I’m not 100% certain, but I think so…
Summary of WMDs and WMD material found in Iraq after the invasion
(See excerpt below the fold)
Let me write the reponse from the anti-war crowd: “Those weren’t actual WMDs, and those that were weren’t actual huge stockpiles ready to use, so Chimpy McBushitler still lied us into his phony war!” Kindly note the continual moving of the goalposts every time more evidence backing the decision to go to war comes to light. I once dated a woman who argued like that; it’s a miracle that relationship lasted as long as it did.
]]>< 
Sorry, one more quote, I just can’t resist.
Asked if Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States at the time of the invasion, Kay said, “Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat.”
Well, at least he agrees with John Edwards
I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.
I can’t understand why Bush didn’t think Iraq was an imminent threat.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.
I know you’re being facetious, Veeshir, it isn’t lost on me. But isn’t fun to see how even Kay and Edwards can’t seem to grasp the concept of preemption correctly, either? I’m more suprised by Kay than I am Edwards; and Kay sounds like he was responding to a question at a commitee meeting so I’ll cut him so slack. But Edwards just flatout misquotes Bush.
If the threat was indeed imminent there would be no question as to whether we should or shouldn’t attack.
Edwards wasn’t quoting Bush, he was giving his own opinion, as was Kay.
I just always point that out whenever some lefty throws that article out there without reading it.
“So does this book get ignored by MSM because it comes from Regnery Press?”
To a large extent, yes. How many times a day do we read on right wing blogs that information printed in the MSM can be dismissed out of hand because it’s in the MSM? I’ve even seen people say “As soon as I see it’s from the Associated Press I stop reading.” Yet when something is published by a known right wing attack machine publishing house, we’re supposed to give it the fair and balanced treatment? I don’t think so. The MSM also provides Novak, Krauthammer, Will, Brooks and a host of other conservative columnists with a forum. Regnery has published enough garbage that I don’t give them any credibility.
As for the notion that Bush doesn’t let people know about the WMD we found in Iraq because the press wouldn’t believe him, well all I can say is you guys have lost the right to call anyone a moonbat. I realize not everyone on this thread is saying that, but the gingerly way in which people are responding is a hoot. Why don’t you come out and say it? That’s one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard. You really believe that if the White House came out and said “We have found large stockpiles of WMD in Iraq” the media would refuse to print it because they hate Bush? Please.
And as for the question why Saddam would say he had WMDs when he didn’t, I don’t profess to know the workings of his twisted mind. But is it so hard to believe that ehe would want Iran to think he had these weapons? Seems pretty basic to me.
A huge difference in the debate that gets glossed over is what we mean when we say WMD. There’s a big difference between chemical weapons that can be used in a localized way and nuclear weapons that can be used against the US. While there was a fair amount of agreement in the years before the invasion that Saddam had chemical weapons, it was the nuclear side that Bush and Cheney pushed really hard, dwpite growing evidence that he had almost no nuclear weapons program. Do you really think if the public was told that we were going into Iraq because Saddam had chemical weapons that he could use against his own people, or Iran, the public would have supported it? Especially if they knew there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda (another fact Bush did his best to mislead the public about.) All the bullshit about mushroom clouds and long distance drone airplanes were part of a campaign to mislead the public, and that’s what people are finally tuning into.
So now is some brave commenter going to threaten to beat me down or kill me? I noice how easily that kind of talk is accepted, as well.
Chris:
I agree with you about the silliness you brought up in your first three paragraphs.
But I’ve got to disagree with your last paragraph. Can you name one person in the US who really believed Saddam posed a direct and immediate threat to U.S. soil? Did people really expect Iraqi missles nuking New York and LA and Kansas? Did the administration even tell us that was real and imminent? I don’t recall that, but many moonbats now claim to have been duped.
I certainly never believed any of that, but I supported the Iraq war in the context of the global war on terror. There were plenty of valid and rational reasons to invade. Most who claim to have been duped are being disingenuous since they were against the war from the outset. How can one claim to be tricked if they never believed?
