I just got an email from Ed (sometime guest writer) from Yahoo! news from the AP about a discovery in Iraq that has been made. Sorry, for anyone hoping it was the Batboy. I am totally beat right now so I don't really see myself writing my take on this.
I tell you what everybody read this article pull out a piece of white lined paper and when I return I can read all your essays on it. Seriously feel free to read this article and let me know if this counts as WMDs in your book. For me it has gotten a little murky what exactly is considered a WMD. Again I'm too tired too get into it right now. I guess this is kind of like the Smarty Jones debate all over again. Does it count!??!?
I don't know if this story will get any legs by the time we are up tomorrow, but itis interesting. The Drudge Report hasn't even picked up on it yet, so I doubt it.
It is likely going to be overshadowed by the story breaking as I type this about AL-Qaida planning to attack us this summer. Nice thought before going to bed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Does it count? Yes. The better question is "Does it matter?" and the answer is "no."
First off, yes, an artillery shell filled with sarin gas is a WMD, technically. I've griped before about the asisine definition of WMD. Technically, it includes any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. But it includes a lot of weapons that cannot cause mass destruction. For instance, the largest ever attack using sarin gas that I've ever heard of has to be the Tokyo Subway incident from years back. That killed like twelve people. A tragedy? Yes. Mass destruction? Nope.
Also, it doesn't include weapons that absolutely do cause mass destruction, like cluster bombs, depleted uranium shells, and the Mother of All Bombs. In other words, if it's a part of the US arsenal, it isn't a WMD, no matter how many innocent civilians it will inevitably kill.
But the reason it doesn't matter that this artillery shell is technically a WMD is because the article itself states that it is probably a leftover from before the first Gulf War. Also, one artillery shell isn't even one-hundreth of one percent of what Pres. Bush told us Saddam has in his 2002 State of the Union address.
We have learned since then that Saddam Hussein hasn't had an operational WMD program since before the first Gulf War, and hasn't had any significant WMD stockpiles since the mid-1990s when the UN finished disposing of everything.
So, yes, it counts, but it doesn't matter. That's my essay on the subject.
An editorial in today's Courier-Post makes the same point I did, except that it correctly identifies the President's 2003 SOTU speech, whereas I mistakenly referenced his 2002 SOTU speech.
My bad, dawg.
By Ed Greene
WMDs
I would define WMDs as any known unconventional weapon such as nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological. Nerve agents are the most toxic and rapidly acting of the known chemical warfare agents. Sarin gas is a nerve agent which has a lethal dose of 0.5mg for an adult. Sarin can be absorbed into the skin and through the eyes. Iraq used it during the Iran-Iraq war of the 80s.
"Does it matter?" Yes Virginia it does.
Lets assume for a moment that the shell was from before Gulf War One. Its existance shows several things. One, Hussein did have an operational and illegal weapons program since before 1991. It is illegal because its existance is in clear defiance of UN resolution, which Iraq accepted, in the 1991 ceasefire.
Weather or not labratories are actively researching, or plants are currently producing such weapons does not mean that a government does not have an active WMD program. Posessing usable weapons is enough to qualify as having an operational WMD program. If any person believes that this shell is the only one in existance, or that there isn't a group of pallets somewhere with simmilar ordinance, it is a sign of foolishness on there part.
Two, the existance of the weapons shows the ineptitude by certain UN members to prevent war. The reason that the UN exists is to prevent war. Their failure to bring significant presure against Hussein's regime is simmilar to the failure of the League of Nations before World War 2. It will take years to repair the reputation of the United Nations as an organization promoting peace. As it stands right now the UN looks like a gaggle of scheming ambassadors who are more concerned with political intrigue and protecting their own financial intrests.
Three, it showed that Hussein lied. Liar, Liar pants on fire!
Four, Bush and his administration told the truth. Bush did not lie to the American people. I know this is comming as a shock to some people. You may want to sit down if you feel physically ill.
- President Bush said that Hussein had chemical weapons.
- Chemical weapons have been found in Iraq.
- Therefore President Bush did not lie.
Some of the intelligence that was gathered was not true, but that does not mean that it was a lie.
This fouth point will make some people go permenently insane. Others will turn to suicide. And some others will try to spin this as either the administration is lying about the lab results or that the weapons were planted. But all of that is ok because the truth is now comming out. I am confidant that in the comming weeks and months more weapons simmilar to the one recovered will be found and that the current administration will be vindicated in full.
"Vindicated in full"? You must be joking. Dick Cheney told Tim Russert on Meet the Press mere days before the war broke out that Saddam had nuclear weapons. Vindicate that. Don Rumsfeld stated at a press conference last year that he knew where the WMD were. Vindicate that.
