Previous discussions (here and here) about the use of white phosphorus by the U.S. in Fallujah have come to the conclusion that although the weapon may be immoral, white phosphorus is not technically a banned "chemical weapon." This has been the defense pitched by the Pentagon, that WP is a perfectly legal weapon and is in no way similar to the chemical weapons Saddam Hussein used against his own people.

But a declassified Pentagon document from 1995 titled "Possible Use of Phosphorus Chemical" refers to Hussein's use of WP as a chemical weapon:

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […]

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.

Was this part of the evidence used against Saddam by the Bush administration to justify the war? When the original WP article ran, most people were skeptical about it, assuming it was simply a conspiracy theory by the far left. But as more information comes out, it appears that we indeed have used chemical weapons in Iraq, and against civillians at times. This debate should not hinge on the technical definition of a chemical weapon. It should focus on the morality of using this weapon in a civillian population and the thinning line that seperates us from that which we claim to oppose.

RELATED: The Moderate Voice, Think Progress,