First, I agree that these conservative blogs should have mentioned and linked the story about the WMD search coming to an official close. Point granted.

I'm a conservative blogger who has posted about both topics. I have a separate blog that has been devoted to the WMD topic for two years.

Actually, Drudge is where I first saw a link for WaPo's article about the search's end.

I've since read similar stories by CNN and ABC News. One problem with these stories is that the U.S. inspectors did find WMD programs in Iraq, just as the U.N. inspectors found WMD shells in January 2003. The reports written about Iraqi WMD are often bogus and misleading.

No, we didn't find many STOCKPILES, but we did find existing WMD programs, parts, shells, chemicals, papers, labs, etc.

Another point is that, even though we found evidence of an Iraqi connection to 9/11, we have found plenty that connects Iraq to terrorism and even Al Qaida.

These distinctions are not frequently explained by the mainstream media, and all the stories read the same -- misinformation, peppered with slams against President Bush -- and for that reason alone, they are often not worthy of being linked in the first place.

Second, the news about the WMD search ending is, well, hardly news at this point. The WMD search has been effectively over for some time. Actually, I was surprised to hear it was still active.

Meanwhile, the Rathergate report is timely news, and it is controversial, and the blogosphere is very invested in its outcome. Of course, blogs were also invested in the WMD search, but as I've said, that conversation ran its course long ago.

Third, when did blogs ever claim to be balanced or unbiased? The advantage of blogs happens to BE their bias and collective counter-balance to existing media.

Glad to get that overview, Mick. However, just want to add one important point. Saddam had time to plan an exit strategy--years, between the various inspections that went on--and time to execute it. Iraq, as has become fairly obvious, has relatively open borders wirh Iran and Syria, as well as sharing a lot of border with the Saudis. This alone makes the relative of WMDs disappointing, but not overly suprising.

The main reason for conservative bloggers not keep bringing up the issue is everything that Mick said above and everything that I have said; the defense of their position has been put forward and there has been no compelling opposition that hasn't already been answered.

We didn't go Iraq to find "some" WMD; we went because we thought Baghdad had stockpiles, a tremendously active program, and--most of all--the capability to build a nuclear weapon very, very quickly. None of these things has been proven true.

" Saddam had time to plan an exit strategy--years, between the various inspections that went on--and time to execute it. "

Saddam is not a comic-book bad guy who was hoarding these nuclear weapons on behalf of the Carnival of Evil or something. If he had them, why not use them? And if Syria has them, why not get rid of them?

I thought the official conservative line was that we had found WMD. Remember that one shell that had old, leftover nerve gas in it several months ago?

And I distinctly recall being savaged on Josh's old blog, for doubting the importance of that find. It's no doubt been worth every penny and every life we've lost.

First of all, blogs can specialize and have a viewpoint. Wasn't it adequately covered by the "daily kos" ?

Second, the logic of the WMD is fallacious. How many MIG fighters did we capture? What would have the story been if they weren't used and we couldn't see them on radar?

Blessings,

Bob

Reminds of the fellow who lost his car keys in the dark but persisted in looking for them under the street lamp "because the light was better there". Early on there were reports that Syria had buried many Iraq items for safekeeping. How credible were these reports?

Balta's coverage of CBS lying then and now is nothing to write home about. Suspect that he is very happy that the DNC connections to the lying CBS/NYT wing of his party remains in coverup mode. Too, how extensive has his blogging been in the Washington State gubnatorial theft? I'd wager that his mewing about Florida dwarfs it-leading to the possible conclusion that electoral fraud does not concern him as much as the results of any particular election. If liberals can steal an election, well, that isn't newsworthy-it is the usual course of affairs.

I have been ambivalent about the Iraqi invasion. And the WMD issue never entered into the equation for me. Instead, I tried to imagine it as a nation-sized equivalent of the capital punishment debate. There, the arguments, foolishly in my mind, tend to focus on whether it is an effective punishment, either in preventing crime or in economic terms. I have always been pro capital punishment for the simple reason that those so sentenced deserved to die, regardless of the effectiveness of the practice. I tried to think of the Iraqi invasion in those terms, i.e., Hussein regime deserved to be ousted, but I was never able to make that argument work. Hence the ambivalence.

