NEW WEAPONS INSPECTOR?

Charles A. Duelfer, the former No. 2 United Nations weapons inspector for Iraq, is likely to be named soon to succeed David Kay as the leader of the American team searching in that country for evidence of illicit weapons, according to senior American officials.

Mr. Duelfer recently expressed deep public skepticism that any chemical or biological weapons would be found in Iraq, and he has suggested that the task ahead for American inspectors may be understanding Iraq's intentions on illicit weapons rather than any actual arsenal.

For that reason, Mr. Duelfer's choice could be disputed among those in the Bush administration who have stuck to the view that illicit weapons ? cited by the administration as a principal reason for going to war ? will eventually be discovered.

I recognize this is an old and extremely polarized debate, but pardon me if I jump in just a bit late.

I'm awfully disturbed that a whole swath of the world looks at this issue and arrives at the conclusion that "the President lied." As has been pointed out over and over again, if President Bush lied, then so did President Clinton , so did Wesley Clark. and so did the United Nations and many of its members.

Me...I doubt that is likely. Yes...people lie. Sometimes Presidents lie. But it is highly unlikely that they would all lie the same way about the same thing.

It seems childish to me that when a widely held belief appears not to be true we lapse into taunts of "liar liar".

I think the sober minds among us would stop to ask "why did we believe what we believed?"

Now - I'm not ready to concede there were no WMD in Iraq. I also find that to be unlikely. Apparently Vice President Cheney (who, say what you may about him, is undeniably one very smart guy) isn't ready either.

So...if we rule out the improbable (they all lied the same lie...) we are left with something that on the face of it was credible enough for our leaders and others to believe it. Secretary Powell, for instance. I served on his staff when he was a 4 star general...and I would testify today to the strength of his ethics.

So - how did we get to the WMD belief to begin with would seem to be the prudent question to ask.

And I won't run down the chain of events/resolutions in the UN that supported that conclusion...other blogs and pundits have written that into the ground. It was solid enough, apparently for the UN body.

But what about the evidence to support the events and resolutions? What can we say of it? In other words, what assessment can we make of the sources for that supporting evidence?

What can we say about the intelligence apparatus of the USA?

Let us assume for the moment that there are, in fact, no WMD in Iraq and there weren't any there in the Autumn of 2002 when this debate was hot in the UN. Recognizing that one can't prove a negative, wouldn't we at least hope that our intelligence assets would put the preponderance of evidence on that truth? But they didn't.

And look at what they got right. Harken back to the Powell briefing in the UN. Satellite imagery got right the fact that the test stands for missile rockets were larger than allowed by UN resolution. That was proven on the ground. Later on we intercepted a North Korean vessel carrying missile parts bound for Iraq based upon our intel assets. So there is reason to have some confidence in our ability to gather intel.

So how could the intel have been so wrong about Iraqs WMD?

Logically we are faced with two conclusions, once we rule out the highly unlikely. EITHER, our intelligence folks are not up the task we ask of them OR Iraq had WMD in some form and has managed to keep us from proving it.

Either way, then, we should be concerned. All of us. Because a weak intel apparatus has serious implications for the security of the USA in an age of exportable terrorism and suitcase sized nukes. And, as we are seeing all over bleedin' Iraq, weapons will find their way into the hands of those who wish us harm and whose lack of scruples will allow them to use them.

In my mind the grown-ups in this country need to get past the "liar liar" stage and try a little critical thinking.

Because the conclusions of that thinking have much graver consequences than imagined lies.