Kathleen Parker

Anyone who went on record in support of the war has been asked that question a hundred or so times in recent weeks. President Bush's opponents, it seems, won't be satisfied until Geraldo is standing astride 5,000 drums of liquid anthrax in front of a nuclear silo. Wouldn't that be lovely?

I confess to disappointment that there isn't some clearer evidence of WMD. Certainly those of us who wandered out onto the pro-war limb believed in the case presented by Secretary of State Colin Powell. We believed the Iraqi people would welcome us (they mostly did); we believed there would be celebrations in the streets (there were); and we believed that Saddam Hussein needed to be ousted for all the right reasons, including his clear commitment to the development of WMD.

And it was a clear commitment, let's remember. Saddam had developed such weapons in the past and used them against Iran as well as Iraqi Kurds. He consistently thumbed his nose at inspection efforts. He failed to produce evidence that he had destroyed vast quantities of biological and chemical weapons left over from Gulf War I. And he did nothing to convince the "international community" that he had rid his country of all vestiges of WMD.

He essentially chose war over truth and the safety of his own people. Meanwhile, intelligence about WMD in Iraq was sufficiently compelling to declare Saddam in violation of a series of U.N. disarmament resolutions going back to 1991. And not one country on the U.N. Security Council, even among those that fought our war effort, disbelieved the existence of WMD in Iraq. The issue wasn't whether, but how, to get rid of them.

Still, the question that won't go away chaps at the conscience of any thinking person: So where are they?

The bad news is that we may never find them, according to military and intelligence people I've talked to. Does that mean WMD were never there? No. Does it mean we were wrong? No. Was the threat of WMD a ruse to justify an otherwise unjustifiable attack on another country? Anyone who seriously asks this question won't take "no" for an answer.

The truth is, we don't know where the weapons are at the moment, other than the two mobile bio labs, but a number of plausible theories could help explain why not. The most obvious explanation is that Saddam simply destroyed the weapons or shipped them elsewhere - to Syria, for instance. He may have ordered his men to destroy them in the vast Iraqi desert and then killed them as the only witnesses. The perfect crime.

Or he may have dispersed and concealed various elements of his WMD production capacity, figuring he could regroup after the war.


Kathleen Parker

Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Kathleen Parker's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.