I don't care how many obsolete shells you find, Saddam Hussein had no active program for constructing WMDs, he had no usable arsenal of WMDs, and he posed no threat to the United States in any conceivable way.
Bush told us that Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of anthrax, small pox, sarin, mustard gas, everything. The UN weapons inspectors went in, looked around, found nothing, and said "We need more time to look." While they were looking, any WMD program Saddam might have had (we now know he had none) would have to have been put in moth balls.
It's the UN that has been vindicated by this war, not the Bush Adminstration. I admit that the UN and its members were motivated by political and economic concerns, but then so was the US. The ultimate arbiter is the truth, and the truth is on the UN's side. Did Bush lie? Depends on how much credit you give him. More and more I think he was duped by Ahmed Chalabi, but he should have known better, because he was warned by the CIA, by the State Department, by the Joint Chiefs, and by members of Congress. To say nothing of the UN.
And please explain to me how the existence of an artillery shell manufactured prior to 1991 proves that Hussein violated the cease fire agreement of 1991. Not that is matters, but I'm curious to know.
By Ed Greene
-You must be joking.
No Drew I am not joking.
-Dick Cheney told Tim Russert on Meet the Press mere days before the war broke out that Saddam had nuclear weapons
Not true, Cheny did not say that. On March 16 2003 he said, "We know he’s used chemical weapons. We know he’s reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization."
reference: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm
-I don't care how many obsolete shells you find, Saddam Hussein had no active program for constructing WMDs, he had no usable arsenal of WMDs
Not true, they weren't obsolete. They made two U.S. Army Soldiers sick. They had to be treated for nerve gas exposure.
-he posed no threat to the United States in any conceivable way.
Not true, For more then ten years after the first gulf war Iraqi air defense consistantly targeted and fired upon U.S. and English warplanes who were enforcing the U.N. mandated no fly zones.
-Bush told us that Saddam Hussein had massive stockpiles of anthrax, small pox, sarin,
True, Sarin has been discovered. In time the others will be found as well.
-While they were looking, any WMD program Saddam might have had (we now know he had none)
Not true, he did have some, one shell at the minimum. That shell wasn't the science project of a fourth grader.
-It's the UN that has been vindicated by this war, not the Bush Adminstration
Not true, Americans not U.N. weapons inspectors found the sarin. The U.N. is weak. It has no steel.
-I admit that the UN and its members were motivated by political and economic concerns, but then so was the US.
Not true, the U.N. were motivated by greed and protecting their own seperate, self righetous, archeic(?sp), nationalistic values about what they think is right at the cost of real justice. The U.S. has been motovated to protect its citizens and the citizens of its Allies."
-Did Bush lie? Depends on how much credit you give him.
Not true, he lied if he said things that he knew were not true. President Bush said that Hussein had chemical weapons. A year later chemical weapons were found. Was that luck or are the gods seem to be smiling down on President Bush?
-And please explain to me how the existence of an artillery shell manufactured prior to 1991 proves that Hussein violated the cease fire agreement of 1991.
Ok
UN Resolution 687 (3 April 1991)
The Security Council
1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire;
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
reference: http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
Ed, thanks for providing the transcript. Here's Cheney: "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong." I can't put it any better than that. Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, was right. David Kay, the man Bush sent into Iraq to look for WMDs after the war, has reported that SH hasn't had a nuclear weapons program for years. He didn't say "Maybe they were moved to Syria." He said "They were never here." SH didn't have any reconstituted nukes. He didn't even have a program to get them. He had a couple of shells dating back to the Reagan Administration.
(And where did he get them? Oh yes, the Reagan Administration.)
And SH wasn't a threat to the US. Shooting at US planes in Iraq makes him a threat to those pilots, but you can't say that SH was a threat to the US if we could have totally eliminated that threat by leaving. If SH had large amounts of WMD on hand plus ties to al Qaeda (because he couldn't deliver those weapons to the US without help), then he would have been a threat. Neither of those two pegs have been born out.
The shell was obsolete. "Obsolete" doesn't mean that it won't work. My DVD player is obsolete. It works just dandy, thanks.
Sarin has been discovered, but no "stockpiles" of anything have been found. Trace elements of mustard gas have also been discovered. I'm surprised you neglected to mention that. But no 25,000 liters, like Bush told us in Jan 2003.
There's a difference between weapons and weapons programs. Saddam had no weapons programs since the first Gulf War. He did have at least one leftover shell from previous, defunct programs. Although, we're assuming that SH had any operational control over that shell when he was still in power. It's possible, given the state of things in Iraq pre-war, that he didn't even know it was there. We don't know.
