THE Iraqi Government will announce a sweeping peace plan as early as Sunday in a last-ditch effort to end the Sunni insurgency that has taken the country to the brink of civil war.don: "Put-up or shut-up time. Whatch'all gonna do now, Georgie?"
The [Iraqi] Government will promise a finite, UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq; a halt to US operations against insurgent strongholds; an end to human rights violations, including those by coalition troops; and compensation for victims of attacks by terrorists or Iraqi and coalition forces."
"Only an idiot would argue that, in 2003, Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein's government surely concealed whatever it could from U.N. inspectors, including items for which Baghdad and the U.N. had failed to account following the first Gulf War, despite eight years of meticulous effort from 1991-98.* WakeUp and Kathleen continue their heated, colourful (and often even useful) discussion of CR128 et al here - and here
But only a bigger idiot would argue that the weapons items found by U.S. intelligence since 2003 are the same WMD whose existence the Bush administration used to justify the later war. Chemical artillery shells from the Iran-Iraq war are not evidence of an imminent threat, and it's hard to believe that the White House somehow is covering up that Saddam possessed real WMD.
But the current dust-up over an intelligence memo indicating that U.S. forces have recovered about 500 old chemical munitions does prove one thing: When it comes to weapons of mass destruction, we are unable to differentiate and unable to have a rational debate. The term WMD has also become so expansive as to become meaningless.
The threshold for labeling something WMD in this world is low, if it exists at all. Many of the "chemical munitions" found in Iraq were even "unfilled" shells. That is, they had never been filled with chemical agent, according to the summary. But, as Rumsfeld says, "they are weapons of mass destruction.""