[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

An important data point the author omits is that the yellowcake when found the UN seals were still intact.

That would have no bearing on what the article was about. It was an introductory bona fides of the author's on the ground experience. And, though it was not evidence of an active program, it was evidence of stock that could be used later. which segues into the rest, and meat, of the article

The 5000 WMDs referred to in the NYT article were evidence of weapons hidden and could be used after the sanctions were lifted. Saddam might not have known how viable they would be, nor how many, if any, could be un-interred post sanctions and added to a reconstituted program. He must surely have known about their existence and where they were, but did not, as required, disclose them. Even the Duelfer report, though it did not find evidence of an active program, concluded that Saddam would most likely continue his WMD programs after the sanctions were lifted.

The point of the Article is that what was found was evidence of one of the reasons for the invasion. The Democrats changed their minds on what the justification was. They discounted all the reasons except one--an "active" WMD program. The actual reasons were well beyond that, most importantly that Saddam would, unless stopped, active program or not, develop WMDs and threaten us and his neighbors.

And, the reason that the Bush administration did not mention them when the NYT WMDs where found, even beyond what I mentioned in my post above this, is exactly the same as the reason the yellowcake stock was not mentioned till it was beyond the reach of terrorists. Admitting WMDs or materials needed to build them existed in various parts of the country would be an invitation to the bad guys to search for and exploit them.

Regarding "If we cannot have an agreement on something as simple as whether something exists or not" does get to the root of the issue. The problem is people want to assume "it" means some element of WMD when "it" really means sufficient threat to justify war as was plainly put before the American people.

When opposing "narratives" are concocted for political reasons the "it" becomes sufficiently muddied. And the people become consumers of the slickest spin. And they "believe" the politicians or media they normally support. Bush plainly put forth a justification for the war which both "sides" agreed to. Then . . . they didn't. And political hell was loosed upon us. The "center," which you so much admire, could not hold. Oh well, politics as usual.