Notes: Where are Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? If you were a tin-pot dictator infamous for cruelty -- like Saddam Hussein -- wouldn't you use WMDs if you had them and you were badly losing a war. It strikes me as a very strange military strategy for Saddam to hide his WMDs instead of using them against vastly superior American and British forces sure to take away his power away. Otherwise, why didn't Saddam just go into exile before the war began?

Polls show that Americans could care less whether or not WMDs are found in Iraq. Winning is heady stuff, and we won. Never mind that WMDs were originally the whole basis for going to war with Iraq -- later a major reason justifying the invasion. I have an intellectually consistent friend who tells me that he cannot accept the war as having been moral without the discovery of WMDs. He's probably right, but I'm like most Americans and don't really care at this point.

Before the war, I believed that Saddam had WMDs, but simply believed that he had neither the capacity nor the death wish to deliver them against the United States -- thus my opposition to the war. However once war began, I was very surprised and relieved when WMDs were not used against American and British troops. But if Saddam had WMDs, I don't understand why he didn't use them instead of facing certain defeat. Regardless, thank God he didn't or couldn't.
05.11.03