WMD Update 

Crap! Why does stuff like this always come up when I want to take a between-class nap? I was about to go to sleep for an hour or so, but then I saw two stories that I HAD to blog about. First, there's this:
Saddam sought missile factory, Iraqi files show. What are the moonbats going to say now? I highly recommend reading the entire article, but here's a sample:

For two years before the American invasion of Iraq, Saddam's sons, generals and front companies were engaged in lengthy negotiations with North Korea, according to computer files discovered by international inspectors and the accounts of Bush administration officials. The officials now say they believe that those negotiations -- mostly conducted in neighboring Syria, apparently with the knowledge of the Syrian government -- were not merely to buy a few North Korean missiles. Instead, the goal was to obtain a full production line to manufacture, under an Iraqi flag, the North Korean missile system, which would be capable of hitting American allies and bases around the region, according to the Bush administration officials.

NOW DO YOU BELIEVE THE FRIGGIN' ALLEGATIONS? HE WAS TRYING TO GET MISSILES LITERALLY WEEKS BEFORE THE FRIGGIN' INVASION, IDIOTS! You know what else this shows? #1: Hussein was working with terrorists (North Korea). #2: Hussein worked with Syria, which strengthens the case for existing WMD being there now (as I believe). The only problem with the article is the fact that it uses lines such as "according to the Bush administration officials." That basically renders the entire message useless to the opposition. I got briefly involved in a comment discussion on another blog once, and I used some stuff from that infamous Weekly Standard article to point out evidence for Bush's case. The token liberal in the discussion came back with something along the lines of, "You're asking me to believe information from government officials that supports the government's position. I just can't do that." This is what we're dealing with: cognitive dissonance. If the evidence goes against your position, rationalize it away.

On the other hand, there's this: AP: Iraqi Scientists Lied About Nukes. To briefly quote this article:

Iraqi scientists never revived their long-dead nuclear bomb program, and in fact lied to Saddam Hussein about how much progress they were making before U.S.-led attacks shut the operation down for good in 1991, Iraqi physicists say.

So, there's one article that supports an accusation, and one that goes against a different one. However, the interesting thing about this is the fact that the scientists had to lie about the program. This means that Hussein did, in fact, want nukes. GASP! Really? Not the Saddamster! I always thought he was such a nice guy!

Is it possible that Hussein thought he had nukes when he really didn't? If so, that might explain his behavior toward the weapons inspectors. In any case, the other article clearly shows that he was seeking ways to attack people. He just wanted it to look like other countries were behind it. I really hope that this evidence holds up, because it would devastate this whole "Saddam didn't pose a threat" argument. We'll see.