Finding Even More of the Wrong Kind of WMDs In Iraq
Posted by ssbg on July 3, 2006
Proving themselves utterly without shame or humility, American forces have insisted upon finding even more chemical weapons in Iraq:
The U.S. military has found more Iraqi weapons in recent months, in addition to the 500 chemical munitions recently reported by the Pentagon, a top defense intelligence official said on Thursday.
Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, did not specify if the newly found weapons were also chemical munitions. But he said he expected more.
“I do not believe we have found all the weapons,” he told the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, offering few details in an open session that preceded a classified briefing to lawmakers.
He may not have specified, but I doubt he would have bothered telling the Armed Services Committee about finding a cache of AK-47s, IEDs, or cherry bombs — which he knows nobody on that committee cares about.
At the Armed Services Committee, Maples also asserted that the rockets and artillery rounds that had been found were produced in the 1980s and could not be used as intended.
Ah — this must be what the pooh-poohers mean by saying (in Mark Steyn’s memorable phraseology), that no matter how much WMD we find, it’s always the wrong kind. LG Maples’ key qualifier, of course, is “used as intended.”
Sadly, such autonomic gainsaying is not the exclusive reaction of Democrats or even of Democrats, the State Department, and the CIA; now we have to add the top brass at the Pentagon to the list of those who find it more urgent to find nothing than to find something, even if something is actually there to be found. (I’m probably being too harsh to LG Maples. Consider him a stand-in for the generals I really want to yell at.)
For example, even if the WMD found could not be used “as intended” (that is, being fired from and artillery piece), could it be used not-as-intended to cause death and destruction anyway? Judge for yourself. After first enunciating the soundbite above, he added the following, which completely undercuts the obvious point of the first statement:
If the chemical agent, sarin, was [sic, subjunctive case] removed from the munitions and repackaged, it could be lethal. Its release in a U.S. city, in certain circumstances, would be devastating, Maples said.
Devastating! So is it the wrong kind of WMD or the right kind? To me, it sounds like the right WMD but the wrong delivery system… and I’m very, very glad we got it away from the terrorists before they repackaged it.
Oh, and an addendum. In the category “shouldn’t there be an IQ test before someone can run for Congress,” here is the entry from Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA, 90%):
“It’s very difficult to characterize these as the imminent threat weapons that we were told we were looking for,” said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat.
It has become a full-time profession, with a corner office and a pension plan, to inform Democrats that indeed, Bush never once said that Iraq posed an “imminent threat.” Those words were never uttered — except by shifty politicians and dunderheaded journalists looking to score a cheap knockout of a straw man.
For those who have forgotten, here is what Bush actually said about imminent threats:
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans — this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Readers Digest translation: we can’t wait until Iraq becomes an imminent threat, because by then it will be too late to stop it. So let’s strike now — when the threat is not yet imminent.
That is why we needed a new doctrine, the Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Warfare. If Iraq really were an imminent threat, attacking it would have been uncontroversial. It was controversial precisely because we admitted the threat was as yet inchoate — like a felon stocking up on heavy-duty firearms — and argued that in today’s world, an imminent threat is a realized attack, because once you discover it, it’s too late to stop it.
Got it now, Ms. Tauscher? From:http://biglizards.net/blog/index.html