Whether WMD?

Atrios says the most astonishingly stupid thing when he says that a truck designed to produce biological agents doesn’t classify as a WMD. In his own words:

Whatever those trailers are, and whatever they may have been capable of producing, they are not "weapons of mass destruction."

Excuse me, but if that truck is a production platform for biological weapons, isn’t that proof enough? It’s clear that the mobile labs are highly unlikely to have been used for civilian purposes, and the fact that they had been scoured with caustic chemicals is in itself telling. You have a case in which evidence presented by Powell was found, the trucks matched the descriptions of the biological weapons trucks, and the trucks were cleaned in such a way to make it difficult to find evidence of what they were used for. That’s a pretty damning case by any standards. Of course, I have the feeling that raving ideologue like Atrios would not be convinced by any amount of proof of Iraq’s former arsenal.

UPDATE: It looks like Prime Minister Tony Blair will be presenting new evidence in the coming weeks.

4 thoughts on “Whether WMD?

  1. I don’t think anything is “clear” at this point. There’s no evidence that the trucks have been used to make WMD, and the CIA sez they conclude they’re biowar labs only because they can’t think of anything else they’d be useful for. For Bush to say this is it, we found the WMD we were looking for, is more than a little disingenuous.

  2. Okay so by your logic the anvil is a weapon because it made the sword. Granted if one were large enough it could be…

  3. In an act of unimaginable “you can’t touch us” hubris, even White House puppetmaster Paul Wolfowitz said on Friday that the premise of waging war on Iraq based on their possession of WMD’s was fabricated because “that was the only justification for war everyone could agree upon.” This is just the latest example of the pathological liars running our country in 2003, who make the previous administration’s Pinocchio nose look downright microscopic in comparison.

  4. Which I kind of funny, as I for one would have been much more willing to support an invasion of Iraq primarally on the platform that Saddam is a bloody murderer and must go, not this fabricated, overblown WMD threat horseshit. Of course that would also have been on the proviso that they must be competitent enough to properly execute such a plan and reconstruct Iraq at ours and our ally’s expense, not thiers and thier future generations’. So far this has been a pretty dismal failure, sadly as predicted.

    Of course only time will tell. Years from now I may be applauding Shrub as the savior of the Iraqi people, but I don’t think I can ever trust a word his administration says again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.