Why Isn't Anyone Saying THIS???

I love that the administration in general, and George Bush in particular, are finally fighting back against the "Bush lied" lie. It's about time the Dems got their own words thrown in their faces.

However, there is one area where I think what they're saying could expose them as even weaker (if that's possible) on national security. President Bush touched on it, but I think it has to go deeper.

The Dems and the administration alike were saying that Saddam was dangerous with WMD. Right? And, that he harbored and supported terrorists, including al Qaeda. The danger after 9/11 was the possibility of a rogue dictator like Saddam passing off weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. All of that is true and on the record.

The final report from the Iraq Survey Group states emphatically that it was fully Saddam's intention to reconstitute his WMD program, and that he had both the scientists in place (including the nuclear scientists) and the dual use facilities to do so. Check out this little section of the report for example:

Saddam met with his senior nuclear scientists in 1999 and offered to provide them with whatever they needed, and increased funding began to flow to the IAEC in 2001, according to the former Minister of Military Industrialization. Saddam directed a large budget increase for IAEC and increased salaries tenfold from 2001 to 2003. He also directed the head of the IAEC to keep nuclear scientists together, instituted new laws and regulations to increase privileges for IAEC scientists and invested in numerous new projects. He also convened frequent meetings with the IAEC to highlight new achievements.

Saddam asked in 1999 how long it would take to build a production line for CW agents, according to the former Minister of Military Industrialization. Huwaysh investigated and responded that experts could readily prepare a production line for mustard, which could be produced within six months. VX and Sarin production was more complicated and would take longer. Huwaysh relayed this answer to Saddam, who never requested follow-up information. An Iraqi CW expert separately estimated Iraq would require only a few days to start producing mustard—if it was prepared to sacrifice the production equipment.

The report also talks about how Saddam was working to end sanctions, which we all know from the OFF scandal included lining people's pockets, as well as (according to the report) cutting off the flow of oil on occasion to exert pressure on members of the Security Council. There is little doubt that sanctions eventually would have ended, or that Saddam would have simply used his OFF money to covertly regain his arsenal of weapons. Possession of WMD (again, according to the report) was extremely important to Saddam.

So... here's my question: If Saddam was indeed dangerous with WMD, and clearly everyone agreed that he was, what difference does it make if he had old stockpiles, or created new ones? Do you realize what a small amount would be needed to pass some off to terrorists for a WMD strike that would... well... terrorize the living daylights out of everyone?

Just because it turned out he didn't have them at the time of the invasion (or, more accurately, that we couldn't find them, because it is still possible that Qusay, Uday, Saddam, or one of his minions may know--or knew before being killed--where they are... cough... Syria), does NOT mean there was no threat from him. Given his capability and desire to reconstitute his WMD arsenal, saying Saddam was no threat because we didn't find WMD is like saying that a smoker has quit smoking just because he has temporarily run out of cigarettes. The smoker is smoking again after a quick run to the convenience store.

Here is what I would emphasize if I were the administration:

The Democrats that are now saying that they would not have gone to war if they'd known Saddam had no WMD's (and implying that they were mislead about them), seem to be ignoring the fact that Saddam had both the equipment and expertise to make new WMD, and a desire to reconstitute his nuclear program. Do we want anyone who would ignore this incredibly important fact (that is available for all to see in the Iraq Survey Group Final Report) in charge of our national security?

The point was, Saddam was dangerous. He could not be trusted. He had thumbed his nose at the international community for years, was jobbing the system (OFF and inspections), and was making progress toward ending sanctions, despite his non-cooperation with the UN. Moreover, he STILL had ambitions, and capability, to have WMD, including nuclear capabilities. Knowing all of that, exactly what difference would the existence of stockpiles of aging WMD make?

Is it just me, or does it seem that the whole "Bush lied so we shouldn't have gone to war" theme is not only exposing the Dems as liars themselves, but also as people who absolutely do NOT have the intellect to perceive future probabilities, even when those future probabilities are identical to something they understand the consequences of in the present? I'd ask: "Exactly what difference is there between Saddam having stockpiles of WMD and Saddam reconstituting his stockpiles of WMD?" The only answer is that the terrorists would have to wait a little longer before Saddam could get the bio or chem weapons into their hands. Other than that, no difference.

All these Democrats agreed Saddam, as a leader, was a tyrant and a danger. The Iraq Survey Group report makes it clear that he had not changed and was determined to have WMD. Is that not complete justification of the war?