Lack of WMD is fiasco

By Chris Morrill

Leftists lamented that many doomsday scenarios could unfold in the Iraq war. None of those scenarios, thankfully, transpired.

One thing hardly anyone predicted was that no weapons of mass destruction would be found. Even the anti-war folks thought the WMD were probably there.

The lack of WMD after the war proves to be better ammo than anything else the Bush bashers could have ever hoped for.

The Bush-loving right is busy explaining why the failure to find weapons of mass destruction so far is no big deal. I supported the "Whaq Iraq" effort. But I think our continued failure to find these weapons is a fiasco and an embarrassment for the Bush administration.

Radio talker Sean Hannity likes to call people who would never admit Bill Clinton was wrong about anything "Clinton Kool-Aid drinkers" (in reference to Jim Jones.) Republicans who will not admit that this WMD thing is a problem are in danger of becoming "Bush Kool-Aid drinkers."

Granted, weapons of mass destruction were not the only reason put forward by the Bush administration for taking out Saddam Hussein. But those weapons were certainly the centerpiece of their efforts to sway the Congress and the public.

We've been in control of Iraq since mid-April. No significant WMD have been uncovered. All we need is One Good Man. We found One Good Man to tell us the hospital room Jessica Lynch was in. Why can't we get another one to lead us to the mother lode of chem and bio weapons? Why hasn't one -- just one -- good person blown the whistle?

Don't get me wrong. If we never find even one liter of anthrax, VX or sarin hidden away, I won't regret the war. With every mass grave or rape room we uncover, it becomes more apparent that there's no reason to mourn the loss of Saddam. The long-term geopolitical implications of a free Iraq generally make the whole thing worthwhile, WMD be damned.

Iraq has always been our problem. We bear some responsibility for every bad thing Saddam did since 1991, because we did not march all the way to Baghdad the first time around. Inciting the Kurds and the Shia to revolt, then not backing them, was an act of almost unspeakable wrong. We owed those people a debt of honor. WMD or no WMD, kicking Saddam out of the Fertile Crescent is an eminently honorable act. That debt of honor has now been repaid, and I am proud of that.

But since the Bush administration chose to base much of its argument on WMD, someone has to take the heat if no WMD are found. It comes down to an intelligence failure, one of potentially epic proportions.

If you don't think this will be an election issue against Bush, think again. This dog will hunt. The right needs to stop playing partisan politics and admit that this is, indeed, a problem. Furthermore, someone has to pay the piper for this failure.

Somebody made the decision, based upon apparently questionable intelligence, to build the case for war against Iraq around weapons that we have not yet uncovered. This is not only an intelligence faux pas, but a public relations one as well. Someone, somewhere, decided to make a huge bet on WMD. A bet of that magnitude requires your career as collateral if things go wrong. And the administration not only took the gamble, it shook on it. Unless these weapons are found soon (and I hope they are), someone needs to pay up.

Ultimately, if there is proven malfeasance involved in exaggerating the intelligence, how high up will heads roll? Even if the war was morally right (and it was), the WMD intelligence snafu is a valid issue that the left can carp about. The right needs to stop saying the lack of WMD doesn't look bad, because it does. Period.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

Chris Morrill of Scott City is a free-lance writer and author.