Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Lefty Liberal Moonbats: Heartless, but idiotic

Here is another reason to think Algorica is more than a little out of step with the rest of the country. Oh, yeah, and re-elect Al Gore, ha ha!

~~~~~~~

500 more munitions classified as WMD's found in Iraq. We have found WMD's, plans to make them, labs to produce them, evidences of them being shipped out of the country and still, some liberals claim that "Saddam had no WMD's."

Amy Proctor has more details in Hundreds of WMD Found in Iraq Since 2004

~~~~~~~

"“We give the good news ... to the Islamic nation that we have carried God's verdict by slaughtering the two captured crusaders," said the claim, which appeared on an Islamic militant Web site where insurgent groups regularly post statements and videos.

“With God Almighty's blessing, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer carried out the verdict of the Islamic court” calling for the soldiers' slaying, the statement said.

The statement said the soldiers were “slaughtered,”; suggesting that al-Muhajer beheaded them. The Arabic word used in the statement, “nahr,”; is used for the slaughtering of sheep by cutting the throat and has been used in past statements to refer to beheadings."


Stingray has the story of the two American servicemen who were captured and tortured before being brutally murdered. Where is John Murtha now? (I apologize right now if I have ever said anything good about that miserable and reprehensible Murtha). Is Murtha decrying the barbaric terrorists? Or is he still making up evidences against our own troops???

Anyway, Stingray also points out that Little Green Footballs has duly noted the far left-wing response to the heartless torture-murders:

"The sick freaks at Daily Kos are gloating: Daily Kos: So our boys were tortured - how quaint.

The bodies of the two captured U.S. soldiers were found in Iraq - bearing signs of “barbaric torture.”

How quaint.

I hope Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo will sleep well tonight, with visions of those boys’ bodies and the horrible barbarities inflicted upon them dancing in their heads. Perhaps Gonzales, and Yoo, and Rumsfeld and Bush will be able to envision the same inhumanities being visited upon their family members and loved ones as they drift off to peaceful slumber.

This cannot stand. We cannot allow this administration and its incomprehensible defense of and support for torture in violation of the “quaint” Geneva Conventions to remain.

The chickens have come home to roost. As ye sew, so shall ye reap.

I weep for my country, and for the families and loved ones of those in Iraq and Afghanistan, those yet living and those already dead.

Peace."


The Daily Kos is the most popular far-lefty blog in existence, a blogworld spokesman, as it were. Gloating over the torture-murders of Americans....making false claims that we torture terrorists...the "chickens" haven't come home to roost. They are here already, calling themselves liberal democrats and looking for every excuse to cut and run from Iraq and the war on terror. Disgusting!

