Accurately Describing Weapons Technology

In a new article, HotAir leads with, and then immediately disclaims, the following provocative title: “Wikileaks documents show WMDs found in Iraq.”

Well, $&%&, you may be thinking. Bush was right all along!

Except, no. The weapons found in Iraq are biological/chemical weapons, yes, but weaponized in antipersonnel form: they’re artillery shells and tainted bullets, meant for the battlefield, not civilian populations. Conflating “WMDs” with “biological and chemical weapons” effectively reads out the critical “M,” bolded above, upon which the entire Bush case for war was based. This:

Remains a lie, or a push to action predicated on an impossibility, or an invitation to assume a lie. Take your pick. HotAir’s peculiar pundit makes the distinction clear in the text… kind of… but not in the lede. These findings prove conclusively that the U.S. military has never found what the citizens were told to expect. It’s not even a half-redemption for Bush — it’s a full “refudiation.”

Advertisements

7 comments

  1. Well, that’s a disctinction that SC resolution 687 does not make, so under that definition, any kind of chemical weapon is a “WMD”. Unfortunate, but then again, the WMD concept has always been impossibly vague and not at all useful in any serious context.

    It doesn’t really matter anyway, because the question (at least legally speaking) has never been whether Iraq had “WMDs”, but whether it was cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors. There have actually been several discoveries of “WMDs” in the past years, but a random cache of chemical weapons buried somewhere and forgotten by everyone would not be a casus belli. (Not least because the only valid casus belli would have been a new SC resolution declaring Iraq in breach of its obligations – but we’ve been there before, I guess.)

    That said, I must admit my immediate reaction to this was “Really? People still care about that?”

  2. While stockpiles have never been found I think there is pretty good evidence that there was an organized program to retain the potential for a WMD program.

    1. Yes, and in Afghanistan presently theres pretty good evidence that there’s an organized effort to retain Iranina cash in bank vaults owned by the President of that country. And your point is?

      Pakistan has verifiable nuclear weapons, stores of chemical and biological agents, and Taliban fighters in key government positions. Don’t se eus invading them, an dthey probably are a more real existential threat then Iraq every was.

      1. I wasn’t suggesting that Iraq was the worst offender. I was saying that the WMD case was made.

  3. Conflating “WMDs” with “biological and chemical weapons” effectively reads out the critical “M,” bolded above, upon which the entire Bush case for war was based.

    [Emphasis added]

    Bullshit! And fuck you for repeating that lie, shitbag. The war was based on numerous rationales, of which the commie traitor shitbags (such as you) seized on that particular one to claim Bush “lied” us into war. You were, and are the liars. You should be hanged for treason.

    1. Um, ok, lets review – when General Powell went to the U.N. what did he talk about – WMD. Whne PResident Bush went on National television to tell us that we were invading Iraq, what did he talk about – WMD that were about to be given to terrorists and constituted a threat to the U.S. The spreading democracy and nation building only became missions after the invasion.

      And as to treason, please remember that mnay of the Founding Fathers would have been convicted and hanged for treason by Britain had they lost. Dissent is not treasonous in this country. Neither (Thank God) is rudeness, of which you are clearly guilty here. I suspect your mother would be ashamed.

%d bloggers like this: