Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation on Even with Weapons, Hussein Was No Threat:
The glaring absence of unconventional Iraqi arms should not blind us to the fact that even if Saddam Hussein had amassed chemical, biological, and — yes — even nuclear weapons, he would not have posed a threat to the American people. As offensive tools, those weapons would have been useless.
Further, had the weapons been such a threat and Hussein been so Hell-bent on using them, we would have a far higher casualty rate in Iraq. Especially given the high rate of failure of gasmasks in the DoD inventory. It wouldn't have been thousands, but a successful deployment of chemical weapons could have killed several dozen troops if the wind was just right. Yet, the pro-war folks want us to act like scared little children everytime they scream "the threat, the threat, the threat." Like little brats under the control of the Administration, they are willing to excuse any lie with their fingers in their ears, going, "na-na na-na I can't hear you!" I have too much integrity to play along folks. Expecting our leaders to tell the truth about matters that involve life and death is not too much to ask. Unless you're an apologist.
It should be kept in mind that until recently chemical and biological weapons have not been regarded as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). This is a category deliberately broadened for rhetorical purposes — to spook the American people into supporting an offensive war against a government that did not attack them or, indeed, even show signs of wanting to.
As I said before, "If there was any time that Hussein was going to use such weapons, the war in Iraq would have been that time. The fact that he didn't use them disproves the chickenhawk rantings about their immediate threat to the United States. What was he waiting for? Are we really supposed to believe that these weapons were threatening the U.S., yet the madman who had them wouldn't use them in a last ditch attempt to preserve his grip on power? Is this the logic the pro-war folks want us to swallow?"
Why are chemical and biological weapons not classified as WMDs? Because it is difficult — although not impossible — to use them to kill large numbers of people. Weather and other conditions have to be just right. A shift in wind can send a poisonous cloud back over one’s own forces. Killing masses of people is far easier with conventional bombs such as those used by the U.S. government in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Serbia. The power to define is the power to control. Some of the most lethal weapons on earth are held by the U.S. government but are not classified as weapons of mass destruction. Yet if even one vile of old anthrax is found buried deep in the ground in Iraq, it will be proclaimed as proof that Hussein had an arsenal capable of killing multitudes. This would be propaganda, not rational analysis.
But that is what this is about – a war without cause. Thousands are dead due to a campaign of propaganda and an Administration attempting to capitalize on the events of September 11 to accomplish its own statist interventionism. And now, despite the whining of cowardly apologists, the White House is in 'cover your ass' mode. They've got a lot of covering left to accomplish.