we may only be in the fifth inning on wmd... this still has to play out.
I agree with you, John, if you are talking about the presence of "any" wmds. However, the administration did not make the case for invasion by arguing there were some wmds somewhere in Iraq. They argued there was a great deal and they, unlike the UN inspectors, knew where they were; and that Saddam was close to nuclear capability give or take a couple of years, and that he was ready to use what he had. It's that case that (a) has been undermined by the fact they could not find them reasonably quickly and (b) by the failure of Saddam to deploy them. I think in case (b) if he had them he would certainly have deployed. Certainly his track record suggests such.
As for the Iraqi scientists now in detention, I'm as curious as you are. My assumption has been that they are negotiating the best possible deal for themselves in return for any information they have. I'm surprised by the length of time.
Finally, on this same note, you may have seen the reports of the conflict between John Burns and Judith Miller of the NYTimes over her reporting in Iraq. She has, as you may know, published at least two reports of mobile labs found, then nothing followed. Absolutely nothing. Which led one to believe her sources were wrong, that careful checks showed the mobiles were not wmd labs or at least that an argument, based on available evidence, could not be made. Now it turns out, we learn, from the Burns-Miller exchange that her sources, like the upper levels in the DOD, were Chalabi's folk. Hmmm. |
