Friday, January 30, 2004
>>> The findings illustrate that whilst in public the Government asserted that that Iraq's WMD posed a "serious and current" threat, its own private pre-war assessment reveals that this threat was latent rather than extant, of a limited nature, unlikely to be used unless Iraq was attacked first, and unlikely to substantially affect protected troops even if it was used. <<<
I continue to be amazed that nothing whatsoever has been found of WMD, not even twelve year old contaminated battlefield munitions shells. On the whole WMD question this paper Weapons Of Mass destruction, Rhetoric and Reality, published by ISISUK, brings in some clear insights, I think.
>>>Whether or not the elimination of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) eventually proves practicable, it is surely necessary to reduce if not eliminate the current flow of loose, emotive and sometimes extravagant language about them. Such rhetoric, whether from political, official or media sources, not only misleads and may alarm public opinion but could also lead to clumsy and even dangerous thinking in the policy making process itself....... To criticise loose talk about WMD is not to underestimate either their destructiveness or the waves of disproportionate public terror they can inflict. This, after all, is the first aim of a terrorist campaign. Nor does such criticism neglect the genuine difficulties of democratic politicians in getting complex messages across to (the electorate).<<<