Outrage! Thus saith Barking Moonbat EWS. No kidding. If it is wrong, the ACLU is probably for it, and vice versa.

~~~~~~~

There are occasions when I want to tell someone that they are a miserable *expletive deleted* of a *expletive deleted* and a *expletive deleted*-*expletive deleted* cowardly punk who makes pond scum look like a higher organism.



Mike Lukovich, you are hardly worth the effort to expose your pathetic butt. You call this cartoon, "Pot to Kettle." Congratulations, you are now almost as disgraceful an example of humanity as is the miserable Ted Rall.

You get the idea this ticks me off??? Lefty Liberals accusing our nation of torture as a policy? Trying to make political hay out of the deaths of two brave soldiers who gave their lives so that morons like Lukovich are free to spew their filth and make all of us just a bit less...

Thank God for Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker and Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, who had the courage to volunteer their service to their country. My condolences to their families for the loss of their lives. The cowardly murderers who took their lives and the sniveling lowlifes who take the tragedy as an occasion to celebrate and/or denigrate their own country and countrymen are unworthy of your sacrifices.

36 comments:

cranky old fart said...

I love Amy P. and her "WMDs FOUND" claim.

Odd how you never hear it from Condi, Rummy and the Chimp, don't you think?

radar said...

Claim?! CLAIM?! Try "fact" although it is a very inconvenient truth to those who hate the USA and call our President "the Chimp."

Lots of WMDs have been found, we all know it now, and liberal moonbats don't have the character to admit they were wrong.

radar said...

BTW, in the alternate "comments" thread, Amy shares with us how those two soldiers were tortured, desecrated and then killed. Not for the faint of heart....

Anonymous said...

Radar,
Those weapons pre-dated the gulf war, even your own source said so. It also called them 'potentially lethal', most likely because chemical munitions degrade over time. If they were actual WMDs, shouldn't they be described as tremendously lethal?

Where are the vast stockpiles we were promised? Where is the looming mushroom cloud that Mrs. Rice mentioned? All we have are 14 year old chemical weapons shells, which are most likely dangerous, but certainly fall short of what reasonable people would call a WMD.

As for how out of step SF s from the rest of the country, I just want to remind you that I've never claimed that it's mainstream -- we have naked bicycle riders almost every week, and no one seems to mind. I actually think it's quite funny. However, I think you're deluding yourself in thinking that you represent the mainstream of American thought. Bush has an approval rating somewhere in the 30's, a majority of people disagree with the war, and people don't think the country is on the right track. You might live in a right-wing, bible believing, republican stronghold, but that doesn't make that representative of what Americans believe. If you ask me, it's a fair bit to the right of San Francisco, and a tremendous distance to the left of you and Mrs. Proctor.

As a final note, let me tell you that I'm absolutely outraged at the barbaric acts committed by the people who murdered our troops. Conservatives aren't the only ones who can claim outrage here, yet you would think we supported the insurgents by reading some of the conservative blog posts.

P.S. Why do you have to be so damn offensive sometimes? Moonbats? Come on, you're better than that --ever heard of the high ground?

-scohen

radar said...

s cohen, my answer????

"how quaint"

Moonbat is not a strong enough term. When the liberal side gets on the American side in the war against terror and the war in Iraq, then I will stop using the term. As long as the Democratic Underground and Daily Kos refer to the President as a Chimp and a liar, and call for us to cut and run from Iraq, and accuse our troops of being terrorists without any proof, and claim that the USA tortures prisoners of war, then the mainstream American will rightfully revile them.

As to many of the weapons predating the Gulf War, how many of the former Soviet Union warheads predate the Gulf War? How many of them are you willing to consider WMDs? We have found hidden labs, entire buried jet fighters, all sorts of stuff like that. We still don't know what Saddam may have had buried that we haven't yet found. But WMDs are WMDs.

Anonymous said...

Echidne of the Snakes has a short post on horror.

-Dan S.

Anonymous said...

Echidne of the Snakes has a short post on horror.

-Dan S.

Anonymous said...

"As to many of the weapons predating the Gulf War, how many of the former Soviet Union warheads predate the Gulf War? How many of them are you willing to consider WMDs?"

I'm sure you can see the difference between a nuclear weapon and a 15 year old chemical weapon, after all, nukes don't degrade with the rapidity and finality of chemical munitions. One would think you'd take this into account before posting on one's blog, but you seem more interested in showing how your president was right. Well, it's been three years, and he's not right. We've long since called off the search for nuclear or chemical weapons (read the Dulfer report if you must) and they're just not there. I've heard the right claim many things --that they were found, that they're hidden in Syria, that Iran has them-- but none of these claims have born any fruit.

You mention DailyKos and Democratic Underground ad nauseum, but I could easily find disgusting arguments on the other side of the fence as well. One trip to Little Green Footballs or FreeRepublic would be more than enough for me to find racist, intolerant and blatantly --dare I say it-- un american sentiments, but I don't use those sites to beat you about the head and neck.

