Bush ‘fesses up on WMD

Note to wingnuts, warbloggers, and Faux News:
POTUS has finally admitted that Iraq didn’t have WMD. So kindly shut up.

Note to wingnuts, warbloggers, and Faux News:

The Beloved Leader has finally admitted that “it turned out he [Saddam Hussein] didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.” So can we have a little less about how all those weapons were secretly moved to Syria, or the dog ate them, or former weapons count as weapons, or whatever?

Footnote Bush added that SH had “the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.” I’m not sure what that means. If chemical weapons count, and chlorine gas is a chemical weapon, then I have the means to make weapons of mass destruction (albeit not in mass quantities) under my kitchen sink.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

9 thoughts on “Bush ‘fesses up on WMD”

  1. Actually, if you had both a statistically unlikely collection of chlorine bleach and ammonia under your sink, and a history of gassing people with chlorine, we probably WOULD count that as "capability". IIRC, Iraq had massively excessive "pesticide" manufacturing capacity.
    But… You don't believe Bush when he makes claims, why believe him when he makes "confessions"? One can as easilly be wrong as the other.

  2. Arrest the VP then. He has a history of shooting people in the face AND he has weapons!
    Of all the lame crap anyone could throw at someone–Pesticides!
    Face the facts, he had no way to employ what he didn't have–he was no threat! You can redefine WMD to include sand and inability to employ still kicks your ignorant ass.

  3. Bush added that SH had "the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction."
    Not according to the Iraq Survey Group's report.

  4. "Not quite what they said…"
    Close enough.
    In any event, the report proves it is a gross understatement to say that the Bush administration's claims about Iraqi WMDs were grossly exaggerated and mendaciously constructed.
    There were no WMDs.
    There were no WMD programs.
    There was no imminent, immediate, or even near future likelihood that such programs would be restarted any time soon.
    What the report does prove is that any need to strike at Iraq was years away at the earliest and even then based on mere speculation about uncertain contingencies.
    Bush has killed an untold number of Iraqis and hundreds of American soldiers for nada.
    That is the only point of consequence.
    BTW, it's now Lieberman 44%, Lamont 42%.

  5. Um, were we reading the same summary? Because I read it as saying that Iraq had the intent to resume CW programs as soon as sactions were lifted, the capacity to immediately start manufacturing some agents in militarily significant quantities, and the technical skills to rebuild production facilities for the more dangerous agents.
    Guess you're assuming that the sanctions regime would have lasted forever. That, or you just have a really short time horizon.

  6. Now, now, Brett, one shouldn't confuse the issue. Say, what do you want to bet that your friend here supported ending sanctions?

  7. Let me point out the obvious. Any country with a reasonable chemical industry has the ability to manufacture WMDs.
    "Guess you're assuming that the sanctions regime would have lasted forever. "
    I keep on hearing this prize piece of nonsense. Let me blunt. The sanctions would have lasted as long as the US wanted because the US could have vetoed their repeal.

  8. Brett Bellmore wrote, "Because I read it as saying that Iraq had the intent to resume CW programs as soon as sactions were lifted…"
    Big whoop-de-ding-dong. Chemical weapons are not, on average, much more effective than high explosive and don't merit inclusion in a proper definition of "WMD."

Comments are closed.