This essay is a bit long, yet it is the best I have read that confronts the 'Iraqi WMD' theory of 'preeminent warfare' or invasion of a country for economic/political reasons. It hits it on the head, and shows Santorum to be the puss-bag he is.
Tell me folks, why do you suppose an enlightened, educated people of the state of Pennsylvania would allow him to sully their good reputation by representing them? PLEASE PREPARE FOR NOVEMBER ELECTIONS NOW! William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security Defining WMD Only an idiot would argue that, in 2003, Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein's government surely concealed whatever it could from U.N. inspectors, including items for which Baghdad and the U.N. had failed to account following the first Gulf War, despite eight years of meticulous effort from 1991-98. But only a bigger idiot would argue that the weapons items found by U.S. intelligence since 2003 are the same WMD whose existence the Bush administration used to justify the later war. Chemical artillery shells from the Iran-Iraq war are not evidence of an imminent threat, and it's hard to believe that the White House somehow is covering up that Saddam possessed real WMD. But the current dust-up over an intelligence memo indicating that U.S. forces have recovered about 500 old chemical munitions does prove one thing: When it comes to weapons of mass destruction, we are unable to differentiate and unable to have a rational debate. The term WMD has also become so expansive as to become meaningless. Yesterday, Sen. Rick Santorum (R.-PA.) released <http://santorum.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.View\ &ContentRecord_id=1891&CFID=6865651&CFTOKEN=41704985> a declassified, half-page summary of a U.S. intelligence community report on post-war recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI.), also helped to get the information released. Saying, "Iraq was not a WMD-free zone" in 2003, Santorum adds, "it is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are [still] in Iraq" today. The report says in part: -- "Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. -- Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist." Santorum says the declassified summary buttresses prewar fears that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, noting the number of recently recovered chemical-weapons shells far exceeds estimates by the post-war Iraq Survey Group. The two sentences above, the senator says, prove terrorists could have gotten their hands on prove Iraqi weapons of mass destruction -- and still could. "Is 500 rounds a serious threat?" Santorum asks. "I would make the argument that we had reached the threshold. The concern with chemical and biological weapons was not so much that he would use them against us but that they would secrete out to terrorist organizations for them to use." Democrats have dismissed the summary as, "nothing new," accusing Santorum of using it to support a political argument for the war and to bolster a flagging senatorial campaign. Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials tell The Washington Post <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR20060\ 62201839.html> the findings differ little from the Iraq Survey Group's conclusion. Most important, those intelligence officials say "There is no evidence today of any post-1991 WMD munitions," that is, munitions that were produced after U.N. inspections and sanctions began after Operation Desert Storm in early 1991. Sen. Santorum asserts, "the information proves that weapons of mass destruction are, in fact, in Iraq" today. Hoekstra also says that the 500 number proves there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld evidently agrees. Yesterday, he told reporters that he was concerned "if they got into the wrong hands" because "they are weapons of mass destruction." The problem is that Santorum, Rumsfeld, President Bush, Cheney, and most Washington wonks love to say "weapons of mass destruction" They don't differentiation between, say, Russian intercontinental missiles with multiple nuclear warheads and 20-year-old Iraqi chemical shells. The threshold for labeling something WMD in this world is low, if it exists at all. Many of the "chemical munitions" found in Iraq were even "unfilled" shells. That is, they had never been filled with chemical agent, according to the summary. But, as Rumsfeld says, "they are weapons of mass destruction." The implication here is that we should drop to our knees and pray at the WMD altar, fearful and desperate to let the professionals deal with the "men's work" of national security. The promiscuity of the definition, and the lack of differentiation, not only affects us today -- read: North Korea -- but will undoubtedly be used in the future. Imagine, for a minute, an argument over "inspections" in a stand-off with Iran. I'm sure Rumsfeld and co. would argue inspections can't be relied on,and that you never can be sure you've gotten everything -- look at those chemical munitions found in Iraq. Foot-long Iraq shells at dozens of old munitions bunkers, many of which had been bombed 16 years ago, burying the contents, then become Iranian nuclear warheads. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