How many times a day do we read on right wing blogs that information printed in the MSM can be dismissed out of hand because it’s in the MSM?
You’re reading the wrong blogs. The ones I like say, “The MSM is at it again. Here’s my analysis on why they’re lying scumbags.”
In other words, they address the points. Now, if you’re talking about the 50th time they trumpet the above linked CNN article about Kay as proving that Saddam was no threat, well, I understand dismissing that out of hand. I only touched it because I was bored and it’s very easy.
Especially if they knew there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda (another fact Bush did his best to mislead the public about.)
I call bullshit on your bullshit. Clinton believed the same “bullshit” as Bush did, only a few years earlier. Moreover, in further reporting by Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard from last year, the relationship between AQ and Saddam’s Iraq was decidedly active. I would urge you to read the memo sent to Senators Roberts and Rockefeller here. And if that’s not enough, read Hayes’ book “The Connection: How Al Qaeda’s Relationship with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America.” (Those links will likely require registration.)
And before you dismiss the WS and Hayes’ reporting, I would point out that Hayes and Thomas Jocelyn (also of the WS) are about the only reporters I know of that are even coming close to a public in-depth examination of the relationship between AQ and Iraq.
Oh, and Ansar al-Islam, founded in Jaunary 2002 in Northern Iraq, was funded by both AQ and Saddam to suppress the Kurds. And Abu Musab Zarqawi was the connection in founding AAI shortly after he fled to Iraq from Afghanistan, also in January 2002.
“Old wiley Osama would like boogie to Baghdad…” if we attack his camps in Afghanistan. Who said that? None other than Richard Clarke in 1998. Guess he believed in bullshit, too; probably because he had, too. That’s what he was reporting to Clinton and Comapny.
Bottom line – the left has gone to every extreme to make sure the world doesn’t believe we are in a worldwide war! Tony Blair can’t even get anti-terror laws passed a mere 4 months after they were attacked!
Iraq is and always has been a front in the war on terror just as Afghanistan was.
Change is difficult, especially when your own CIA and State Dept. are firmly against that change. The owner of the upset apple cart can be mighty dangerous when he is armed with a megaphone and lies.
DKK
Reid: again, I write here, you’ve discussed the source of Levin’s references, knowledge with him? Senator Levin has shared with you the full range of information he refers to, as to when he knew what and from whom he learned it?
No, you haven’t. You no more can state with any reliability that I’m — by copying that quote from Levin — referring to information Levin learned pre-war from Tenet than you can, well, challenge the context of what he’s now saying. I note that the article makes a blasted HEADLINE out of noting that Levin — I paraphrase here — appears to know something that no one else knows or at least Levin isn’t sharing as to how he knows what he knows, what enables him to categorically affirm the presence of WMD in possession of SH.
Something I find interesting is the few sources that support the argument (that “there were no WMD” in SH’s possession/control/purview” prior to our war declaration) is the ever wiggly Joe Wilson. Oh, and first John Kerry said there were before he then said there weren’t, right before he later added that there were but then he reconsidered.
You have no substance to support the “no WMD” meme other than paranoia, fears and resentments.
Oh, I forgot the other support reference for the meme of “there were no WMD,” and that’s Saddam Hussein. He’s still flagging that around, even as we speak, along with that he’s “still the President of Iraq.”
I have so much information to the contrary about each of those denials, by the way, as do many others (here, elsewhere). As (also) written earlier, to those of you clinging to the “there were no WMD” meme, no amount of information will ever get through to you. Thus, it’s just easier to respond to the memers: STFU. You have a one-way announcement qeued and repeating, and repeating, and repeating…the needle, it is stuck. Thus, people like to just pull the plug every so often and get on with things.
Regarding those mobile biological weapon laboratories, despite the fact that no one can show they were used for biological weapons, no one can show that they were used for the other claimed purpose of generating helium either. Iraqi military officials said they never used helium on the range as suggested.
My opinion is that Saddam was amassing a huge collection of dual-use materials. He could claim they had a legitimate use but they could quickly and easily be switched over for WMD uses.
