blix: 'no smoking gun' in iraq
Okay, let me get this straight: the current rationale for the US confrontation with Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction (that whole "regime change" thing didn't sell). Bush agrees, reluctantly or otherwise, to postpone his coveted attack until UN weapons inspection goes forward. Now the chief UN weapons inspector--while far from handing Iraq a clean bill of health--says, basically, that his teams haven't found much in the way of evidence of violations. Essentially, we're in no different a situation than we were prior to inspections--Bush insists that Saddam has WMDs, (don't forget, that leaves aside the question of deterring Saddam from using them), but can't or won't cough up the evidence. I take the sharing of US intelligence data with the inspectors as a positive sign, but not evidence by itself.
That'd make the Administration rationale for its coming war with Iraq (does anyone believe Bush when he says he hasn't decided yet? Does anyone even believe he hadn't made up his mind months ago?) something like "We don't want Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction, and the UN hasn't found any, so that means they must therefore exist and be well hidden"?
I am certainly not denying that Iraq could have WMDs. But I do assert that Bush has, as far as I'm concerned, long since blown his credibility WRT Iraq, and I positively refuse to support going to war against Iraq based purely on his assertions. It hinges, rather, on--if not proof--at least evidence. Show me the money.