Faced with the possibility of being wrong about whether or not Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, the Bush administration is trying a new tact. No, we haven't found any WMD but we know Iraq did have them. (We've got the receipts!)
Reading the polls that show a majority of people believe Iraq had WMD (although down from 69% in 2003 to 51% in 2004) the administration probably figures it can't hurt much to keep saying Saddam had WMD as the only way to lose public support on this issue would be for the public to admit they were wrong also. And for the public to admit they were wrong about WMDs the administration probably believes this would mean the public would have to also decide that they might have been wrong about supporting the invasion of Iraq. And if the public were to admit they were wrong about the war then that would mean they supported sending US troops to fight and die in a war of questionable purpose, and the public is not going to do that.
So now the administration has decided to take the "prove me wrong" position on WMDs and confuse the issue on whether Iraq had WMDs in 2003 or anytime in the past. "I look forward to hearing the truth as to exactly where [the WMD] are," Bush said at the press conference. Iraq, of course, at one time had WMD, but through the actions by the United Nations weapons inspectors may have forced Saddam to destroy them, which would be quite a success story, if it publicized.
Former UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has said that he now believes that Iraq did destroy most of its weapons 10 years ago.
"The more time that has passed, the more I think it's unlikely that anything will be found. In the beginning they talked about weapons concretely, and later on they talked about weapons programs," Blix told ABC. "I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed all almost of what they had in the summer of 1991."
But the Bush administration hardly wants to admit to the world, "Yes, the inspections worked. The UN forced Saddam to destroy his WMD." Kinda cuts down the reasons for go to war doesnt' it? So now the Bush administration asks why Saddam wasn't willing to come clean about being free of WMDs. Gee, I don't know, why would a murderous dictator not want his enemies to know he didn't actually have WMDs? Maybe because they might try to overthrow him....
"You can put up a sign on your door, 'Beware of the Dog', without having a dog," Blix said.
By saying that Saddam still had WMD, the Bush administration, in a weird way, is in effect promoting Saddam's legacy. With WMDs Saddam was a leader to be dealt with. And if Saddam was a leader that needed to be dealt with, then he was standing up to the US and the West.
Otherwise Saddam was just another murderous dictator, and unfortunately the world has too many of them, but you don't see Bush going after them.