We have a similar story with the aluminum tubes. Given the amazingly high level of tolerances that were being specified, it wasn’t hard to suspect they were being used for illicit uranium enrichment centrifuges. Others claim they were being used for rockets. While Iraq did use aluminum casings for rockets, none of these high-spec casings were ever found in a rocket. Furthermore, Iraq was pursuing these aluminum tubes in secret outside of the requirements of the UN sanctions. Why was this necessary for conventional weapons parts? No matter how you look at it, obtaining the tubes was a material breach of the UN sanctions.
Again, in my opinion, Saddam was using dual-use materials in an attempt to hide his genuine plans of pursuing WMDs.
Its time for the antiwar crowd to go home throw their chicken footprint signs in the trash and make themselves useful
Mark
The administration was actively trying to convince people that Saddam was a threat to this country. Repeated phrases like “A smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud,” and “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here,” certainly led people to believe that we were in danger of atack. Stories about drone planes equipped to deliver biological agents to our shores didn’t help, either. And by drawing connections between 9/11 and Iraq, people were led to believe that Iraq had already attacked us. And no, I can’t name anyone who believed that, but then I don’t hang around with a lot of Republicans :).
Peter F., Clinton may have believed there was a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, but your link doesn’t establish that. He bombed a plant in Sudan that was alleged to be making chemical weapons and had ties to bin Laden. There were reports that the plant manager made phone calls to Iraq. The link you provided goes to an article by Stephen Hayes, who is a partisan with an agenda, not an unbiased reporter. He tries to connect somne very tenuous threads, but it’s clear that Clinton bombed the plant because of the connection with bin Laden, since he bombed bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan the same day.
And I’m sure you’re very impressed with Stephen Hayes, but has it occurred to you that the reason “Hayes and Thomas Jocelyn (also of the WS) are about the only reporters I know of that are even coming close to a public in-depth examination of the relationship between AQ and Iraq,” is because they have a vested interest in proving their point? Most reporters don’t spend a whole lot of time trying to prove something they don’t believe to be true. If there’s one reporter out there who’s still trying to find the real killer of OJ’s wife, does that give him extra credibility because he’s the only one still investigating?
And the article he wrote for the Weekly Standard, which the magazine laughably headlined “Case Closed,” was based in a large part on a leaked memo from Douglas Feith to the Senate Intelligence Committee, allegedly tying up all of the threads into a bombshell case for the connection between bin Laden and Iraq. Problem is, it was more of a bomb than a bombshell (you may be the last person still referencing it.) The memo was a mish mosh of every rumor and discredited report that had come over the transom, all neatly gathered by Feith (who was famously referred to by Tommy Franks as “the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth.”) But don’t take my word for it. You might want to read this press release from the Department of Defense, which immediately rushed to clarify the purpose of the memo:
http://www.dod.gov/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html
Jesus, Feith worked for the DOD and they wouldn’t even stand behind him. I thinkm you’ll find that article has been pretty much blown out of the water.
doubt anyone will see this, but that “enriched uranium” was left over from the osiraq nuclear reactor destroyed by israeli aircraft back in the eighties. and “enriched” just means a higher percentage of U235 (about 0.7% naturally, 3.5% for energy production, and 10% needed for weapons-grade, the rest is mainly U238). so have tons of “enriched uranium” does nothing if its not weapons grade. that is the argument for the aluminium tubes that condi was hyping. they could use those to enrich the uranium they already had. but it was proven that those tubes were not meant for uranium enrichment.
and its also possible that the chemical weapons that were found were given to saddam back in the 80’s by the US in the war with iran. linking that site which give no specifics just opens the door to possibilities such as this. its doubtful that this is the case, but using this site as proof is pretty pathetic.
Chris:
Let me get this out of the way first: Your trite, condescending tone proves that the biggest partisan hack here is you. Your arguments, if you can call them that, are tired and sorry bits of left-wing tripe that have been thoroughly debunked over and over. Moreover, you’ve proven yourself time and again to be so completely closed-minded that I sincerely doubt you read any of the articles; your flip dismal of the connections as being “tenuous” almost screams it.