I know that you believe that you're right but at some point, you should realize that there is actual reasonable disagreement between your side and mine. I don't consider Iraq a front on the 'war on terror', and you do. That doesn't give you carte blanche to question how American I am, nor does it excuse your use of immature names to characterize an entire side of the debate. If you want to prove that Iraq was a participant in international terrorism, you should show some evidence that the government of Iraq, evil as they were, had something to do with actual recent terrorist events. Claiming a vast left wing conspiracy of the entire press corps, the UN and sneaky, powerless 'moonbats' might be personally satisfying, but it doesn't advance your argument.

There is a moral high ground here, and I offered to give you a helping hand in order to reach it, and it appears you're just not interested.

-scohen

Anonymous said...

Reading the bit by some anonymous dKos poster or commenter, I find it hard to find any evidence of "gloating". They describe what was done to these poor young men as "horrible barbarities" and inhumanities, and end their post with, just to repeat, "I weep for my country, and for the families and loved ones of those in Iraq and Afghanistan, those yet living and those already dead."

The "How quaint" line is not a droll, casual, or amused reference to this tragedy. It seems to be a bitter and impotently-enraged reference to Attorney GeneralAlberto Gonzales' description (prior to becoming AG) of certain Geneva Convention provisions as "quaint," in line with the writer's obvious belief that this horror stems from our use of torture and similar kinds of mistreatment.

Whether or not this twisted act is in any reasonable sense a case of "chickens coming home to roost" - as a result of the US' use of torture . . . well, that's iffy. It's not as these groups had a previous reputation for principled, relatively humane behavior! But on the other hand, it's all too possible that the specific brutalities they inflicted, and more generally at least some measure of support or additional recruitment, were influenced by US actions.

Whether they're correct or mistaken, this isn't actually an example of celebration or even denigration. In fact, I don't think anyone will be able to find an example of any liberal or left-wing blogger (as these terms are commonly used) actually celebrating this atrocity.

More likely, like everyone else, their reaction will probably be one of sorrow and outrage. However, it might well be directed beyond the act itself - after all, do we expect better from these sort of - well, I won't insult other animals, so let's say, from these sort of people? Did anybody think a much better outcome, however hoped or prayed for, was likely? It may also be, as outrage, directed towards our leaders (believed rightly or wrongly to have some form of indirect responsibility). It may be, as sorrow, directed towards our country, which is as that brutally accurate cartoon makes clear, now in the position of being unable to make a ringing denunciation of torture, but only a complaint that they tortured the wrong people for the wrong reasons too badly.

" Lefty Liberals accusing our nation of torture as a policy?"
Because that's what our nation has done. The only question is how far, exactly, we've gone - something we will likely find out in coming decades.

" Trying to make political hay out of the deaths of two brave soldiers"
But the reaction from the right could be decribed the same way. Perhaps what we actually have, for thoe most part, are people responding to horrible news, but seeing it through very different lenses (and as with everything, some folks on all sides who are being political.

-Dan S.

highboy said...

"I love Amy P. and her "WMDs FOUND" claim."

Its not Amy's claim, and its actually a fact now in case you've missed it.

Sarin gas munitions, degraded or not, can kill LOTS of people. So how many people have to be at risk before its considered a WMD by liberals? And don't misread the polls schoen. Liberals can chortle all they want at Bush's approval rating, but no LIBERALS have gained any ground whatsoever. Especially with Murthtard as one of their leading spokesman saying stupid stuff like this.

"we have naked bicycle riders almost every week, and no one seems to mind. I actually think it's quite funny."

Yeah, that sounds hilarious. A place I wanna raise my kids.

Its laughable that you say "they're just not there." (WMDs.) We have found some. If you don't want to classify them as WMDs, that is your perogative. But so far, no one has PROVEN these things to be as minimal a threat as you say, unless we are to rely on the anonymous "unnamed" official?

creeper said...

"Sarin gas munitions, degraded or not, can kill LOTS of people."

Really? Degraded Sarin gas can kill lots of people? Then what's degraded about it?

Anonymous said...

"New Intel Report Reignites Iraq Arms Fight
By KATHERINE SHRADER
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 22, 2006; 11:11 PM

WASHINGTON -- Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and probably are so old they couldn't be used as designed, intelligence officials said Thursday.

Two lawmakers _ Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich. _ on Wednesday circulated a one-page summary of a military intelligence report that says coalition forces have recovered about 500 munitions with mustard or sarin agents, and more could be discovered around Iraq. "We now have found stockpiles," Santorum asserted.

But intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitive nature, said the weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and there is no evidence to date of chemical munitions manufactured since then. They said an assessment of the weapons concluded they are so degraded that they couldn't now be used as designed.

They probably would have been intended for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq War, said David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004.

He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

"It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.

And any of Iraq's 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal, Kay said.


Asked about the potential danger to U.S. troops, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said: "They are weapons of mass destruction. They are harmful to human beings. And they have been found."

The newly declassified military intelligence report was released Wednesday by National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. Santorum and Hoekstra had urged him to release the report this week during congressional debates on Iraq.

The senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee questioned the timing of the report's release. "What worries me is that the intelligence community _ Ambassador Negroponte in particular _ may be playing a partisan role in the 2006 election," California Rep. Jane Harman said.

Hoekstra said the document is not a "smoking gun." But he hinted that the chemical agents could be significant because they may have been added to the discovered artillery shells after the first Gulf War. He noted that one of the declassified findings says the munitions could be lethal.

"David Kay says anything produced prior to 1991 is not lethal anymore, so what is the discrepancy here?" Hoekstra said. "I am 100 percent sure if David Kay had the opportunity to look at the reports that describe these things, he would agree with the finding that ... these things are lethal and deadly."

iIntelligence officials said the munitions were found in ones, twos and maybe slightly larger collections over the past couple of years. One official conceded that these pre-Gulf War weapons did not pose a threat to the U.S. military before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They were not maintained or part of any organized program run by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

There is no evidence that insurgents have found the chemical munitions. But one official said that insurgents have improvised conventional weapons, so they could apply similar creativity with the vintage weapons.
"

-Dan S., squinting worriedly under the kitchen sink . . .

Jake said...

scohen:
"we have naked bicycle riders almost every week, and no one seems to mind. I actually think it's quite funny."


highboy:Yeah, that sounds hilarious. A place I wanna raise my kids.

Because nakedness is BAAD and EEEEVILLL and there are no societies on this earth where it's a perfectly normal way to be. No, no, the uber-sexualisation of nakedness in the West isn't cultural, it's the NATURAL WAY OF THINGS. And all those societies where it's perfectly normal and no one bats an eye? Well, they're different, so we know they must be WRONG!!!

Anonymous said...

This is what I get for going to sleep, I wake up and Dan and Creeper have already made my points. I do want to comment on this point:

me""we have naked bicycle riders almost every week, and no one seems to mind. I actually think it's quite funny."

Timmay:Yeah, that sounds hilarious. A place I wanna raise my kids.

You know Tim, you're absolutely right about this, I saw a naked person when I was four, and I have been unable to stop eating babies ever since. Do you really think that exposing your kid to a fleeting moment of nudity will have any affect in how he turns out? I know in my case it produced severe babyphagia, but I'm sure most non-psychopath liberals and even most conservatives can handle it.

-scohen

Anonymous said...

Damn, This is what I get when I post early and bleary-eyed:

"Do you really think that exposing your kid to a fleeting moment of nudity will have any affect in how he turns out?"

That should be effect, not affect.

-scohen

Anonymous said...

"This is what I get for going to sleep, I wake up and Dan and Creeper have already made my points."

Just think of it as a shift change sort of thing . . .

And sleep is good! After a while, the conviction that you're seeing flickers of movement out of the corner of your eye becomes just way too distracting. And if you try to ignore it and keep staying up . . . well, I remember the time back in college when I realized that I really wasn't going to be able to stay awake until all the final papers were done, since I could see a swarm of bugs spilling out of the computer's disk drive , , , (even my lack-of-sleep- induced hallucinations have a taste for bad puns!)

I'm trying to imagine bike-riding naked, and it just seems kinda uncomfortable . . . .

Anyway, I do like the post's title - sorta like "she's strict, but unfair . . ."

I always thought we were supposed to be kinda stupid but all full of heart. Now they won't even give us that? Geez . . .

-Dan S.

Anonymous said...

Uh-oh, pertinent link time

Tim:Sarin gas munitions, degraded or not, can kill LOTS of people

Reality:defense officials said Thursday that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age, which they determined to be pre-1991. However, even in the degraded state, our assessment is that they could pose an up-to-lethal hazard if used in attacks against coalition forces

So Tim, before we invaded Iraq, there was virtually no risk that Americans would come into contact with these munitions, yet now they could be used to make Americans sick. You have to love the wording of up-to-lethal, as it doesn't include lethal yet includes the word. So, I guess the answer to your query is that they can not kill anyone, just make them sick.

