“Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say,” “Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort,” “Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program,” “Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported.”
Iraq will be “capable within months — and possibly just weeks or days — of threatening its neighbors with an arsenal of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons.” Iraq is thought to be “still hiding tons of nerve gas” and is “seeking to obtain uranium from a rogue nation or terrorist groups to complete as many as four nuclear warheads.” Saddam is “scouring the world for tools to build new weapons.” He might “be as close to building a nuclear weapon — perhaps closer — than he was in 1991.”
A collection of discredited Bush administration speeches and position papers? Hardly. They’re New York Times headlines and stories from the days of the second Clinton administration, collected by Robert Kagan.
And don’t miss the editorial that reads, “without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year” and that “future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again.” Otherwise, Iraq could “restore its ability to deliver biological and chemical weapons against potential targets in the Middle East.” “The world,” it said, “cannot leave Mr. Hussein free to manufacture horrific germs and nerve gases and use them to terrorize neighboring countries.”
Or the one that argues it would be “hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as his country’s salvation.”
But of course, the case against Saddam was so weak and flimsy, so transparently cooked up by Shrubbie McChimplerburton, that only a Republican myrmidion would have believed it.