For all of your protestations over Hayes “who is a partisan with an agenda, not an unbiased reporter”, you do little to disprove his report. And I really like to what parts of the report that have been “discredited”. You can make that statement but you better back it up first.
Did you ever stop to think the DOD might just be a tad embarrassed that the CIA was making connections when the DOD could not, hence the memo? No, probably note. A press release hardly qualifies as a “bombshell”; it’s defensive media posturing on the part of the DOD. It’s reactive and only vaguely hinted at the very end as being possibly illegal; and seeing how Feith still has his job in light of this “bombshell” the legality inference by the DOD is pathetic. It could even be construed as a hit piece by the DOD against a former employee. In the end, it’s a really doc. to reference.
Tommy Franks is entitled to his opinion about Feith, but it proves nothing in your argument; only that Franks doesn’t like Feith. So what?
That’s just daft, Jay!
Let’s take look at these claims.
“In a secret operation on June 23, 2004, U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium¡ªthe kind used to make fuel for atomic bombs”
The uranium “seized” at Tuwaitha in 2004 had been known about since 1991. After the Gulf War, all of Iraq’s highly enriched uranium and plutonium was removed from Iraq. The lightly enriched uranium at Tuwaitha was sealed by the IAEA and regularly inspected to make sure none of it had been removed. In January 2002, the IAEA once again confirmed that “none of the material had been tampered with in any way.”
During the 2003 invasion, great emphasis was put on securing Iraq’s oil wells. But astonishingly, although the exact location and quantity of Iraq’s uranium was known, the Tuwaitha facility was not secured and as Saddam Hussein’s regime collapsed, the facility was looted:
“Seals on warehouse doors were broken and uranium containers were later found in nearby villages storing milk or water. There have been subsequent reports of radiation sickness.”
By June 2003, “most” of the missing uranium had been found. The use of the word “most” is slightly disturbing.
Finally, in 2004, the US removed the uranium from Iraq. It was not some previously unknown cache hidden from inspectors. This was not a “secret operation” and the uranium was not “seized.” Tuwaitha had been a sealed and annually inspected site since 1991. The only time it became a risk was at the time of the invasion.
So much for the non-news about nuclear materials.
Now, on to the Polish discovery of the chemical warheads. Initial tests did indeed indicate that some of the warheads contained traces of cyclosarin. But further tests showed that they “were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals.”
So that story’s a complete failure.
Then there was the IED that did contain usable sarin. This, at least, is not a complete distortion of the facts, unlike the first two claims. It was a binary shell – keeping the primary chemicals separated from each other until it was fired. So, unlike most of Saddam’s chemical weapons, this one had not degraded. But since around 10 percent of of these shells failed to detonate, the most likely explanation for its continued existence is that it was a dud used during the Iraq-Iran war. The same goes for the mustard gas shell, which had in any case degraded beyond any military usefulness.
So what about the chemical weapons production discovered in Mosul in August? This was a supected insurgent hideout It would certainly seem to be the case that some of the insurgents are trying to make chemical weapons (note: fortunately, they haven’t succeeded yet). This is a worrying development, but the US military said the lab was new – and had been set up after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
So what does Richard Miniter say about this?
“The intelligence community remains divided over the origin of those chemical weapons (either from inside Iraq or outside) and whether they were made during Saddam¡¯s regime or after.”
This would seem to be a complete distortion of the facts. These were not “chemical weapons,” they were chemicals that insurgents were trying to use to make chemical weapons. And there cannot be any doubt that this lab post-dated Saddam’s regime. One thing we all agree on is that Saddam’s regime knew how to make chemical weapons. If this warehouse predated 2003, why the hell had they still failed to produce anything that worked?
Jay, this whole thing is as weak as Alex Jones’ black helicopters over at Prison Planet. Is the rest of Miniter’s book this bad?
