Quoted: Essentially both President Bush and Condi Rice have stated that they didn't find the WMD they expected to. (I don't have the sites, but I've seen the clips from interviews or press conferences or whatever it was).
|
They have stated that they didn't find the
stockpiles that they expected to.
So technically, your professor is right.
|
Well, yes and no.
According to the change in terminology a few years ago, CBRN weaponry was morphed into WMD, courtesy of a "modernizing" FedGov, and this invented term incorporated conventional explosives utilized by the "correct" bad guys under the "correct" set of circumstances.
A "weapon of mass destruction" was stated as being a device that was intended to kill maim, or disable multiple victims, either though conventional or unconventional means.
While intended (IMHO) to include weapons capable of killing, maiming, or disabling
hundreds or thousands of victims, technically the bomb vests in
Swordfish would qualify, because they had been augmented with projectiles... using the WMD criterion, if they were "just" explosive laden vests, they might or might not be WMD's.[%]It's stupid semantics, but this way Uncle has a shitbox to sweep everything into, as well as a way to magnify charges against domestic troublemakers.
So the presence of a
single binary-compound nerve agent warhead (OK, I know there have actually been several)
technically qualifies as the presence of WMD, and a legitimate threat. Of course, the news media will downplay such finds... after all, anything less than 10,000 fully loaded multiple Chem/Bio delivery system warheads doesn't count, right?
Quite strong claims were made (watch Powell's presentation to the U.N.) - and pretty much none of those strong claims were substantiated (and a few rockets with gas, or one particular lab doesn't even begin to come close to what was expected).
|
Remind your professor to polish his Kerry/Edwards button... then provide him with some of the voting records and supporting testimony / discussion for the 1998 "reauthorization of hostilities with Iraq" resolution. (No, that's not the real name, but it's pretty much the content). As DK cites below:
It WAS a mistake - but it was a mistake that EVERYONE believed, so it's not a big deal. Bush was given briefings about what people belived, and he made choices based on that. It's ridiculous to hold HIM accountable for intelligence failures by other people.
|
It also was based on actual AARs from victims/witnesses from Hussein's use of
chem agents WMD's against Iranian military and civilian targets during the Iran-Iraq war, and
against his own citizens during the Kurdish uprising in the 1990's.
So it's kind of a non-issue. If your professor starts up again, try countering with "yeah so what - the bush adminstration has admitted it was a mistake. What's your point??"
|
Just ask him if the dead Kurds were an RNC fabrication, or maybe the blister agent Iranians were secret Halliburton shills, hmm?