There are no WMDs in Iraq

Bush, Rumsfeld, Fleischer, and the rest of Liars, Inc. claim that weapons of mass destruction haven't been found in Iraq either because "Iraq is the size of California" and more time
is needed, or because they were "destroyed just before the war." Neither claim stands up to scrutiny.

Pre-invasion claims asserted that Iraq had "10,000 liters of anthrax, up to 6,500 chemical munitions and at least 80 tons of mustard gas, sarin, and other poisons." You don't stick this amount of material in your backpack, hike into the John Muir Wilderness, and bury it under a tree! The size of California, or Iraq, is irrelevant. Hiding or destroying this amount of material would involve hundreds or even thousands of soldiers and engineers, dozens of trucks, and this activity would hardly go unobserved by US spy satellites were it to have occurred in the middle of the Iraqi desert or even in a small village. Only major cities and industrial compounds are possible locations for such activity.


Rather than asking "Where are the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?", the proper question now is: If WMDs were produced, hidden, or destroyed in Iraq, who carried out those tasks? If there were active programs for the development of WMDs, where are the people who were involved?

The Administration claims that answers will emerge from interrogation of a few top officials and scientists, but that is unlikely. Such people might all be Baath Party loyalists, or concerned about being charged with war crimes. But the hundreds or thousands of workers, engineers, technicians, janitors, secretaries, guards, soldiers, and truck drivers who actually did the work of producing, hiding, destroying, or researching WMDs would not only have no reason to lie, but would have every reason to come forward to claim the monetary rewards being offered by the Americans. Not a single one has.

The conclusion draws itself. There aren't any WMDs in Iraq, not now, not before the war, and not for many years, nor have there been any "active programs" related to WMDs for many years. Just as the Iraqis said.

The only question left is, was Bush "misled" (oh puhleeze) or did he lie? The answer to this is obvious as well, but it doesn't require knowledge or assumptions about Bush's character. "We" were "threatened" not because Iraq could attack the US with any weapons whatsoever, but because they might give some of those WMDs to terrorists who would use them to attack the US. So the line (or is that "lie"?) went. If that were true, AND if the US really believed there WERE WMDs in Iraq, then there would have been an absolutely frenetic search launched, even while the war was going on, to ensure that those WMDs didn't fall into the wrong hands. All evidence, which I won't reiterate here, suggests that the search has been lacksadaisical at best, and hardly conducted with any great urgency. So not only are there no WMDs in Iraq, but Liars, Inc. knew it all along. The proof is incontrovertible.

Incidentally, for those who haven't seen the debunking of the Iraqi "bioweapons" trailers, be sure to check out
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/60752.php