Two reasons that WMD do not exist in Iraq:

[skip fox]

1.) Hussain didn't use them when his back was against the wall.

The only counter to this is that he must have hidden them so
well that his access to their use was inhibited. Which of these
seems a "stretch"?)

2.) Not one of the captured Iraqis, offered strong incentives, have
given up the WMD location.

As desperate as the administration is, they have surely offered
safe-haven and freedom from prosecution plus a small fortune to
any of the captured Iraqis. Such prisoners have willingly given up
the location of other wanted Iraqis, but no hint of a viable WMD
(unless you count a canister under a rose bush viable).


The strongest "reason" cited to believe that Saddam had WMD cited by the
administration, is that he kept subverting the inspection process. I
submit this argument is not as strong as the above two since there may
be many reasons for Saddam to try to thwart outsider meddling and intervention
into his country's affairs (as he might see it).

[tom_paine]

1. A Third Reason

If Iraq actually had WMDs, the gutless Busheviks would not have invaded.

[bryant69]

6. I'm not sure about this

I am pretty sure that they didn't think that he had a delivery system that could threaten them. It seems unlikely that Hussein ever had a nucular program--so we are talking biologicals or Chemical weapons--and without a solid delivery system, they aren't going anywhere. Unless the United States Military happily marches into Iraq.

In other words any weapons they had would not be a threat to President Bush or his advisors personally.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Emboldened Chimp]

2. Reason #4

UN inspectors and Operation Desert Fox eliminated any weapons that he did have.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. My Take Extends From Your Last Paragraph

I think that Saddam played these idiots like a violin, until he overplayed his hand.

Like the small towns of 50's fame that couldn't afford radar for the police cars, and then put up "Speed Radar Timed" signs anyway, Saddam ran a huge bluff.

Wanting to be taken seriously on the world stage, it was much more cost effective to pretend to be working on a weapons program he couldn't afford, than actually find the money necessary to do it.

He ran a gigantic bluff, and these morons fell for it. The subversion of the inspection process was part of the ruse. But, at some point, the lie couldn't be sustained, and he had no hand to show.

Ergo, bye-bye, Saddam. But, if our "leaders" didn't know he was bluffing, they should have. And if they did, then that's one more lie on which this war was predicated.
The Professor

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Yeah, Prof.

That pretty well parallels my thinking on the matter.

[rman]

7. Saddam did have chemical weapons

there's no doubt about that. UN inspections have taken care of that years ago.

Then along comes B* accusing Saddam of still having wmds.
Saddam denies, more inspections turn up nothing.

Now how exactly is it that Saddam "played" B*?

It's not like Saddam did pretend he had wmds is it?
All he did was denie he had 'm and cooperate with the inspections.

[wuushew]

5. My main reason

Everything that Bush says is a lie therefore

"Iraq has WMD's"

should be read as

"We are invading a helpless country for the benefit of Israel and the oil companies"

[Old and In the Way]

8. Saddam was no dummy.

He was bluffing the UN by not pro-actively cooperating. Why would any dictator volunteer reality if it was in his personal interests for his enemies to believe he still had them?

I also think he was trying to balance cooperation with keeping this administration from gaining that info...in the end, Bush knew that WMD would not be used and his objective from day 1 was to invade. The whole charade of going to the UN was to provide cover while troops/logistics were prepositioned in Kuwait and the PG.

I'm no friend of Saddam, but is Iraq better off now then they were before we invaded?

I think the answer is obvious.

[the_sam]

9. I don't think there were weapons per se...

There were almost certainly no nuclear weapons or active programs. The inspectors under Ekeus and Butler were confident that they fundamentally destroyed Hussein's nuclear program. All that remained were some plans, scientists, and scattered components. The centrifuge and plans was concealed (obviously, I think) for the purpose of reverse-engineering centrifuges at a later date. It's very, very difficult to get ahold of materials necessary to build nukes without detection. Controls are especially focused on restricting the transfer of fissile material. Iraq couldn't have produced such material indigenously -- the energy source wouldn't been detected by American spy sattelites.

Biological and chemical weapons and banned missiles are another matter. I think there's near-certainty that Iraq destroyed its weapons by the mid-1990s. However, some of its programs could have been reconstituted fairly quickly. We know that Iraq retained its plans and personnel for manufacturing biological and chemical weapons, and retained designs and molds for proscribed missiles.

I don't think that Iraq had any actual proscribed weapons. I think it is possible that Iraq had tried to reconstitute some programs, perhaps successfully, but that its efforts were significantly hindered by the embargo. I think it's safe to say that when we invaded, Iraq had nowhere near the NBC weapons capability it had in 1991.

It's also possible that Iraq wanted to try to get the sanctions lifted before resuming NBC weapons production.

But, let's take a worst-case scenario. If Iraq had an active biological and chemical weapons program, was manufacturing proscribed missiles, and had begun to reconstitute its nuclear weapons programs, then was the war justified? Of course not.

Iraq wasn't a credible military threat to any of its neighbors, let alone the United States. Iraq has only supported terrorists that target regional foes -- half the time with U.S. support. It's unlikely that Hussein would give a source of power like NBC weapons to groups over which he has only limited control -- he didn't allow his own top officers to use them when he actually had them. Saddam Hussein would have nothing to gain from supporting anti-U.S. terrorism unless he could take credit for it -- but he couldn't, because he would be annihilated. Therefore, there's really not much of a possibility that Saddam Hussein would've passed his weapons along to terrorists.

Were there alternatives to war? Yes -- peaceful and more effective. First, the number of inspectors should have been increased, and inspectors' mission should've extended indefinitely. Chemical sensors, inspectors, and monitoring equipment should've been stationed at Iraq's border crossings and ports. As noted, nuclear weapons could not have been developed indigenously. Biological and chemical weapons supplies eventually decay; if inspectors were kept there long enough, and used strategically, then Iraq would've been disarmed by default.

Also, the U.S. should've devoted resources to destroying nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and strengthening controls on fissile materials.

The sanctions should've been lifted, except for the arms embargo, which should've been strengthened (for example, by prohibiting nuclear power, since some components of a nuclear power program could be utilized in a nuclear weapons program). International human rights observers should have been sent to Iraq.

Finally, the U.S. should've pursued (and still should pursue) a policy of global disarmament, taking the lead by destroying many of its nuclear weapons.

What has the Iraq war accomplished? Have the benefits outweighed the costs?

At least 20,000 Iraqis are dead and over 200 Americans are dead, to say nothing of those who will suffer from depleted uranium poisoning and (possibly) Gulf War syndrome. More will die. The Iraqis hate us; they (rightly) want us out. We've broken international law. We've engraged the Arab world, opening up sources of funding and recruitment for terrorists. We've encouraged the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We have not been made safer.

What should be done now? The UN should take over administering and rebuilding Iraq. It should get things up and running and get out ASAP. The Iraqis should be given whatever kind of government they want. The Kurds should have the opportunity to vote to secede. If they do, the UN should help set up an independent Kurdistan. Lastly, the U.S. should be held fully accountable for its illegal actions.

[jiacinto]

10. Or reason #3

3) They've been sold to black market weapons dealers and have fallen into the hands of very scary and dangerous people.

In the days between the start of the war and the fall of Baghdad I am sure that every black market weapons dealer found all the WMD, whatever was there, and sold it.