<I think he know that Bush would come to get him, and had GREAT MOTIVATION to rid the country before we got there.>
So, your position is, that measures short of war were sufficient to rid Iraq of WMD? If so, then why was the war necessary? If the threat was sufficient to achieve our goal, why did we need to act on the threat?
But, that's not really what you're saying, is it? You're saying that all those WMD were destroyed, thoroughly and completely, at the last minute, right before our soldiers went in. If Saddam had bought his WMD elsewhere, this might have been possible. But that's not what the U.S. Administration said. They said he had nuclear, biological, and chemical programs. They said he had large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and lacked only weapons-grade nuclear material to make nuclear weapons. They said those stockpiles had been distributed to the army. What they said Iraq had, required many industrial-size operations to produce. Thousands of workers. Lots of documentation. Remember how Iraqi artillery units were (supposedly) issued orders to use their (supposed) chemical weapons, if U.S. forces came close to Bagdad? Those units were overrun and destroyed very quickly. It is impossible that all those Iraqi military units, could have destroyed every single one of their chemical warheads, and left no evidence behind. The only possible conclusion is, there never were any chemical weapons. |
