Replies

Another method that’s consistently been used to dismiss WMD finds is to define WMDs in such a way that the chemical and biological agents themselves do not qualify. At most, they may be considered “WMD components,” to only graduate to full-fledged WMDs once they are loaded into bombs or warheads. The Times story accused Bush of covering up the fact that soldiers have been exposed to deadly chemical agents, but this, like al-Muthanna, is not news. Repeatedly during the postwar search, soldiers had been treated for exposure to barrels of chemicals that were found in camouflaged ammo dumps. Again, we’ve been remarkably generous in our assumptions about dual-use materials. These concealed chemicals are precursors to nerve agents, but they can also be used in the production of pesticides. Naturally, the official conclusion has been that they were meant for the latter of these purposes. Presumably, they had to be disguised as military supplies in order to prevent the insects from becoming suspicious.

I periodically recall an incident that occurred during the invasion, that has mostly gone down the memory hole. A few people remember it, but fewer every year.

During the invasion, the soldiers captured a chemical plant whose plant manager was an Iraqi Army general. The plant was secured by an infantry company. It was not on the UN's list, they didn't know it existed.

The plant made nerve agent. Thanks to the embedded reporters, we saw the plant, the guard towers, the barrels of product, as I remember, they even showed us the general himself who was in custody.

Then a few days later, they came back to tell us that, no, come to find out, it wasn't a nerve agent plant at all, they made "agricultural pesticide".

At least 3 or 4 times after that they captured Army ammo dumps and found stockpiles of nerve agent. On one occasion the embed reporters themselves got sick from exposure. In each and every case they came back after a day or two to tell us that, no, come to find out, it was "agricultural pesticide" again. At an army ammo dump.

Which made me ask then as I continue to ask, who had the power to make WMD disappear simply by redefining it? At a time when Bush's presidency hung by a thread and he faced possible impeachment over just that issue, who had the power to disappear it?

Saddam's contacts with Niger were not secret, and yet we were assured endlessly that they didn't happen. We were assured that uranium smuggling wasn't possible because IAEA inspections made it impossible. Then we found out that Libya's uranium was smuggled in from Niger, and we found out that IAEA wasn't allowed into Niger. But most people still don't know that, since press coverage has sought to obscure facts rather than expose them.

The question is not why is the press dishonest, it is why didn't Bush's people defend him when the facts were on their side?