Armaments of Bulk Devastation
They've left America's credibility in ruins
By Jeff Koopersmith

June 10, 2003 -- NEW YORK (apj.us) -- Both President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are feeling the heat and their disappointment -- after way too long -- at not finding any armaments of bulk devastation (ABDs) which provided the foundation for their mutual -- and, some argue, unprovoked -- attack of Iraq.

I use the term "armaments of bulk devastation" here to make a point: weapons by any name remain weapons, all of them able find their mark and create mass destruction, bulk devastation, and equal heartbreak.

Even single bullets.

The tune "It's a sin to tell a lie" comes to mind -- but then again, what if Bush and Blair are not mendacious?

Blair is feeling far more pressure than Mr. Bush this week. It appears that the British are either more sophisticated are more unlikely to be bamboozled, even by the cuddly Prime Minister who hitched his political wagon to George W.'s arrogant horse.

Significant is testimony by the British Broadcasting Corporation, citing unnamed security officials as sources, that Blair interceded in the writing of an intelligence profile in September of last year to make certain that the report painted an assertion that Iraq could organize chemical and biological weapons attacks within less than one hour.

Other reports emanating from our own intelligence services are worse.

If only we could find those weapons in less than an hour.

Blair's answer? "Iraq is now free, and we should be proud of that."

That is a parallel answer to the ones given by the Bush Administration over the past few weeks.

Their party line: it doesn't make any difference why we attacked Iraq because we gave the American people a virtual smorgasbord of choices. Pick one from Column "A" and two from Column "B".

No matter that none of the others was successful to bring public opinion to Bush's side except and aside from, the threat of "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

Now, months later, not a single such weapon has been found. Not a single one.

On Sunday morning I heard perhaps a gifted public servant, Condoleezza Rice, again telling the simpering George Stephanopoulos that the United States had found two rusty trailers which contained apparatus allegedly capable of manufacturing biological or chemical weapons.

Yet "capable of" and "doing so" are two diverse matters.

If one took the Bush Administration's rationale far enough and long enough one could claim that all Iraqi's were at least "capable" of manufacturing such weapons. All one needs is a bucket and the right chemicals -- many of which are available at the local garden center.

Oh, and a plastic spray bottle as well.

Then, of course, there is the list, pages long, of the tons of devastating materials that Secretary of State Colin Powell listed in his many speeches and off-air remarks to the United Nations.

Where for art they, those WMDs?

During the course of a few months, the White House and its apparatchiks used the term "weapons of mass destruction" more than one thousand times in speeches, press conferences, and other published materials. They used the phrase so often that it became the butt of jokes, and a mighty irritant to almost everyone alive.

Yet these weapons have yet to appear.

Ms. Rice told us that "we've just begun" to look for them -- but don't I recall Colin Powell's show and tell on the floor of the United Nations where he displayed aerial photographs of the plants that manufactured these weapons?

Or was I dreaming?

I don't think so.

In fact, these sites have already been visited -- and nothing, nada, no no limonada. In fact, the troops that were assigned to search for the elusive weapons are being given some well-deserved leave, according to a wire report yesterday.

One wonders whether Mr. Bush, Mr. Powell, Mr. Wolfowitz, Ms. Rice, and Mr. Perle will get away with this if weapons such as those described are not found before November of 2004.

Moreover, one regrets that even if they are never found the American people have become so robot-like and impassive that they just don't seem to care.

To be fair, I suppose it is more than good that Saddam Hussein has disappeared. He was a nasty character -- at best. Yet there are countless malevolent criminals running things abroad, and even at home. Doesn't our President have more than one accused, convicted, and then pardoned (by his Dad) criminal working for him?

I just don't know. It's a tough choice.

Do I want to be a citizen of a nation that rules the earth, or do I want to be a patriot in a nation that comforts and reassures it?

George W. Bush is, after all, correct when he says that America has freed Iraqi children from a tyrant. Still, this is not a sporting event where winning is often everything, and how you get there does not matter, as long as the referee does not spot you.

As the majority of the world -- uninvolved and critical of our action in Iraq -- looks on, they are increasingly accepting as true that Americans are liars, hypocrites and perhaps worse.

I know, and you know this is unreasonable.

If the truth be told, it does not make a difference what you and I believe about our innovative role in the new world order anyway. What the rest of the world thinks does make a colossal difference to America and Americans.

The bothersome and unasked question is whether and who might plant such weapons in order to avoid the humiliation of having been wrong. To my knowledge, not a single journalist has asked this question seriously.

It would be so easy.

One Thursday night, a team of our most trusted special operations forces, or such a team from another friendly nation, could simply drop tons of biological weapons canisters, with Iraqi markings, all over the desert. Or perhaps these weapons could be conjured up -- unearthed in Syria, or even Jordan -- buried beneath the dunes, unavailable to the eye of our technology until now.

Would we do it?

You see, the consequences of being seen as an oppressor might be entirely bitter.

JEFF KOOPERSMITH is a political consultant, opinion research authority, policy analyst, and self-described "renegade lobbyist."