Tim. So how many people have to be at risk before its considered a WMD by liberals?

I don't know, but the intelligence official says that they were "not the WMD we were looking for when we went in this time". Maybe when we find those, we can talk.

Dan, I thought we were supposed to be smart and full of heart, but the heart was our downfall (we give too much money to fund social programs). I agree that it's sad that we're dumb and heartless now. Maybe I can get an entry level job at a fast food franchise or something, because when my boss finds out that I'm dumb, I'm out on my ass.

-scohen

Anonymous said...

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.""

_________

"Maybe I can get an entry level job at a fast food franchise or something . . ."

I'd suggest FEMA, but you weren't a major GOP supporter, were you? Hmm, then that's out . .

-Dan S.

highboy said...

"Because nakedness is BAAD and EEEEVILLL and there are no societies on this earth where it's a perfectly normal way to be. No, no, the uber-sexualisation of nakedness in the West isn't cultural, it's the NATURAL WAY OF THINGS. And all those societies where it's perfectly normal and no one bats an eye? Well, they're different, so we know they must be WRONG!!!"

If you let your kids ride down the street naked on bicycles I hope you never reproduce, if you already haven't.

"I have been unable to stop eating babies ever since."

So you must really stand out in San Francisco.

"I don't know, but the intelligence official says"

The unnamed anonymous one that's so reliable. Sure.

Anonymous said...

"The unnamed anonymous one that's so reliable. Sure."

As opposed to a named anonymous source? What's the matter, you don't believe people working in the CIA or the pentagon? Do you not understand why they might want to remain anonymous (hint, they're in intelligence). I thought you were a military guy --now they're not trustworthy all of a sudden? Damn those two pillars of liberalism; the Pentagon and the CIA. That, and the fact that the weapons were known to the inspectors, disclosed as such and don't even work really hurt your case.

"So you must really stand out in San Francisco."

Actually, I don't. Babe-a-Roni: the other San Francisco treat.

"If you let your kids ride down the street naked on bicycles I hope you never reproduce, if you already haven't."

How can he let his kids ride bicycles naked down the street if he hasn't reproduced?

This has to be the funniest post you've ever written. LOL Timmay... Good show.. really, we're laughing with you, honest.

-scohen

Jake said...

If you let your kids ride down the street naked on bicycles I hope you never reproduce, if you already haven't.

Yeah, I guess you're right. If God had meant for us to be naked we would have been born that way.

highboy said...

"As opposed to a named anonymous source? What's the matter, you don't believe people working in the CIA or the pentagon? Do you not understand why they might want to remain anonymous"

Aren't you the same guy that said he didn't trust our intelligence community over on Amy's blog? So all the Dems have to say is "we have an unnamed source in the CIA" that tells us what we want to hear you just believe it huh? That's funny, considering you don't believe them when they tell you they're NOT tapping your phone. But I guess that's liberal objectivity for you. It must be convenient to be able to say "my unnamed source in the CIA" without being able to prove it.
"How can he let his kids ride bicycles naked down the street if he hasn't reproduced?"

Which is why I said "if you already haven't." Just blew your joke right out of the water, but you go ahead and laugh if it makes you feel better.

"Yeah, I guess you're right. If God had meant for us to be naked we would have been born that way."

Good point. I guess we should all take off our clothes and go streaking. You first.

loboinok said...

Dan S.;scohen,

What do you consider to be WMDs and what proof would you require for them existing, now or previously, in Iraq?

Reality:defense officials said Thursday that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age, which they determined to be pre-1991. However, even in the degraded state, our assessment is that they could pose an up-to-lethal hazard if used in attacks against coalition forces

I'm a bit confused about this. Being scientists yourselves,(you are aren't you?)maybe you could help make something clear for me.

Few people would argue that modern weapons are far superior to weapons of WWI including CW and BW.

These newly found shells, containing Tabun and Mustard Gas that are reported to be 12-14 years old would naturally be more potent than the same type shells from WWI. No?

Anonymous said...

Lobo,
"What do you consider to be WMDs and what proof would you require for them existing, now or previously, in Iraq?"

Excellent question! I'm glad you're interested in the other side rather than just sitting back and mockingly deriding us.

I think what would constitute proof and would validate the war for me would be evidence that the Iraqi regime was actually producing chemical weapons after the gulf war, and thus not complying with the UN sanctions. I'm no chemical weapons expert, but everything I've read indicates that chemical weapons have a very short shelf life (sarin is in the range of months, mustard gas is in the range of a couple years). The government made assertions of vast stockpiles of chemical weapons, they made claims of mobile chemical and biological weapons labs, provided pictures of chemical weapons facilities, and finally indicated that Iraq had an active and ongoing nuclear program. Since the invasion all we've found are chemical weapons from the Iran/Iraq war, and to me, that has fallen miles short of the rationale for invasion.

