WMDs [politics]

Ok, supposedly WMDs have not been found in Iraq (if you ignore the artillery shells that contained sarin and the mobile factory-truck), but all of the capability was there, including uranium. There is still debate in the news as to whether or not the intelligence report was correct that Iraq was trying to get yellowcake uranium from Niger. "Bush lied!"

Yet, Iraq had yellowcake uranium from somewhere. Isn't that the important part? Sure, you want to find someone to blame (preferably the opposing political party), but that should not be the main focus.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14295

Now there are new reports that suggest that Iraq was indeed working hard to build WMDs.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=4&u=/ap/20040721/....

Also, the old UK intelligence report about Niger may have been right after all.

http://www.democratherald.com/articles/2004/07/17/news/opinion....

http://townsvillebulletin.news.com.au/common/story_page....

Ok, so they didn't have a stack of fresh WMDs ready to go, but merely the capability to build them. That doesn't make me feel a lot better about the old Iraq. And shouldn't this at least end the "Bush lied!" mantra? I won't hold my breath!

Yet the news features many people saying that the war on Iraq was wrong, the intelligence is wrong, everything is wrong.

So the question remains, do you just leave a dictator in power (who even Russia's Putin said was planning attacks on the US) until he finally gets a bomb and transports it to who-knows-where, or do you finally end the mess that existed since the end of the first gulf war, where the coalition had the great idea of leaving Saddam in power and not enforce the treaties that were signed? The real bottom-line is why leave Saddam in power at all? I don't understand the arguments towards wanting to keep a brutal dictator in power in defiance of the UN treaties he signed as well as crimes against humanity. Somehow Bush is the problem? What stretch of logic is this? Soveriegnty is fine as long as a country is not a basketcase of despotism. Even if you thought that he had no intention of making WMDs and the stockpiles were there but he'd never have the guts to put them together, given his other atrocities, why leave him in power? Blair agrees:


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040720/ap_on_re_eu/.....

Everything isn't wrong, and Iraq is better.

[UPDATE 9/26/04: I did find an article that mentioned the 500 tons of yellocake uranium that explained that it had been in Iraq for quite a while, implying that there were no recent acquisitions. Even if not, it still looks like Saddam had the capability of continuing a nuclear program and may have been at least attempting to make more acquisitions.]