What about those WMD’s ?

There has been a lot of discussion lately about the absence of WMD’s in Iraq.  Many reasons were given for the war on Iraq, but WMD’s were the most prominently played.

Now that no WMD’s of any type have been found, the Bush administration is backpedaling from their previous claims.  They are now asserting that they didn’t actually say that they knew there were WMD’s in Iraq, just that there could be, or they had evidence that there could be. 

Anyone looking back at the statements leading up to this war will clearly see the claims of a clear and present danger from WMD’s in Iraq.  George W has accused those of remembering this far back of being “revisionist historians”.  This is yet another obvious example of offensive-defense from this administration; accusing your opponents of your own crimes.

By now it is quite clear that there are, and were, no significant WMD’s of any type in Iraq.  This means that the evidence used to justify this war was seriously wrong.  There are several possibilities regarding the Bush administration’s use of this material:

1.      They were misled by the intelligence agencies and the Iraqi exiles.

2.      They wanted to believe so much that they just picked out the parts they liked.

3.      They knew the evidence was bogus, but wanted the war anyway and didn’t care.

One can characterize these possibilities as (1) the naïve fool, (2) the craven opportunist or (3) the liar direct.  None of these represent responsible leadership.  Any of them would be the downfall of a corporate CEO, either by their board of directors or by a criminal prosecutor.

If we are to reclaim the integrity of this government, something drastic must be done.