Paul Wolfowitz, traitor to his cause, has admitted that the whole WMD pretext for war was just that.
This is all-but the final capitulation in a series of dodges and weaves that the administration has been taking in the past few weeks on this subject. Some right-wing think-tank types have, hilariously, suggested that no, Iraq didn’t have any WMDs, but his people were unwilling to tell that to Saddam, who wanted to believe he had some, so they tricked him, and the rest of the world, into thinking there were some. Or, even richer, Saddam knew he didn’t have WMDs, but wanted us to think he did. Eh?
One excuse tossed out by Rumsfeld is that Saddam did have WMDs, but destroyed them at the last minute. By comparison, this at least passes the laugh test, but how long would it take to dismantle a chemical arsenal of the size we had accused him of having? I really don’t know, but I’m guessing it would take more than a couple weeks, and would probably be accompanied by equipment movements that would be obvious to spy satellites.
I don’t expect this will derail G.W.’s popularity–nothing else seems to–but at least I can add smugness to my bitterness and despair now.
We probably need to send some of our “Nations Finest” to Iraq to do what they do best. Plant evidence. Or better yet, since Hussein cleaned out the Central Bank of approximately a billion dollars in a few hours, he had enough cash on hand to “expedite” the destruction of WMD’s.
Yeah, frankly I’ve been surprised that we (we=they) haven’t planted evidence. I can only assume the idea was kicked around and rejected as too risky.