« The ravages of political correctness | Main | Thanks for the memories »
June 22, 2006
WMD or not WMD?
It strikes me that conservatives' message on newly-disclosed sarin and mustard gas munitions in Iraq is a bit off-key. Let's face facts: a majority now believe the war was a mistake, and this is mainly because the "Bush lied" meme is having its intended effect. The great purple middle, having heard "no WMD" for years, regards this as a "known fact." And the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is itself almost at a point in the talking point lifespan that it's regarded mostly with either extreme skepticism or outright disdain. That's the problem with neat labels --few now consider what those three words put together mean. So instead, shed that talking point and give us bare, non-technical facts: How are sarin and mustard gas used? How might Saddam have used them, or planned to - why did he have them? What countries could they reach? How many would have died? Thousands? Millions? Could they or the technology have been sold? To whom? I also don't want to hear how many "cannisters," or "munitions," or "shells." Like most people, these terms have little real significance to me.
Just the facts - so we know how awful sarin and mustard gas are, and we'll use our own labels.
Gadsden Flag adds:
I would go so far as to say that the term WMD has almost come to be a badge of scorn, or an albatross hung around Bush's neck, as if the mere mention of the term is cause for snide laughter. Sort of like Bush's Monica Lewinsky.
What troubles me about the latest WMD info is not so much that it appears to be pre-Gulf War I stockpile (and thus no support for Saddam having an active WMD program prior to the invasion). As long as he had them, he could use them, and we know he did in the past. What does trouble me is the administration's silence over these findings for too long. I read that France, China and Russia have their dirty fingerprints on the precursors, and I think there is also more evidence that Russia agreed to transport the WMD to Syria prior to the invasion. Is Bush so reluctant to disclose this because it implicates 3 members of the UN Security Counsel? Why should Bush, and the US, take a bullet for three countries that aren't doing us any favors? Would revealing this information some how track back to us during the time we supporte Iraq over Iran?
Posted by bill at June 22, 2006 04:27 PM
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
