Aurel -
To my knowledge, (1) you've never used any WMDs against anybody; (2) wouldn't sell them to anybody; and (3) aren't in flagrant violation of a score of UN resolutions telling you to get rid of them and to dismantle your ability to generate them.
I doubt, given the circumstances, that Saladin would even have had the chance to use WMDs -- what we've found out is that France was assuring him that they'd stall the bejesus out of us and that he could expect a campaign waged similar to the Gulf War -- weeks of bombing before ground troops moved in, during which time he could either get his shizznit out of Iraq or use WMDs (which I, personally doubt he would've done, but that's just MHO).
EDIT --
I think Saddam's "capture" might've been staged, but not for
PR reasons or petty bullshyte. I think it'd be done for tactical/intelligence reasons. When we get OBL, for example, if word hasn't gotten out about his capture and we can get information out of him in the first couple of days then it's still good information that we can use to get other bad guys. Once they know he's caught - that he's burned - they'll scatter and disappear and then the intel from him is much less useful, if not useless. So I think there's a good chance we had Saddam for a while before we announced we had him. But we sure as shyte didn't grow that beard on him.
CamB -
You're sort of making my point. Blix was very anti-anything that would emasculate (or rather, reveal the already extant emasculation of) the UN and, coincidentally, make him just another peon again. Yet Blix was the only guy that ever got a microphone. Hmmm.... why? Well, I don't think it's all media this one time -- if an inspector had come out and made public statements to the effect that Iraq had WMD, was making WMD, etc. (1) it'd have been a huge embarassment for the UN and the Weasels, so it'd be a tough thing to do; (2) the nationality of the inspector would've been a huge political lever (he's Australian? they like the US, he must be a pawn!); and (3) that inspector would wind up dead or PNG'd if he stayed in Iraq very long after making such a statement. The ISG had many of the UN inspectors in its ranks (I confess I don't know how many, but by most accounts, they featured prominently) and they've come out with their {first} report as I quoted earlier.
Why not move when we did? What would've satisfied you? Auckland as a fireball? Montreal? Tel Aviv? If Saddam had simply not invaded a neighbor, never allowed any meaningful inspections and kept on doing whatever he was doing, there would *never* have been any "urgency" (at least in the general public's collective mind) about taking him down. Cam, he *needed* killin' (so to speak). Ask any non-Baathist Iraqi whether there was any urgency.
Very few people in my experience who lean on the "why not wait?" horn ever have a threshhold that would have been enough (w/o millions having been killed and essentially a due process-type public catharsis to prove beyond any possible doubt that the perps actually did it -- though we really deserved it and should look to root causes, blah blah blah). Perhaps you're the exception. Too many are the "prove it to me and I still won't believe it" crowd.
dd74 -
How do we know it was ever there? B/c he used them on his own people and against Iran. That's pretty much an undisputed matter of record.
analogy - I commit a crime - a bunch of violent crimes, let's say, against my family and neighbors - using hanguns. I serve my time and get out of jail (bear with me...). I can no longer legally possess a handgun (if any firearm). Nonetheless, I taunt people as though I've got a gun; threaten to shoot people; buy a lot of stuff that I could use to make guns in my basement, etc. Cops get a search warrant, based on probable cause, show up at my door and I tell 'em to screw. Well, you can look in the kitchen, but only the kitchen. Then I throw 'em out of my house. Come back tomorrow, I tell 'em and you can search the bathroom. Maybe. Now, they've got a search warrant, and they're entitled to search. I've got a colorful history of violent crimes commited with guns; I've been running my mouth off about owning guns, threatening people; buying gun precursors and refusing to allow the police to search* -- do you think the cops would be wrong in assuming I've got a gun or two? It's REAL easy for me to assuage their fears if I don't have a gun, but I refuse to.
* In this sense, police are not like the UN weapons inspectors. The UNWI were *not* on a scavenger hunt, which Saddam made it into (w/ UN complicity). UNWI don't go around w/ a map "looking" for contraband, but are more observers -- to witness and attest to the destruction of materials -- as they did in South Africa and former Soviet countries. Cops, OTOH, are on a "let's see if we can find something -- fingers crossed, now" mission.
I completely agree about good intelligence -- but it's wheat in the chaff, and you've got to separate it. Good intelligence found Saddam for us; good intelligence is still developing and I think the quality will improve.
OBL knows that fear is a WMD; so do our media buddies using it to erode our will to finish the job in Iraq and elsewhere (OK, that's a bit extreme).
I'll bet a nickel most of the WMD Saddam had are in Syria, in tact.
Back tomorrow. Missed you guys these past weeks. Even you, Aurel.
JP