Logic Times

Editor's Note, 2/23/2006: It is never good form to say "I told you so," but it can be tempting. Especially when the subject matter – weapons of mass destruction – has been the backbone of hysterical anti-war rhetoric from very early on. The essay below, written in 2004, argues that the logical question has always been: Where have the weapons been moved?

 

It seems that we now know that answer:

 

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands. I am confident they were taken over." Georges Sada, former Iraqi General.

 

To corroborate this General’s statement, we would expect to find traces of WMD left behind in Iraq that even the most thorough "scrubbing" operation would miss.  And traces are exactly what we found:

 

"Two people were treated for 'minor exposure' after the sarin incident but no serious injuries were reported. Soldiers transporting the shell for inspection suffered symptoms consistent with low-level chemical exposure, which is what led to the discovery." (Source.)

 

Further, it is reasonable to expect terrorists to emerge from Syria with those WMD to attack U.S. allies:

 

"Government officials have said the suspects plotted to detonate a powerful bomb targeting Jordan's secret service and use poison gas against the prime minister's office, the U.S. Embassy and other diplomatic missions. Had the bomb exploded, it could have killed at least 20,000 people and wrecked buildings within a half-mile radius, the officials have said." (NOTE: These terrorists were seized at the border between Jordan and Syria. Source.)

 

Let's recap. These Al Qaeda terrorists, who hail from Iraq, possessed chemical weapons of mass destruction and were captured exiting Syria, a country that does not have the capability of producing these weapons, that also happens to border Iraq to the east. A former Iraqi General says the weapons were moved there and traces of these chemical weapons were found left behind.

 

How curious that the conviction last week of these Iraqi Al Qaeda terrorists possessing WMD was barely covered in the media.

 

"Jordan sentences nine al-Qaeda terrorists to death for planning chemical attacks against government and US targets in 2004…Twenty tons of chemicals and explosives were seized, including sulfuric acid, which can be used as a blistering agent or to increase the size of conventional explosions." (Source.)

 

Despite this evidence, some liberals will still argue the WMD were destroyed. The cornerstone of this logic suggests that we must trust the Hussein regime’s public claims and not trust General Sada, the findings of coalition forces or the circumstantial evidence of the Jordan terrorist plot. Their argument relies on Saddam:

 

"In the future, what would prevent a booby trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?" Saddam said. (Source.)

 

And Tariq Aziz:

 

"The biological (attack) is very easy to make. It's so simple that any biologist can make a bottle of germs and drop it into a water tower and kill 100,000." (Source.)

 

And Saddam's son-in-law:

 

"They don’t know any of this. We did not say we used them on Iran. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials." (Source.)

 

Liberals…I told you so.

 

 

Where Are the WMD?

Posted by Aslan. October 9, 2004. Comments (11)

 

(Printer Friendly Format)

 

A drug bust in Texas…

 

Outside a Texas border town, the local cops, along with agents from the ATF, DEA and Border Patrol, surrounded a broken-down farmhouse and barn complex.  For several years, the nondescript bean farm had been serving as a regional drug processing and distribution center for a large crime organization.  Opium derivatives poured out of this facility, which was nicknamed by the DEA “Little Columbia,” to end up on the streets of San Antonio and Austin.  Furthermore, surveillance performed by each of the agencies independently confirmed the presence of the drugs as well as an extensive cache of automatic weapons.  Two undercover agents from the DEA had even spent time in Little Columbia covertly filming all aspects of the sophisticated operation.

 

Strangely enough, when it came time to “hit” the Little Columbia facility, the local ACLU arrived and served an injunction blocking the move to shut down the illegal drug operation.  Such were the methods of the ACLU that the law enforcement officers, gathered in secret around the perimeter of the barn complex, were exposed because of the commotion.  The police and federal agents left.  After addressing the legal issues, the agents returned to assault the complex a week later only to encounter the same obstinate group of lawyers with a new injunction from a different judge.  The police and agents retreated again, to the general amusement of the “farmhands.”

 

The authorities eventually raided Little Columbia and discovered absolutely no drugs or weapons.  A local reporter, standing on a hill overlooking the operation, turned to his cameraman and said, "Can you believe it? There were no drugs in Little Columbia after all!  This raid was unjustified!  There never were any drugs; the cops and the feds lied.  They made up the story about the drugs just to steal the bean crop."

 

Of course, you laugh at this tale - the reporter’s comments are idiotic. Yet, the story above describes the circumstances present during the lead up to the Iraq war, and the comments of the reporter, so clearly inane in this setting, parallel the comments of liberals everywhere about WMD.

 

This made-up story makes a critical point in the WMD debate: why are only the wrong questions being asked about WMDs, and, more importantly, why are conservatives conceding the premise that there are no WMDs?  

  • FACT: WMD existed.
  • FACT: WMD had been used in the past.
  • FACT: Independent authorities confirmed the existence of WMD.
  • FACT: The owner of the WMD knew that an attack was coming because of the WMD.
  • FACT: Lots of time passed.
  • FACT: The assault took place.
  • FACT: No significant caches of WMD have been found in Iraq (Note: sarin-tipped artillery shells have been found).

The only logical question given these facts is: "Where are the WMD?" Just as the only logical question in the above story is: "Where are the drugs and weapons?  Where did the bad guys, given time and adequate notice, move the drugs and weapons?"

  

The important question that remains regarding WMD is: "Where have they been moved?"  The quietly reported seizure of sarin gas on the Syrian/Jordanian border gives us an idea as to the answer to that question.

 

Copyright ©  2004 Dan Hallagan. All Rights Reserved.

Comments

 

1: Trekram

October 9, 2004 09:44am EST

While I agree with your point, I'm not sure after the latest Duelfer Report it still applies. You are correct in that everything pointed to the existence of WMD and that no sane person would have believed otherwise.  However, it is highly probably that there were not "stockpiles" of WMD. The issue of the existence or non-existence of WMD is now just a red herring in the debate. The only issue that should have been and still should be the main focus is Saddam. He had to be taken from power sooner or later, he would always remain a threat, the sanctions where only benefiting him and hurting the people of Iraq. It was not working. Based on Kerry's position, Saddam would still be in power. This is the point that should be driven home by the White House.

 

{Aslan: I have read the report, and, while it certainly supports the Iraq incursion in a post-9/11 world, I am not convinced that some Iraqi WMD of sufficient quantity do not indeed still exist in secure locations, as implied in the Jordan report above.  However, I agree with your conclusion completely.}

 

2: Jonathan Bernier

October 12, 2004 08:38pm EST

Let us consider the facts you put forth in this argument:

    Logic Times FACT - WMD existed.

The question becomes when.  This only becomes an issue if Hussein did not disarm as per the UN sanctions c. 1992.  It is not valid to argue that he did not disarm his WMD since he used WMD prior to the point at which he was instructed to disarm his WMD.

 

{Aslan: That is not suggested here.}

    Logic Times FACT - WMD had been used in the past.

To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein made use of WMD after his military defeat in 1992.  The existence and use of WMD prior to 1992 does not necessarily indicate the existence and use thereafter.  Logically one needs to provide evidence to support that continued existence and usage, not simply assume it.

 

{Aslan: I did not specify when in the past, just that the use of WMD is an established historical fact.}

 

 

(more comments here)