Here we go again. Yet another earth-shattering report that Saddam Hussein, after all, did not possess stockpiles of WMD immediately prior to the American invasion of Iraq. How many more times must we hear this before the election?
Charles Duelfer, the chief of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) -- the organization consisting of 1,400 British, U.S. and Australian military experts searching for Iraqi WMD -- announced that Iraq's nuclear program had deteriorated since 1991 and that the country had no stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons.
Interestingly, just a few days before, CNS News, in a report I link to on my new blog at www.davidlimbaugh.com, reported that recently confiscated Iraqi intelligence documents show that Saddam was working with terrorists to target Americans with mustard gas and anthrax, both considered WMD.
Frankly, my head is spinning with all the conflicting reports about Saddam and his alleged WMD or lack thereof. Some time ago, I gave up hope that we'd ever find a smoking gun on Iraqi WMD. But even the ISG report conceded that Saddam still was intent on developing WMD and that the "guiding theme" of his regime was to be able to start making them again with as short a lead time as possible.
I obviously don't know if Saddam had renewed his WMD program or accumulated stockpiles of them, but neither does anyone else, except Saddam and some in his inner circle. If he did have stockpiles, he either hid them in that vast country or transferred them out.
But let's assume he didn't have them. So what? What does that prove? What does it say about President Bush's decision to attack Iraq, partially on the basis of Saddam's supposed WMD stockpiles?
Our intelligence agencies clearly said that Saddam did have WMD stockpiles and that he was actively pursuing the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
In the vice-presidential debate Tuesday night, John Edwards said that President Bush erred in not giving the sanctions more time to work. Oh? Perhaps he didn't read the ISG report they are gleefully touting. As Tony Blair said, "Just as I have had to accept that the evidence now is that there were not stockpiles of actual weapons ready to be deployed, I hope others have the honesty to accept that the report also shows that sanctions weren't working ."
And can we get real here about the inspections process? If we are just now gaining confidence that Iraq had no WMD stockpiles after being in control of and thoroughly searching that nation for over a year, how could we have ever relied on weapons inspectors with limited access to a foreign land controlled by a hostile dictator?