15:12 24 Apr 2003
Over and over we heard about them. They were a reason to both go to war and a reason to not go to war. They were a direct threat, we were told. But an invasion of Iraq risked setting them off in spectacularly destructive ways. There was no way we could fight a conventional military campaign without risking doomsday. Then, when the war started, reports started trickling in, but all were disproved pretty quickly. The massive finds, the headlines, the repercussions. All were empty threats. Now, with the fighting winding down to nearly nothing, not a trace can be found. They existed at one time, it seems, but now we can’t find them. What if they never existed at all? What if we were wrong, or worse, lied to? If they exist, and the threat is real, why can’t we find them? Why haven’t they revealed themselves?
I’m referring, of course, to the terrorist organization al-Qaeda. The waves of terror attacks that our invasion would set off never materialized. We seem to be having trouble tracking them down. But if we can’t find them, they must not have existed, right? We were lied to, right? All to justify a war, right? See? Even if they DO exist, they can’t be much of a threat, can they? Our inability to find them and the fact that they haven’t killed thousands of Americans by now MUST indicate that the threat isn’t real. Right?
Come to think of it, the same argument could be used for another subject in the war against Iraq. I’m referring, of course, to Saddam himself. If he’s really THAT BAD, why haven’t we been able to parade him on the front pages? Maybe he never existed. Maybe he was just a fabrication, or at least an exagerration, to justify the war. He may have been a bad guy at one time, but that was YEARS AGO. We should have given the UN more time. After all, if he was really a problem, we’d have found him already.
Unless they’re all well-hidden, I guess. You know, the same thing could conceivably be applied to chemical weapons, as well.