Home
News
Articles
Background
Letters
Action
Events
Cartoons
Links
Search
About VTJP
Contact
Donate
E-Mail Us

The Times Argus, February 2, 2003

Chemical warhead ruses

By Mark L. Hage

When I learned of the recent discovery of chemical warheads in Iraq, I wondered why the weapons in question were characterized as such given that they were completely empty. My suspicions on the matter were confirmed when I came across a letter by William Rivers Pitt. Pitt had written Jan. 16 to Aaron Brown of CNN about these warheads, and his comments were later disseminated over the Internet.

Mr. Pitt is the author of “War on Iraq,” a book that has made its way onto several top bestseller lists. He told CNN that the warheads found in Iraq were not chemical in nature. This is because, in Pitt’s words, a “warhead is a warhead – an empty ordnance strapped to a missile. What matters is the payload, be it explosive or chemical or nuclear.” In other words, what is inside the warhead determines its designation. The Iraqi warheads were empty, thus do not constitute chemical weapons.

Pitt goes on to tell Brown that the word warhead in this context is also misleading because the weapons are actually artillery munitions. Iraq is permitted by the U.N. to possess a variety of weapons, including missiles that can fly a certain distance. The existence of these munitions, therefore, does not represent a breach of U.N. resolutions.

Finally, Pitt asserts that he was informed by Scott Ritter that these munitions were included in Iraq’s weapons declaration last December. Ritter is a decorated combat veteran who fought in the first war against Iraq, and he was a key leader of U.N. inspection teams during the 1990s. For the past several months, he has led a tireless campaign to expose the lies and deceptions of both the Clinton and Bush administrations on the history of weapons inspections in Iraq. Judging from the chemical warhead ruse we will need his good work for some time to come.

Mark L. Hage
Montpelier, VT