonstrate that they were. You apparently can, so won’t you please enlighten us. Honestly.
And let me remind you that “fantasy” implies that there is not so much as a grain of truth to Mr. Gaubatz’s claims; that “huckster” means he has no objective credibility. You’ve set the bar awfully high for yourself, I think you’ll find. Good luck!
Jay, I agree with your general position, regardless of what Joe Blow-hard says. I do have one quibble with you, though. Exactly what U.S. administration has ever, now or in the past, been in control of the CIA? Isn’t this the real tragedy of the whole Iraq/Middle East war - there are so many competing entities in Washington, that the U.S. is entirely incapable of mounting a unified action against any opponent. From day one, the CIA and State Departments have been pulling in different directions than the Administration, and, other than a very short period right after 9/11 and just leading up to the Iraq war, the Democrats have been actively working against the Administration. This is absolute insanity.