Quote:
Originally Posted by CaramonLS
Those three things helped lead to their assumption of WMDs - going back over the evidence, it was either gross incompetence or negligence, which caused the administration to use those as pools of evidence for the war.
|
The execution of the war leads me to believe that it was gross incompetence.
Here's some food for thought. If they lied about the existence of WMDs in Iraq, that was pretty dumb. They had to know that they'd eventually be caught when no weapons were found. I think it's likelier that they really thought they'd be proven right--and in a way, the U.S. had good reason to believe that Iraq was in possession of WMDs....
They still have the receipts.
I for one opposed the war from the start--but I'll admit I was very surprised that they found no WMDs at all. I didn't think a massive and expensive nuclear weapons program was likely, but... nothing at all? Not a single chemical warhead or tub of anthrax? That's actually a bit disturbing, because the U.S. KNOWS that Iraq HAD them, for at least two reasons:
1. They were the ones who provided Iraq with some weapons during the Iran-Iraq war (not sure of the exact details of this but I assume some were tactical...)
2. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on his own citizens in at least one documented instance that I can think of. This implies that at one time he had some.
Heck, if you invaded CANADA, you'd find SOMETHING that looked like a chemical weapon. So what happened to them? Are they just gone? In the hands of rogue actors outside Iraq? I don't want to be alarmist, but it does worry me a little.
Sure, it's possible that he didn't have any left, but if that's the case it's the worst hoax in the history of hoaxes. Personally, if I was going to lie about the existence of WMDs in another country, and use that as a pretext to invade, I'd also plant some WMDs for myself to find. You know, so I don't look like an idiot.
I think the Bush administration fully expected to find something suspicious, though I doubt even the most ideological expected that there would be a developing nuclear program--that claim was absurd on its face, and anyone who fell for it in spite of contrary testimony from experts like Hans Blix and many others should probably feel a bit silly.