Hi Neocon; The Economist is full of it when they say that "much of the evidence against Mr Hussein came not from the American and British governments or their spies, but from two unimpeachable sources. They were the United Nations weapons inspectors, and Mr Hussein himself."
The article then goes on to illuminate that evidence, and it is all out of date stuff that is already well known to all. We all know that Iraq (and Iran too) built and used chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war. This is a fact. We all know that the weapons inspectors did find chemical weapons, many years ago. But none of this has much to do with whether or not Bush and Blair were certain that Iraq had WMDs in March of 2003.
The question is not "was there a possibility that Iraq had WMDs in March 2003". Instead, the question is what did Bush and Blair know, and when did they know it.
Bush and Blair swore publicly, and made their representatives similarly swear, that Iraq possessed current WMDs in late 2002 and early 2003. For this, neither the UN nor Hussein himself provided any support.
Bush and Blair are leaders of very large nations with very large secret services. They claimed that those secret services were certain that Iraq had WMDs. It is now clear that the secret services were forced to lie by the leaders of the two countries. That is the problem, that Bush and Blair are full fledged "I did not have sex with that woman" liars, and liars about something as serious as war.
The question is not about what was likely, but instead the question is what did Bush and Blair know, and when did they know it.
-- Carl |
