The View From 1776

§ American Traditions

§ People and Ideas

§ Decline of Western Civilization: a Snapshot

§ Books to Read

§ BUY MY BOOK

Liberal_Jihad_Cover.jpg Forward USA

Friday, January 14, 2005

Final Verdict on WMD

The New York Times has pronounced judgment.

————————
In its January 13, 2005, lead editorial, the New York Times announces the liberal opinion it judges fit to print. 

Bulletin: No W.M.D. Found declares that we now know that the UN sanctions worked in Iraq:

“What all our loss and pain and expense in the Iraqi invasion has actually proved is that the weapons inspections worked, that international sanctions - deeply, deeply messy as they turned out to be - worked, and that in the case of Saddam Hussein, the United Nations worked. Whatever the Hussein regime once had is gone because the international community insisted. It was all destroyed a decade ago, under world pressure.”

Yet in the first sentence of that same paragraph, the Times editorialists also wrote: “The fact that nothing was found does not absolutely, positively prove that there wasn’t something there once, something that was disassembled and trucked over the border to Syria or buried in yet another Iraqi rose garden.”

If the UN is so extraordinarily effective, how to explain the largest financial and humanitarian crime in history, the UN’s blood-money-for-oil racket that put billions of dollars illegally into Saddam’s pockets and tens of millions into the pockets of corrupt government officials in France and elsewhere? 

There also remain the nagging questions of why Saddam threw UN inspectors out of the country, after their discoveries in 1997, if he had already dismantled his WMD and why, knowing that the United States was about to launch an attack, he did not offer proof to the Hans Blix inspection team and prevent the invasion.

The UN Security Council’s Resolution 1441 gave Saddam “a final opportunity” to comply with the many earlier resolutions demanding that he provide proof that he had already dismantled his WMD program. In January 2003, Chief Inspector Hans Blix, a certified liberal-socialist from Sweden, reported to the Council that Saddam had not complied.

Then the liberals began to reconsider their political strategy, with a Presidential election at hand.  A month before last November’s election, Mr. Blix, said: “Had we had a few months more [of inspections before the war], we would have been able to tell both the CIA and others that there were no weapons of mass destruction [at] all the sites that they had given to us.” [Wall Street Journal, December?7,?2004;?Page?A14]

In January, 2003, Mr. Blix was prepared to certify that Saddam had not complied by providing proof that no WMD existed.  Twenty-one months later he was suddenly absolutely certain that he could have found evidence that Saddam had destroyed his WMD or have scoured the whole of Iraq, unearthing millions of tons of desert sand in the process, to be sure that no WMD were buried or otherwise hidden in Iraq.  And, who’s to say that Saddam would be so foolish as to hide WMD at “all the sites that they had given to us,” as Mr. Blix put it?

Sounds rather like Teddy Kennedy attempting explain why he didn’t bother for many hours to report that a young lady was trapped in the automobile he had run off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island.

A final point noted by Charles Krauthammer in his October 10, 2003, column headlined ‘Just in time’ WMD:

“Rolf Ekeus, living proof that not all Swedish arms inspectors are fools, may have been right.

“Ekeus headed the U.N. inspection team that from 1991 to 1997 uncovered not just tons of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, but a massive secret nuclear weapons program as well. This, after the other Swede, Hans Blix, then director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had given Saddam a perfectly clean bill of health on being non-nuclear.”

How reliable can we believe the UN inspection regime to have been, headed by Hans Blix, a man certifiably wrong about Saddam’s WMD in 1997?