Everybody's commenting on the recent New Republic article by Spencer Ackerman and John Judis accusing the Bush administration of deliberate deception regarding the justifications for invading Iraq. Opinions vary (roughly along party lines) as to whether the Ackerman-Judis accusation is justified or overblown. But on one subject, pretty much everyone agrees: the fact that even after weeks of searching the US has failed to find "smoking gun" evidence of an Iraqi WMD (Weapons of mass destruction"--chemical, biological or nuclear weapons) program, casts significant doubt on the claim that there had ever been one in the first place.
Well, consider the following fact: US troops attacked an alleged terrorist training camp in Northwest Iraq, killing more than 70 people and losing a helicopter--about a week ago. Surely such a facility--an armed encampment containing dozens of active, hostile troops--would have been attacked earlier had it been detected. Given that the Iraqis would have had to keep a WMD program--say, a covert nuclear weapons development project--absolutely secret from the entire world for over a decade, wouldn't it likely have been even more carefully hidden than this terrorist camp?