Fluttering Carefully

I am neither a Bush fan, nor a dissident. However, I have long wanted to write about WMD and whether or not Iraq had it. Since everyone knows that I know about that.

There is no doubt that Sadam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Here are a couple of things that prove it:

• He did not deny that he had them; he defied the U.N. (not the U.S.) to make him give them up.
• Worldwide, intelligence agencies knew that he had them.
• He could have spared his life by proving that he did not have them.
• We still have the thank you card from when we gave them to him in the past (our enemy’s enemy is our friend).
• And, honestly, how do you prove that he did not? It is absurd to think that he could not have disposed of them. (That may seem lame; and it may be lame, but really, it is hard to (dis)prove. That is the beauty of that kind or statement: how can you undermine that kind of assertion?)

There are lots of reasons, ultimately, why he might or might not insist that he had them, but he was defiant about it until the end.

Tell me though, if you had a country and the U.N. told you to give up your weapons, what would be your responsibility to comply? Why should you comply? Your complicity could rightly be viewed as weakness. We love the U.N. to enforce our ideas upon others, but we don’t generally feel compelled to comply. Why should Sadam Hussein have complied?

Tell me further: when he killed his thousands (or his tens of thousands) of dissidents, was he more or less guilty than Americans are for killing their tens of millions of innocents since Roe v. Wade?