Test – pls ignore.
Ah, I see I’m allowed to post again, after being blocked for the last 24 hours. Maybe it’s a software problem. Anyway, here’s what I tried to say yesterday:
That’s just daft, Jay!
Let’s take look at these claims.
“In a secret operation on June 23, 2004, U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium¡ªthe kind used to make fuel for atomic bombs”
The uranium “seized” at Tuwaitha in 2004 had been known about since 1991. After the Gulf War, all of Iraq’s highly enriched uranium and plutonium was removed from Iraq. The lightly enriched uranium at Tuwaitha was sealed by the IAEA and regularly inspected to make sure none of it had been removed. In January 2002, the IAEA once again confirmed that “none of the material had been tampered with in any way.”
During the 2003 invasion, great emphasis was put on securing Iraq’s oil wells. But astonishingly, although the exact location and quantity of Iraq’s uranium was known, the Tuwaitha facility was not secured and as Saddam Hussein’s regime collapsed, the facility was looted:
“Seals on warehouse doors were broken and uranium containers were later found in nearby villages storing milk or water. There have been subsequent reports of radiation sickness.”
By June 2003, “most” of the missing uranium had been found. The use of the word “most” is slightly disturbing.
Finally, in 2004, the US removed the uranium from Iraq. It was not some previously unknown cache hidden from inspectors. This was not a “secret operation” and the uranium was not “seized.” Tuwaitha had been a sealed and annually inspected site since 1991. The only time it became a risk was at the time of the invasion.
So much for the non-news about nuclear materials.
Now, on to the Polish discovery of the chemical warheads. Initial tests did indeed indicate that some of the warheads contained traces of cyclosarin. But further tests showed that they “were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals.”
So that story’s a complete failure.
Then there was the IED that did contain usable sarin. This, at least, is not a complete distortion of the facts, unlike the first two claims. It was a binary shell – keeping the primary chemicals separated from each other until it was fired. So, unlike most of Saddam’s chemical weapons, this one had not degraded. But since around 10 percent of of these shells failed to detonate, the most likely explanation for its continued existence is that it was a dud used during the Iraq-Iran war. The same goes for the mustard gas shell, which had in any case degraded beyond any military usefulness.
So what about the chemical weapons production discovered in Mosul in August? This was a supected insurgent hideout It would certainly seem to be the case that some of the insurgents are trying to make chemical weapons (note: fortunately, they haven’t succeeded yet). This is a worrying development, but the US military said the lab was new – and had been set up after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
So what does Richard Miniter say about this?
“The intelligence community remains divided over the origin of those chemical weapons (either from inside Iraq or outside) and whether they were made during Saddam¡¯s regime or after.”
This is total distortion of the facts – read the two articles linked above. These were not “chemical weapons,” they were chemicals that insurgents were trying to use to make chemical weapons. And there cannot be any doubt that this lab post-dated Saddam’s regime. One thing we all agree on is that Saddam’s regime knew how to make chemical weapons. If this warehouse predated 2003, why the hell had they still failed to produce anything that worked?
Jay, this whole thing is as weak as Alex Jones’ black helicopters over at Prison Planet. I’m astonished that you could base an argument on such a wilful distortion of the truth. Is the rest of Miniter’s book this bad?
test 2
Let’s take look at Miniter’s claims.
“In a secret operation on June 23, 2004, U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium¡ªthe kind used to make fuel for atomic bombs”
The uranium “seized” at Tuwaitha in 2004 had been known about since 1991. After the Gulf War, all of Iraq’s highly enriched uranium and plutonium was removed from Iraq. The lightly enriched uranium at Tuwaitha was sealed by the IAEA and regularly inspected to make sure none of it had been removed. In January 2002, the IAEA once again confirmed that “none of the material had been tampered with in any way.”
During the 2003 invasion, great emphasis was put on securing Iraq’s oil wells. But astonishingly, although the exact location and quantity of Iraq’s uranium was known, the Tuwaitha facility was not secured and as Saddam Hussein’s regime collapsed, the facility was looted:
“Seals on warehouse doors were broken and uranium containers were later found in nearby villages storing milk or water. There have been subsequent reports of radiation sickness.”
