the US has announced, officially, conclusively, finally, on–the–recordly, that no weapons of mass destruction were located in iraq. they’re calling off the search and reassigning the 1700 people who’ve been scouring the desert for the past 112 years with magnifying glasses and specially designed bioweapon dowsing rods.
it’s nobody’s fault, mind you, that we didn’t find anything. i’m happy our president is above going around assigning blame or admitting we made a mistake or doing any of that accountability stuff. that’s just stinkin’ thinkin’, and this administration is more about gettin’ things done; there’s lots of hard work out there to be done, after all.
i will sleep better knowing for sure, with absolute certainty, that there are no WMDs out there in iraq. it was keeping me awake, really. i’d lie there thinking, "we went to war because there were WMDs…where did that sneaky saddam hide them?! are they stashed in bunker–buster– proof caves in the mountains of afghanistan? did he ship them to libya disguised as funny red hats, and now khadafy is gonna lay waste to our freedoms after gaining our trust?"
i don’t have to think these things any more, because there are really, truly, no WMDs in iraq. never had ‘em (after 1991), never had a workable plan to get ‘em — wanted ‘em, hell yeah — but just couldn’t get their sunni salami together to build ‘em or buy ‘em.
so, i’d like to take this opportunity to say, "thank you george bush, for making the world a safer place for democracy. we look forward to the result of the upcoming iraqi elections with great, great anticipation. since you have stated with certainty that the elections will be held and they will forge a democracy in that poor country, i can sleep well about that issue, too."
PS: for those worrying simultaneously about rathergate and WMDs in iraq, the Poor Man has put together a nice quantitative comparison of the two searches.
PPS: i’m not finding fault here with the dedicated legions of people in the ISG who conducted the search, nor am i saying that there was never a possibility that iraq had WMDs after 1991. i’m finding fault with our president’s complete inability to admit having made a mistake of grand proportions (something that David Kay admitted openly before the senate armed services committee). i’m finding fault with an administration that has taken this long to admit something that everyone has pretty much known for a long, long time.
don’t take my word for it; take the word of David Kay (quoted by AP). he knows a lot more about it than i do:
"It is like dropping a shoe a little late. Quite frankly, I don’t think anyone who follows it very closely has suspected anything else over the last year. It was a matter of when the obvious would be done."
— David Kay, former head of the Iraqi Survey Group (ISG) charged with finding WMDs
NOTE (01.18.05): an astute reader suggested that i would be wise to read david kay’s report, that it in fact showed that iraq had WMD programs that were in violation of various UN resolutions. while i think it’s clear that iraq was in violation of numerous UN resolutions, it is not at all clear that iraq had ongoing and viable chemical or biological weapons programs. the open-ended language of kay’s report showed that no clear conclusions could be drawn (cf., intentions of the iraqi government and possibilities that things could have happened had UN sanctions been withdrawn). my primary conclusion from reading the kay report is that UN sanctions after 1991 worked, for the most part — saddam hussein’s regime was thwarted in its desire to obtain WMDs. for addition analysis, you can read slate’s commentary on the kay report and kay’s final testimony before the senate armed services committee.
and one final PS: the thing that burns me even more about this is that clinton, for his frisky sins, got impeached, whereas bush will probably be remembered warmly as a proactive, no–nonsense president.