Despite the fact that in December 1998, President Clinton bombed Iraq (almost unilaterally, with Britain as the only major contributing ally as in 2003, as a matter of fact) to degrade Iraqi WMD programs and weapons. At the time, I remember that the claim was only that we'd set them back a year or two.
Austin Bay posts a guest column that reminds us--yet again--in the endless debate over Iraqi WMD, that we had every reason to believe Iraq had WMD. The conclusion:
The simple fact of the matter is that it would have imprudent–and just plain dumb–to take on faith Saddam Hussein’s assurances about the destruction of his WMD stocks. He had them, he used them, he claimed to destroy them, but wouldn’t allow anyone to verify that claim. To say now that it should have been obvious in 2003 that there were no WMD in Iraq, given the history of the regime and the behavior of its mad dictator, is not only unsupportable, it is irresponsible, and even borders on silly.
For the anti-war side that continues to spout the mislead/lie charge, was it a lie in 1998? If so, why did President Clinton lie? And if not, exactly when between 1998 and 2003 did Saddam get rid of all of his WMD and WMD programs? And why didn't anybody else report this?
Remember, our CIA and the intelligence services of our European and Middle East allies thought Saddam had WMD (poison gas, specifically); and the UN confirmed that Saddam did not verify the destruction of known purchases of WMD ingredients and WMD stockpiles and components.
It is amazing to still have to continue the debate-that-will-not-end when it is so bloody obvious that there was no lying or misleading going on by the administration. Oh, there is misleading and lying going on, no doubt. But then that is why the debate won't end.
Personally, I'm still waiting for version 5.0 of what happened to Saddam's WMD.