You say the US was motivated by protecting its citizens. How did invading Iraq protect a single US citizen? I don't see it. Especially considering the fact that we had to pull vital intelligence resources away from the real enemy, al Qaeda, in order to prepare for war in Iraq. The invasion made us less safe, not safer. Al Qaeda was on the ropes in mid to late 2002. Now, it's as strong as ever, well-funded, and recruiting like mad.
Why is it you don't take quantity into account? If I tell you that Keith has $400,000 in cash in his house and convince you to help me rob him, and we go in and he's got two fives and a ten, I'm not going to stand there and see "See, I told you he had money." Bush said SH had thousands of liters of anthrax, sarin, mustard gas, the lot. We've found a couple shells. Maybe he wasn't lying. Maybe he was just wrong. I don't really think it makes much difference.
I'll concede your point on the 1991 cease-fire, but to be fair you really have to prove that SH deliberately neglected to hand over this particular shell. That's not unlikely, but it's unknown at this point.
By Ed Greene
-Why is it you don't take quantity into account? If I tell you that Keith has $400,000 in cash in his house and convince you to help me rob him, and we go in and he's got two fives and a ten, I'm not going to stand there and see "See, I told you he had money."
Not true, Keith has alot more than $400K. He puts most of it into maintaining the Tempo. Vroom, Vroom!
One thing I think is too frequently left implied instead of explicitly said is that the reason we are looking at what Bush knew and when he knew it is that we are in an election year and that means the most important employee evauation in the country. As Bush's boss, the American people should look at his record and see if it warrants retention or dismissal. As Drew said, whether Bush lied about the WMDs or was just incompetent really isn't important because both are sufficient to justify dismissal of an employee.
With regard to the UN, I think this whole process has shown that it is a flawed but conceptually sound body. The only thing I think I would change would be to abolish the vetos given to Russia, China, France, the UK, and the US. Instead I think each country should be given, say, 5 votes instead of one or something else so that they hold much more power in the group, but not a stranglehold. If not an abolishment of the vetos, perhaps just make it so that if there is only one veto the four others can vote to overrule the one veto.
Other than that I think Drew's doing a fine job here and basically covers everything I wanted to say.
By Ed Greene
Sigh
-but you can't say that SH was a threat to the US if we could have totally eliminated that threat by leaving.
Why would we want to leave, if we were enforcing those no fly zones in accordance of U.N. resolution? Remember the U.N.'s intent for having no fly zones was to protect the Kurds and Kuwait. Also Iraq did give us permission to fly there as per the cease fire agreement.
-Sarin has been discovered, but no "stockpiles" of anything have been found. Trace elements of mustard gas have also been discovered. I'm surprised you neglected to mention that.
I believe that stockpiles of chemical weapons will be found. Concerning the mustard gas, it is my understanding that field tests came up positive. I do not wish to comment until a more through labratory experiment has been conducted.
-There's a difference between weapons and weapons programs.
I disagree. If Hussein had stockpiles of chemical weapons, then I count that as a weapons program.
-It's possible, given the state of things in Iraq pre-war, that he didn't even know it was there. We don't know.
Remember pre-war Iraq was a 12 year period. That is a long time for a dictator with total control over All to not know.
-How did invading Iraq protect a single US citizen?
It is well known that Hussein supported terrorism against the U.S. and other nations. I will use the example of Abul Abbas, the suspected mastermind 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laruo in which Leon Klinghoffer was murdered. Hussein gave Abbas a safe haven from which he hid from Italian justice. Abbas was later captured in Iraq by U.S. forces and died several months later in captivity. The downfall of Hussein will alow for a democratic government which will honor the rule of law, thus protecting innocent Americans.
I appreciate that yo disagree, Ed, but there is, as a matter of fact, a difference between weapons and weapons programs. Just like there's a difference between cars and car factories. If Bush said "We must invade Iraq because Hussein has car factories that will produce cars that he'll use against us," and we go in and find no car factories, but we do find cars produced in other car factories fifteen years ago that have since been destroyed, then Bush's argument crumbles into dust. That is exactly what has happened.
I appreciate that you believe we will discover stockpiles sometime in the future in Iraq. I find that belief irrational, based on the evidence so far, but you're entitled to it. I can't claim to know for certain that we won't, so fair's fair. But what if we don't? In fact, what if someone somehow shows you definitive proof that there are no stockpiles, and haven't been stockpiles since 1991? Would that change your view.
Lastly, I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but if you believe that there's going to be a democratic government in Iraq, you're in for a big disappointment. I very much hope I'm wrong, but I'm expecting, at best, a benevolent dictatorship (a la Jordan). That would be a vast improvement over Saddam's dictatorship, but it wouldn't be anything like Democracy.
Post a Comment