Weapons of Mass Destruction

This blog will not comment on Tony Blair’s evidence until it is all delivered, but there is an issue at the heart of this which is worth airing now. The very term WMD is questionable. It can only truthfully apply to nuclear weapons. There was no doubt Iraq did not have those. Chemical weapons or gas or even biological weapons potentially kill very large numbers, but they destroy nothing but human life. It was pretty obvious as the inspections continued to find nothing, that Iraq did not have those. High explosive bombs of many different kinds can cause both death and destruction depending on the scale of their use. Every country in the world with a military capability has those.

So one begins to wonder if the very definition of the alleged cause for warΒ was without true meaning on purpose. Was this because in private the driven and slightly unhinged men at the heart of the project, Blair and Bush, knew perfectly well there was no such thing but did not care anyway?