Now just watch as the antiwar folks question the timing, or complain about Santorum getting the info via a leak. And watch this vid, wherein hapless liberal Alan Colmes hilariously claims that they’re “the wrong WMDs, not the ones we went to war over.” The key bit from Hoekstra’s and Santorum’s announcement, at least as far as I’m concerned:
HOEKSTRA: I think what the news here is is a couple of things. Number one, the quantity that actually is publicly being reported — hundreds of warheads filled with — perhaps in some cases degraded — but still very, very lethal material.
And you know, when you say 500, you know, big deal — 500. I think in some of the attacks that have been identified with Saddam, 15 or 20 of these shells strategically placed in a city can have a very, very deadly impact, impacting, you know, killing hundreds, if not thousands of people.
This is not, you know, 500 artillery shells of the standard type that are going off on a regular basis. This is chemical weapons. And if they’re in the stockpile — you’re not talking about transferring hundreds to make an impact in New York, in a subway or anything like that. One or two of these shells, the materials inside of these, transferred outside of the country can be very, very deadly.
SANTORUM: Just recall — the Duelfer report said there were no stockpiles. And I remember when the report came out. The whole mood was: There was no WMD at the time we went into Iraq…This is a missing piece — a very important missing piece of the puzzle.
HOEKSTRA: And there are still other additional pieces that from my perspective need to be filled in and other questions.
So that’s why I’m up here, saying there’s not a single stockpile in Iraq that says: Whew, now we’ve answered that objection. You put the whole thing in context and the overwhelming weight of the evidence says that the conclusions that many of these senators reached three years ago, where they said he is a threat, was the right one. And now, all of a sudden, when they said he wasn’t a threat, that’s the wrong one.
They were right before they were wrong.
QUESTION: If you have pre-’91 weapons, and you have research going on in the ’90s, do you think there was a program in the ’90s?
SANTORUM: The Duelfer report says very clearly there was a program.
Bold mine, natch. I can’t speak for Dubya, obviously, but I myself am perfectly willing to accept groveling apologies from any antiwar dimwit on the Left who has enough functioning brain cells to realize the game is finally up, and the antiwar Left lost.
Needless to say, I won’t be holding my breath. And I’d also like to remind all and sundry for about the thousandth time that the whole point was never specifically about finding WMD in the first place; the point was that we didn’t know, and as long as Saddam was allowed to go on playing cat and mouse games with UN inspectors, we were never going to.
And after 9/11, which demanded a profound change in our previous complacently lax attitude towards national security (and actually did bring about that change of mind, for everyone not a
Democrat kneejerk Bush-hating fool, anyway), that uncertainty was simply unacceptable. In fact, it’s what made all the jerkwad catcalls of “Bush lied” and “no WMDs” the last couple of years particularly obnoxious: the only reason — the ONLY reason — anyone “knew” that there were no WMDs for certain was because we went in to find out. In other words, the Left’s whole argument against the war depends on our having fought the war in the first place — a conundrum that people not accustomed to perpetual cognitive dissonance would ordinarily find rather, umm, vexing, shall we say.
It never seemed to bother the antiwarriors much, oddly enough.
And now it turns out the anklebiters were wrong anyway, about everything. Well, whaddya know about that. Now we get to point and laugh as they cast desperately about for reasons why this latest discovery (and there have been others) doesn’t matter either.
Enjoy that crow, assholes. Eat hearty; there’s plenty here for all of you.
Now let’s get on with ignoring the screechmonkeys and winning this war, shall we? I’m quite sure there are many other interesting discoveries waiting just across the border in Syria, if only Bush would find the will to act. Never forget: “Either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists.”
Update! Austin Bay sums up:
Saddam used WMD and once the Desert Storm sanctions were lifted I believe he intended to reconstitute his programs. To believe otherwise about Saddam is to put you in league with goofs like Michael Moore and George Galloway.
When it comes to WMD, intent to acquire and use matters. UNSCR 687 and subsequent resolutions gave Saddam very specific guidance and requirements. He violated them in spirit and in fact (in 2003 post-invasion investigators found a handful of modified SCUD missiles violating the requirements).
In my well-documented view Saddam had to go because (1) our presence in Saudi Arabia was an Al Qaeda recruiting tool; which is intimately tied to (2) our 12 year war against Saddam had to end with victory, if UN resolutions were to have any substance (and his sanctions evading routines, including Oil For Food, were working); (3) tyrannies are the grounds that breed terrorists, and that is especially true in the Middle East; (4) rogue states want WMD– they are the most-likely supplier of WMD to a terror organization, and post-9/11 we had to show tyrants we mean it about stopping WMD proliferation; (5) Iraq, with its water, source of capital (oil), and comparatively well educated and motivated populace is the prime place to affect democratic change in the politically dysfunctional Middle East.
Couldn’t have said it better myself, and only a fool could argue with it. Removing Saddam was right and just; the antiwar Left is, was, and ever shall be just plain wrong. Period.