Maybe they were smuggled into Syria? :)
But remember, it wasn't up to anyone to prove they were there, it was up to the Iraqi's to prove they were gone.
But when the Battle of Baghdad has come and gone, that question will probably be answered.
Read UN resolutions 660, 678 and 687, and then read 1441. They all basically outline that Iraq agreed to a total disarmament of most of its offensive weapons IN ADDITION to the WMD's. This was part of Iraq's unconditional surrender after the Gulf War.
Besides, I think that the military is concentrating on what lay before them, and after the fighting has stopped, then they will have the time to properly search for the WMD's.
Which will mean very little if Bahgdad lays in a smoldering ruin.
They can surrender at any time, and just stop delaying the inevitable....Besides, we won't execute their POW's the way they have done to some of the POW's that they have captured.
Would you not defend your homeland with your life? Would you know when you're conquered, would anybody?
And they are beginning mostly unwittingly to reveal bit by bit their true intentions for perpetuating this illegal and immoral war in defiance of international law and the just consensus of the international community. Besides this thing about the WMDs it is turning out this thing about liberating the Iraqi people is also a sham at least as it concerns the self determination of the Iraqi people as Bush and Rumsfield are now threatening to turn their guns on anti (mind you not pro but anti) Saddam rebels- do nightmares never cease-- Bush 41 betrayed the Shia Muslims by abandoning them to their fate-- now Bush 43 is threatening to go even further by actually turning on them.
Tony Blair? I strongly disagree with him on this war but at least I think he is a man of high principle unlike Bush. Blair unlike Bush respected the democratic process by going to Parliament even though in the British system he didn't have to as in the UK the decision to go to war is the exclsuive perogative of the Crown for whom the decision has been delegated to the Prime Minister and not of Parliament. And Blair did so a considerable political risk. Bush on the other hand got a resolution from Congress true but it was through a cynically manipulated process that had little to do with a through and frank airing of the pros and cons of going to war against Iraq but for selfish partisan political advantages for Bush and his Republican allies-- and truthfully this may well be Bush's primary motivation for this war-- simply put he sees being a war president as enhancing his poltical standing among the all too many who are clueless especially about the rest of the world.
And we have Blair who tenaciously tried to build an international consensus for going to war something that Bush 41 and Blair predecessor John Major did quite masterfully 12 years ago but a process which this time Bush 43 clumsily and probably deliberately undermined.
If this war goes badly Blair will have the decency and integrity to resign. Will Bush? Don't bet the mortgage on it.
And how bout Bush's attacks on Putin and Russia-- accusing the Russian(s) of not exercising adequate oversight over their industries. Sounds to me like a Bush Republican running the place
The job of our military, since they have been sent in there, is to be sure that the collateral damage is kept to an extreme minimum.
You name me one instance when there has been a conflict that there has been no collateral damage.
The faster there is a resolution to this war, the better off all parties will be.