Thursday, November 03, 2005
Iraq's WMD
With the Democratic talking points memo this week obviously pushing the notion that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's WMD (i.e., Bush said Saddam had them, but there were none), it is worth taking a few minutes to ponder about what we have found in Iraq. Dafydd ab Hugh posts a short summary, and notes that there is plenty of evidence that Saddam had chemical weapons (if not biological and nuclear/radiological weapons). The problem is that they were defined out of existence by the agencies that were performing the investigations. Here's a taste of Dafydd's piece:
Many times, we found huge drums of cyclosarin-based "pesticides" hidden in camouflaged ammunition bunkers... and many times we found empty chemical rockets and artillery shells, often at the same ammo dumps. But evidently, that doesn't constitute chemical weapons according to the ISG. But if Hussein's regime had actually poured the first into the second, then and only then would they be defined as chemical weapons.Does this mean that a gun is not a gun if it's not loaded?
The point is, the Iraqi Survey Group was giving the benefit of all doubt to the nonexistence of chemical weapons, notwithstanding that many pesticides differ from chemical weapons only in the degree of toxicity to humans and the method of "application." Given Saddam's history of using chemical weapons, logic would suggest that the presence of many barrels of "pesticide" in close proximity to munitions designed to disperse chemical warfare agents is solid evidence that Saddam had them, and was prepared to use them.
Comments:
Post a Comment
