Rising Nucleotides

I hate WMDs

You won't hear me say that I'm sick of things very often, but I am sick of the "Where are the WMDs?" refrain. A list of past quotes from mostly Democrats on the subject of WMDs over at Right Wing News (hat tip: The Safety Valve) makes for very interesting reading, considering the current crop of complaints. Here are a few of my favorites:

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

You tell 'em, Al. Saddam would never give up his quest for more and greater weapons. Also, he mentions an international coalition, so I might as well take this opportunity to point out that we did have a coalition of over 40 nations. The War in Iraq was hardly unilateral just because France was trying to protect illegal sweet deals.

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Just in case anyone still thinks the UN is relevant, I picked this one to point out that you-know-who had been largely ignoring UN resolutions ever since Desert Storm. I hear talk that the recent war was 'sudden,' and I am forced to wonder how 12 years of international pressure can possibly be considered sudden.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Note that she said, "terrorists, including Al Qaeda members," which implies that there are terrorists who are not members of Al Qaeda (amazing as that may seem). What she means by that, though even Republicans are skittish about saying so, is Palestinian terrorists. Saddam had that program of sending big fat checks to the families of homicide bombers suicide murderers, as you'll recall.

"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ... we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes." -- Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector January 27, 2003 Addressing the UN Security Council

This one is particularly disconcerting in light of the recent centrifuge-in-back-yard discovery. Note that Hans Blix is speaking before the war. We can be fairly safe in assuming that UN inspectors didn't plant those 3,000 nuclear documents, thus current leftist claims that the recently discovered materials were planted by the US are irrelevant.

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

There's conclusive evidence, and then there's damning evidence. This, folks, is the latter.

Just one more quote-- but this time, it's one by the mighty Toren, from the article that inspired me, over at The Safety Valve.

One hilarious argument I have read was that the quotes from the nineties don't matter since he could have destroyed his WMDs between that time and when the later quotes were made. And just why would he not have done this in front of the UN Weapons Inspectors and thereby had sanctions lifted, injecting $180 billion dollars into his economy?! Are you saying he destroyed them in secret and refused to mention it just to be a cement head? How ludicrous.

If that isn't proof-- and I mean undeniable, honest-to-some-divine-force proof-- that Saddam harbored prohibited weapons of mass destruction... then I might as well stop typing.

That issue aside, though, you might still be concerned that the War was waged at least partially because of Iraq's oil-- or possibly to distract from the flagging US economy. To this notion I say: OK, it was partially about Iraq's oil. Allow me to elaborate... I'm sure you've heard of that "Saudi Arabia" place, since every time a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda is mentioned, a leftist points out that Saudi Arabia was the home country of most of the 9-11 terrorist murderers. The US has maintained sort of good relations with said repressive hell-hole of a country, because the US required oil... and bases from which to periodically attack Iraq during the Clinton era (you don't hear anti-war people mention that, do you?). Without a reasonably constant supply of energy (read: foreign oil), the US economy would stop, and everyone knows it. So the Saudis have enjoyed a good business relationship with us. See diagram below, by Cox & Forkum.

Wasn't this about Iraq? Oh, it is-- I'm getting to that part... Now, however, the US has liberated Iraq. Nothing could be better, economically, for the Iraqi people than to exchange enormous amounts of oil for enormous mountains of US cash. Saudi Arabia will lose much of its former clout. To those who say the War was about cheap oil, I have two points. One (1): Have you heard a leftist complain about how much the war cost? And that's cheap? Two (2): If you insist, though, I would interpret "cheap oil" as meaning that Saudi Arabia no longer has the power to trip the entire US economy just by stick out its leg. And that is a Very Good Thing.

But isn't this Imperialist? Colonialist? Not really. If Iraq didn't have such a valuable resource, then those accusations wouldn't have been made. Since it does, though, the screams of imperialism are unavoidable... Look, Iraq really needed a regime change, and it's going to take time for them to adjust to freedom and representative goverment. It's not as if we won't pay them for the oil in the meantime. Furthermore, leftists are quick to blame America for past mistakes, so why not look at past successes? We did a pretty nice job fixing up Japan and Germany after that other War, and neither country was annexed. Sheesh. If you're that paranoid about the US government, why not support the Second Amendment? If you suggest that it might somehow be wrong to export our system of government to Iraq... you know, the one where everyone is equal, people get to choose their own leaders, are entitled to life, liberty, and the slightest chance of being happy (unlike pre-war Iraq)... if that's wrong, then you are beyond my help.

Posted by Mitch at July 2, 2003 02:03 AM
You can find this entry in: Terror / War