What is it?

No, I'm not referring to the "charming" mascot from the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. Rather, I'm referring to White Phosphorous. You see, President Bush admitted recently that we used White Phosphorous as a weapon against insurgent strongholds last year after originally denying said use, according to this CNN article I found reading the Reaction. The debate in the Reaction turned on whether or not WP is, in fact, a chemical weapon. Considering we invaded Iraq based primarily on evidence that they had WMDs, which includes Chemical, Biological, and Radiological weapons, determining whether or not WP use constitutes the employment of a chemical weapon might be somewhat important.

Now, here's the kicker: In a recently declassified document, the Intelligence Community reported that in the war against the Kurds after the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein "may have possibly used White Phosphorous (WP) chemical weapons." The above cite from a link at the Moderate Voice

So I guess it comes down to what the definition of is is in this scenario. I don't know what to say here. It strikes me as insanely irresponsible to decry the possession of WMDs and then use them against the person you claim has them. What will come of this, if anything?