The Iraq Report

Blair Under Fire Over Iraq Report
Iraq War Debate Fuelled by Report

I read two articles today on the report from the Iraq Survey Group, released yesterday. The report points out that no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq, and "There were no chemical precursors, there were no biological agents, there were no plants to make them, there were no delivery vehicles to fire them. There was no programme, no capability, no weapons," said Robin Cook, former foreign secretary of the UK. "We could have found all that out if we had let Hans Blix finish the job which he wanted to do without fighting a war in which 10,000 people were killed."

I agree with these statements, especially if the report is accurate. We had no reason to go to war except the reasons the Bush administration gave. But even Rumsfeld fell on his ass a couple of days ago when he came out of the closet with his "no hard evidence" thing.

Weren't we worried about North Korea's nuclear program before someone conjured up the radical idea of storming Iraq again? Did we not know of Lybia's capabilities?

One of the articles quoted Hans Blix as saying the "sanctions had successfully 'contained' Saddam. "They did destroy all the biological and chemical weapons and the nuclear weapons sector was also cleared up," he went on, "Had we had a few months more we would have been able to tell the CIA and others that there were no weapons of mass destruction."

The other article stated some facts about the Iraq Survey Group:

• Set up in May 2003


• First leader, David Kay, quit in Jan 2004 stating WMD would not be found in Iraq


• New head, Charles Duelfer appointed by CIA


• 1,200 experts from the US, Britain, and Australia


• HQ in Washington, offices in Baghdad and Qatar

It also pointed out "Key findings in the report." (this could be biased, but it's all I had):

• "The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."


• "There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted..."


• "The problem of discerning WMD in Iraq is highlighted by the pre-war misapprehensions of weapons which were not there. Distant technical analysts mistakenly identified evidence and drew incorrect conclusions."

How's that?

I also want to talk about this other conservative business about suddenly changing the definition of "weapons of mass destruction." They (the conservative side in general) say now that Saddam Hussein himself was a weapon of mass destruction. Come on, people! I guess if you can't admit that you're wrong, you just make up something that makes you halfway correct, but only to those on your side. Sure, Saddam killed a bunch of people, but I never heard a Boeing 767 be referred to as a WMD. Nor have I heard the term in the same sentence with "fly swatter," either (and believe me, it does a lot of killing in south Georgia).

I guess we can talk now on what a weapon is. Take into account that the weapon in "Lethal Weapon" and succeeding films was "Riggs," a man. But remember, my conservative friends, that was a movie. I've never heard of a person being a weapon. A weapon in my dictionary is usually a nonliving object that can cause damage when used in a manner intended to do so. I will include in my list an exception to the nonliving clause in the category of biological weapons. Dead bodies were used in history as a force against a people who locked themselves in a compound. I consider that use of the living organisms on the bodies to be harmful to living humans, so that is settled. I know this is potentially boring, but you're the one reading it, and you are free to stop. You are also free to post comments on this peice. Anyway, I was once told that the heel of my boot was a "deadly weapon," as the pseudo-expert said. I guess it could be a weapon of mass destruction, because it is certainly capable of causing it. Then again, so could a broken bottle in skillful hands.

Why doesn't the Bush administration just admit they were wrong? George could sneak in a quiet "I'm sorry," or lengthy explanation, or "I quit" while he's pausing to let his brain catch up tomorrow. Speaking of tomorrow, I'll rest now and sleep until then.