So the absence of WMDs has fueled my ambivalence, if such a thing is possible.

But to the issue at hand, at least those bloggers with visions of supplanting the MSM should eat their share of crow when appropriate.

I agree with Mick's second and third points.

-The official end to the WMD search is very anticlimactic. All but the most blindly partisan pundits/blogs/etc. have long ago acknowledged that by all appearances we were wrong about Saddam's WMD. The release of CBS' report, however, is a major development in the fake document story.

-I am shocked...shocked!...that a blog might be biased.

Lastly, something that is never mentioned anymore in news accounts regarding WMD is that Saddam steadfastly refused to account for what happened to the WMD we know he had at one time, as he was required to do by UN resolutions. It would appear that he did what no one would have believed--he destroyed the rest of his WMD after he kicked out the UN weapons inspectors.

If I aim an unloaded gun at a cop and he shoots me, whose fault is it?

Valid points Eric, and blogs are of coursed biased, but they should also strive to be consistent, no? For months - and perhaps even a yaer - these blogs talked about WMD daily. It seems reasonable to expect they'd throw out at least a link to the story which has been reported widely in MSM.

Yes, but what about those of us who gave up on the WMD search--and publicly admitted it--long ago?

Precisely. I don't know whether that was the case for NRO, Instapundit, or Drudge, but it certainly was for JC.C, PM.C, and probably PTB as well.

Jason...actually, about 2 months ago we ended up getting a very solid explanation for where that 1 ineffective chemical shell came from.

When the Duelfer report was first released back in October, one of the details it included was looting at a formerly-sealed bunker at a location called Muthanna.

Bunker 2 at this location was filled with old, pre-1991 chemical artillery rockets, either mostly or all filled with Sarin.

When the UNSCOM team was in there, they decided that the bunker was too unstable and too much of a mess to spend the effort cleaning it up (it had been heavily damaged in 91) - so they sealed it off with brick and concrete.

When the UNMOVIC team went in, while the concrete had aged, none of the bunkers at the Muthanna site appeared to have been disturbed during the 4 year absence of inspectors.

When the ISG went into Iraq after the war, however, they found that essentially every single bunker at Muthanna had been broken into by looters, including the sealed bunker 2.

This is a prime candidate for the source of that single, old gas shell that was used in an IED last summer.

Re the update - how many people died as a result of "Rathergate"?

How much money did KOS TAKE? See Instapundit. Look for liberal blogs to be all over this-NOT!

Many bloggers who were outspoken supporters of going to war with Iraq have also moved on.

Hey Leon, don't change the subject--now that we know for a fact that WMDs were not found, it's time for you to 1)apologize to Balta, and 2)admit that you were wrong. I'm not holding my breath.

Since no one else has mentionned it here yet, I figured I might as well toss this in - Atrios at the least did mention the Rather report when it was first released - it was just released a few days before the WMD report and had already scrolled off the screen.

I'm uncertain if it made the main page at Kos, but I'll also suggest there's a strong chance it was in the Diaries in several places.

So, how much money did Kos take in? And, how does Kos differ from Armstrong? How many liberal hypocrites are there?

Anonymous = Troll

Considering Kos openly admitted he was a political consultant and he isn’t a journalist coupled with the fact that many loggers are certainly open for leasing their ethics out. (Wasn’t that an old HR motto?)

Hypocrite? Awfully difficult when you are up front about what you are doing and whom is footing your bill. Oh and Kos wasn't taking in tax dollars.

I think perhaps a better equation would be Anonymous = Wrong.

Let this be my formal announcement, the political party offering me 6 figures has my unwavering support through the next election cycle.

Guys, guys, you're better off just ignoring him. Eventually he'll say something so heinous and evil that the hosts will have no choice but to ban him, and then we'll all be a lot happier. I've had about a half dozen responses to his comments on this thread, and I've passed.

Well you can ban him unless you bait him. :-)

Josh, since when is unbiased blogging the goal? The problem with the MSM is their visceral bias, much like Thalberg's visceral racism. It's not the KKK that America has to be afraid of. It's the average white guy who holds racist views, but gets nearly violent when you tell him he's a racist.