I think Senator Biden's remarks can speak to the arguments presented here.
Given Saddam’s actual use of chemical weapons against Iran and his own Kurdish population, and the conclusion of UN weapons inspectors that huge stockpiles of such weapons were unaccounted for, the burden of proof was on him to account for his arsenal of WMD. He had ample time to show weapons inspectors that he no longer possessed them, and his failure to do so led the entire world to assume he retained them. That’s why UN Resolution 1441 passed unanimously in the Security Council.
You can go on crying about Bush lieing about Iraq'a chemical weapons capability, but if he did, so did Blix, the U.N., UNMOVIC etc etc. We'll never know if the war would have happened if Saddam had bothered to PROVE he'd destroyed his stockpiles.... why didn't he? How hard would it have been to allow unfettered(sp?) access for inspection purposes?
Why didn't Saddam use chem/bio against our troops? Did he believe he might survive an invasion intact? If so, what are the chances he thought he could survive after employing wmd? What about the warnings (leaflets) sent by the coalition warning Saddam's commanders (the same commanders who'd seen what an bellybutton kicking really is in 91) about the consequences of employing chem? Did the GET that message?
It's all moot anyway, the war happened. As insignificant as this BB is in the greater scheme of things, how about debating how reconstruction should happen?
