Questions about WMDs - Part 2

Instead of updating my previous WMD post, I decided to start a new one. Here are some more blog posts about WMDs and whether we have found sufficient proof of their existence:

• Bill at Thinklings comments on this Mona Charen column. Charen reminds us that Iraq did indeed once possess these weapons -- even the left's beloved U.N. has confirmed this. She is also inclined to believe that these weapons are well hidden and that the will eventually be found. She ends her column with this:

  The capacity of Bush' opponents to believe the worst about him -- even if it means giving the benefit of the doubt to Saddam Hussein -- is staggering.

  [InstaPundit]Indeed.[/InstaPundit]

• Jeffrey Collins links to this Kathleen Parker column. Parker brings up a concern that not many have commented on. As Collins puts it:

  What does worry me is Parker's last point; if we can't find them, does that mean they were given to someone else? If so, what are the chances of that someone else using them?

• Chris Regan at JunkYard Blog believes Saddam may be winning the propaganda war:

  ...We decided to settle on the WMD reason primarily because we first decided to go through the UN while building up our forces. This strategy then allowed Saddam to disperse his WMD to Syria, while importing all the terrorists and Fedayeen that threaten us with counterattacks even now. It's also allowed the Democrats to now launch a parallel post-war counterattack in the media.

  Had we used Salman Pak as our primary cause for a clear war of self-defense on a terrorist state, we wouldn't have had the UN and the French to damage our power and prestige. Then the American people (and Turkey) would have also jumped onboard much faster. The warplan was very different for that political track, but the Pentagon had a plan, and we then could have had a measure of strategic surprise in our attack timing.

  Unfortunately, the NY Times put that leaked plan on the front page, hoping to force us to abandon it or get our troops killed in larger numbers. That was treasonous, and it's a shame people got away with it.

My final thoughts on the WMD question (at least for a while)...even if they do find them, the usual suspects will never admit that they're wrong. They will either cook up some nutjob conspiracy theory and say that Bush planted them, or they will spin the information in some other way that makes America out to be the source of all evil in the world.

Update: Dean makes some great points about why we went to Iraq and the relevance of WMDs:

Given all that, I couldn't possibly care less if the entirety of the "WMDs" discovered in Iraq amount to a squirt gun and a bottle of Chlorox. It's like breaking into John Wayne Gacy's house and finding out that there's only one kid's shinbone in his crawlspace, and not dozens of children's corpses. Who the hell cares?

Also, Joshua Claybourn links to a poll that, if accurate, would indicate that the WMD question is not a big deal to a majority of the American people. He also recommends this William F. Buckley column: Who Screwed Up?

Update 2: James Joyner at Outside the Beltway describes our failure to find WMDs as "a colossal embarrasment that can't be glossed over."

Update 3: Dean has some predictions about Iraqi WMDs.

Update 4: C. Dodd Harris weighs in on the WMD issue as well.