Here's a copy of the Pelletiere opinion piece that appeared in the New York Times on January 31, 2003. I can't believe I didn't know about this before. There are so many lies it becomes hard to keep it all straight.
Tom's point about the difference between battlefield chemical weapons (like sarin or mustard gas tipped mortar rounds) and real WMDs cannot be repeated enough.
In fact, the whole concept of WMDs seems shaky and designed to mislead. Does it really make any sense to put a 100 kiloton nuclear warhead in the same class as botchulism? What value does such a classification system have? It's hard not to think that the reason for this is so the U.S. can find some not really very dangerous weapons, and trick people into thinking they mean nukes by calling them Weapons of Mass Destruction.
|
Tom's point about the difference between battlefield chemical weapons (like sarin or mustard gas tipped mortar rounds) and real WMDs cannot be repeated enough.
In fact, the whole concept of WMDs seems shaky and designed to mislead. Does it really make any sense to put a 100 kiloton nuclear warhead in the same class as botchulism? What value does such a classification system have? It's hard not to think that the reason for this is so the U.S. can find some not really very dangerous weapons, and trick people into thinking they mean nukes by calling them Weapons of Mass Destruction.
- jim 7-09-2004 9:55 pm