Howard Owens asks 10 key questions about Saddam's WMD program and the failure to find evidence thus far. What makes his post so unusual is that he then gives the Yes, No and sometimes even the Maybe answers for each question. A cool, rational outline of the current debate, motivated by interest in the issue not partisanship. Very well done.
UPDATE: Instapundit has a more partisan roundup of posts on this issue. Partisan, but excellent and compelling.
Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:
*This* puts text in bold.
_This_ puts text in italics.
bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.
To add a live URL, "Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/ (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.
The best thing about Glenn's roundup? His use of the term "bogosity." :-)
That's funny, I was just about to suggest that as the most idiot part of Insty's post.
He does himself and his readership an intellectual disservice by reacting only to the "Bush Lied!" camp. There is in fact very great cause to be extraordinarily concerned about our inability to turn up a single germ or toxin. Insty's predictable indignation and Howard Owen's more reasoned responses aside, there are in general only two possibilites, both of which are very bad news.
Possiblity 1: There are no weapons of mass destruction. There are a subsequent number of possibilities as to why the Bush and Blair administrations and various (though by no means most) intelligence agencies asserted in the strongest terms that there were--among these theories the "Bush Lied!" camp, but also several more plausible scenarios. However, it all comes down to some combination of incompetence and/or lies.
Possiblity 2: There are weapons of mass destruction, and we don't know where they are. Honestly, I think I prefer possibilty 1, because at least I don't have to wonder who toddled off with a few thousand liters of VX. The possibilty exists that they could still be hidden in situ, but the notion that the kinds of quantities that the administration was claiming existed could still be hidden in Iraq, at this date, with full run of the country and numerous government and military personnel up and down the chain in custody, stretches credibility.
The point has been made that the strongest indication that the Bush administration itself does not believe that significant quantities of WMDs are still in Iraq is said administration's failure to emphasize the danger that the weapons pose should they fall (or have fallen) into the wrong hands before their discovery by friendly forces.
And, sigh, that was supposed to be "idiotic".