By June 2003, “most” of the missing uranium had been found. The use of the word “most” is slightly disturbing.
Finally, in 2004, the US removed the uranium from Iraq. It was not some previously unknown cache hidden from inspectors. This was not a “secret operation” and the uranium was not “seized.” Tuwaitha had been a sealed and annually inspected site since 1991. The only time it became a risk was at the time of the invasion.
So much for the non-news about nuclear materials.
Now, on to the Polish discovery of the chemical warheads. Initial tests did indeed indicate that some of the warheads contained traces of cyclosarin. But further tests showed that they “were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals.”
So that story’s a complete failure.
Then there was the IED that did contain usable sarin. This, at least, is not a complete distortion of the facts, unlike the first two claims. It was a binary shell – keeping the primary chemicals separated from each other until it was fired. So, unlike most of Saddam’s chemical weapons, this one had not degraded. But since around 10 percent of of these shells failed to detonate, the most likely explanation for its continued existence is that it was a dud used during the Iraq-Iran war. The same goes for the mustard gas shell, which had in any case degraded beyond any military usefulness.
So what about the chemical weapons production discovered in Mosul in August? This was a supected insurgent hideout It would certainly seem to be the case that some of the insurgents are trying to make chemical weapons (note: fortunately, they haven’t succeeded yet). This is a worrying development, but the US military said the lab was new – and had been set up after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
So what does Richard Miniter say about this?
“The intelligence community remains divided over the origin of those chemical weapons (either from inside Iraq or outside) and whether they were made during Saddam¡¯s regime or after.”
This is total distortion of the facts – read the two articles linked above. These were not “chemical weapons,” they were chemicals that insurgents were trying to use to make chemical weapons. And there cannot be any doubt that this lab post-dated Saddam’s regime. One thing we all agree on is that Saddam’s regime knew how to make chemical weapons. If this warehouse predated 2003, why the hell had they still failed to produce anything that worked?
This whole argument is as weak as Alex Jones’ black helicopters over at Prison Planet. Is the rest of Miniter’s book this bad?
Hmm. If I post “test – pls ignore” or “test 2” it goes onto your site immediately. But if I try to post a real message all I get is:
“Thank You for Commenting
Your comment has been received. To protect against malicious comments, I have enabled a feature that allows your comments to be held for approval the first time you post a comment. I’ll approve your comment when convenient; there is no need to re-post your comment. Return to the comment page”
Not the first time this has happened. Will this comment be allowed on the site, I wonder. And if it is, why can’t I post what I really want to say?
Yes, that went through OK. So now, I’ll try yet again to post what I originally wanted to:
Let’s take look at Miniter’s claims.
“In a secret operation on June 23, 2004, U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium¡ªthe kind used to make fuel for atomic bombs”
The uranium “seized” at Tuwaitha in 2004 had been known about since 1991. After the Gulf War, all of Iraq’s highly enriched uranium and plutonium was removed from Iraq. The lightly enriched uranium at Tuwaitha was sealed by the IAEA and regularly inspected to make sure none of it had been removed. In January 2002, the IAEA once again confirmed that “none of the material had been tampered with in any way.”
During the 2003 invasion, great emphasis was put on securing Iraq’s oil wells. But astonishingly, although the exact location and quantity of Iraq’s uranium was known, the Tuwaitha facility was not secured and as Saddam Hussein’s regime collapsed, the facility was looted:
“Seals on warehouse doors were broken and uranium containers were later found in nearby villages storing milk or water. There have been subsequent reports of radiation sickness.”
By June 2003, “most” of the missing uranium had been found. The use of the word “most” is slightly disturbing.
Finally, in 2004, the US removed the uranium from Iraq. It was not some previously unknown cache hidden from inspectors. This was not a “secret operation” and the uranium was not “seized.” Tuwaitha had been a sealed and annually inspected site since 1991. The only time it became a risk was at the time of the invasion.
