...and it's a chronic one around here, one that usually draws the response "read the entire article."

All references to use of WMD are historical (the part you quoted). The anonymous spokesman is describing the use of chemical weapons during the war with Iran.

After the part you quoted come the specifics, a three-point plan that describes only troop deployments and rear-guard urban guerilla tactics. Nowhere does it mention weapons of mass destruction.

The wording is tricky, and I wouldn't rule out that it was deliberately confusing to sow seeds of concern. Talking about the use of WMD in the past then sequeing into future plans blurs the distinction, and might sound like an implied threat. But it's not actually there in what he said.

Another common situation here is that something like the above statements of fact will elicit hysterical accusations that I'm somehow supporting Saddam by correcting the record. It gets old, and I hope y'all can hang on to your perspective a little better than that. Things are tense enough without us freaking out over imagined threats or falling for deliberate propoganda manipulation.

--Robert