So much for the non-news about nuclear materials.
Now, on to the Polish discovery of the chemical warheads. Initial tests did indeed indicate that some of the warheads contained traces of cyclosarin. But further tests showed that they “were all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals.”
So that story’s a complete failure.
Then there was the IED that did contain usable sarin. This, at least, is not a complete distortion of the facts, unlike the first two claims. It was a binary shell – keeping the primary chemicals separated from each other until it was fired. So, unlike most of Saddam’s chemical weapons, this one had not degraded. But since around 10 percent of of these shells failed to detonate, the most likely explanation for its continued existence is that it was a dud used during the Iraq-Iran war. The same goes for the mustard gas shell, which had in any case degraded beyond any military usefulness.
So what about the chemical weapons production discovered in Mosul in August? This was a supected insurgent hideout It would certainly seem to be the case that some of the insurgents are trying to make chemical weapons (note: fortunately, they haven’t succeeded yet). This is a worrying development, but the US military said the lab was new – and had been set up after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
So what does Richard Miniter say about this?
“The intelligence community remains divided over the origin of those chemical weapons (either from inside Iraq or outside) and whether they were made during Saddam¡¯s regime or after.”
This is total distortion of the facts – read the two articles linked above. These were not “chemical weapons,” they were chemicals that insurgents were trying to use to make chemical weapons. And there cannot be any doubt that this lab post-dated Saddam’s regime. One thing we all agree on is that Saddam’s regime knew how to make chemical weapons. If this warehouse predated 2003, why the hell had they still failed to produce anything that worked?
This whole argument is as weak as Alex Jones’ black helicopters over at Prison Planet. Is the rest of Miniter’s book this bad?
Yes, that went up immediately. But, yet again, my real comment on the subject of this thread was rejected by that “feature that allows your comments to be held for approval the first time you post a comment.”
A very strange feature, since this clearly wasn’t the first time I posted (or tried to post) a comment.
Every one of the those Human Events claims can be link sourced to MSM stories. I did that here:
The “No WMD” Lie–
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=733
Sources like WaPo, CNN, AP, Fox.
Cat, you’ve discovered one of the top-secret features of the New And Improved Wizbang: The Right Wing Whacko Truth Deflector Shields(tm, patent pending). Whenever someone tries to post something so true, that utterly shreds our fascist fantasies and delusions, it is automatically rejected and our fragile egos and illusions are spared. It helps preserve the Echo Chamber Effect ™, where we only have to deal with those people who tell us how brilliant and handsome and wonderful we are.
Alternately, if the Deflector failed, the anti-spam filters might have been tripped if you put too many URLs and links into the comment, holding it in the “pending” queue until someone with editorial privileges digs it out of the several hundred spam comments the site receives on a daily basis and approves it.
Which answer is correct? I’ll let you decide.
J.
Now I understand, Jay – yes, definitely number 2 -and quite a reasonable answer. Shame those posts are never approved, though. Maybe they never get read even by you.
Ha, ha, ha…very funny. So now, after all those failed attempts to post a rebuttal of Miniter’s wild claims, you now post every single one of them. Overkill, don’t you think?
Would the left, far left, anti-war people out there be HAPPY if we DID (God, I hope we don’t) lose the war in Iraq? Personally, I think they would be pleased as punch. But also, I don’t believe the people who, just because they don’t like our President, claim he’s wrong at every turn are correct. I mean, these people read one side (I think the wrong side) of the 2-sided news stories and derive their entire decision based on these one-sided news stories. Anything contrary to what they want to see be damned!
Would the left, far left, anti-war people out there be HAPPY if we DID (God, I hope we don’t) lose the war in Iraq? Personally, I think they would be pleased as punch. But also, I don’t believe the people who, just because they don’t like our President, claim he’s wrong at every turn are correct. I mean, these people read one side (I think the wrong side) of the 2-sided news stories and derive their entire decision based on these one-sided news stories. Anything contrary to what they want to see be damned!