"Few people would argue that modern weapons are far superior to weapons of WWI including CW and BW."

Again, I'm not sure this is accurate, the most recently devloped nerve agent, VX, was created in 1961, but Sarin (1938), Tabun (1936) and Mustard Gas (1917) haven't changed since they were invented (to the best of my knowledge --they are chemicals after all) meaning that they were just as effective then as they are now. Thankfully, most research has stopped in CW and the US is destroying its vast stockpiles of VX, so hopefully we won't see any more progress in this area.

"Mustard Gas that are reported to be 12-14 years old would naturally be more potent than the same type shells from WWI. No?"

As far as I know, there is a point in the degradation process at which the chemical reaches a level of toxicity below that required to kill a human. In the case of Sarin, this is after a couple of months, so Sarin from WWII (it wasn't invented in WWI) wouldn't be any less lethal than sarin from 1991. I could be mistaken though, maybe 1991 sarin would make you sick while WWII era sarin wouldn't do anything. But what we're talking about is a weapon of mass destruction, not a weapon of extremely localized sickness.

I hope that illustrates where I'm coming from on this issue. I also appreciate your tone, it wasn't in the least bit accusatory --not that it's ever been, just that some people could benefit from a little patience and understanding.

P.S. I don't think I've claimed that I'm a scientist, just that I value and use the scientific method. I do know a great deal about science, but that's mostly because I've always done well in it, and I have a great deal of personal interest in biology physics and math. I'm actually a software engineer.

-scohen

Anonymous said...

"Aren't you the same guy that said he didn't trust our intelligence community over on Amy's blog?"

Yes, Tim. I don't trust anybody to mine our personal data with zero oversight. I do trust the intelligence community to talk about how chemical weapons degrade. The information is freely available on the internet, and what that person said aligns perfectly with what I've read. There's a difference there, do you see it? It's nice to be able to see the world in shades of grey rather than black and white sometimes.

"Which is why I said "if you already haven't." Just blew your joke right out of the water, but you go ahead and laugh if it makes you feel better."

Your awkward sentence construction actually made the joke funny. The addition of the word 'would' would have resolved the issue. Still, the joke is hilarious, and I'm sorry you don't see it. I also liked my joke about babe-a-roni --it goes to show you how people that are actually funny can make fun of themselves. I also just love how a city can get you so riled up. It's not like I sit around getting pissed off at Omaha.

OOOOH DAMN OMAHA!!!! *shakes fist*

P.S. I'm going to the pride parade tomorrow, I'll take some pictures for you. I've got one word for you to keep in mind: Chaps.

-scohen

Jake said...

SF's Pride is tomorrow? So's Toronto's. sigh. This will be the first year I miss Toronto's Pride Parade since I was 16. *sings* Growing up is hard to doooooooooo */sings*

highboy said...

"I do trust the intelligence community to talk about how chemical weapons degrade."

Even though we have no idea who he is and therefore have no way of holding him accountable for his misinformation. We are just to take his word for it that they're pre-Gulf, and that they're degraded, no matter what the evidence shows.

Anonymous said...

"Even though we have no idea who he is and therefore have no way of holding him accountable for his misinformation. We are just to take his word for it that they're pre-Gulf, and that they're degraded, no matter what the evidence shows."

Look up the information about how chemical weapons degrade if you don't believe the statements. From all the information I've ever seen, what he says is accurate. A little skepticism is always a good thing.

The report you cited said they're pre-gulf war, the very same report that Mr. Santorum was reading from --this is not in question.

-scohen

loboinok said...

I'm no chemical weapons expert, but everything I've read indicates that chemical weapons have a very short shelf life (sarin is in the range of months, mustard gas is in the range of a couple years).


The document records Kamal referring to Iraq's quest for chemical weapons with a long shelf life: "At the beginning, they worked with one Egyptian scientist to make mustard gas. Then they proceeded to sarin, then VX, then binary. Sarin had a short shelf life; mustard gas has longer effect but is not as potent as sarin."

Iraq adopted the "binary" method of weaponization for sarin as well, in which the components of sarin gas are stored separately until use, when they are mixed.

The components of sarin are DF 2 and the alcohols cyclohexanol and isoproponal. Since Iraq manufactured DF 2 with a purity of 95 percent and imported alcohols of 100 percent purity, experts state that the detonation of its munitions could be expected to yield relatively pure sarin.
Link to WND

By the time the bomb squad had dug a couple of metres into the Flanders field, it had uncovered a storage site containing no fewer than 1,100 eight-centimetre British shells, originally destined for the front lines but sitting undisturbed since the end of the First World War -- more than eight decades ago.

The Vimy site contained 173 tonnes of munitions -- 16,000 projectiles, most of them filled with phosgene and mustard gas, much-feared poison gases that attack eyes, skin and lungs, causing irritation, blistering and even death.

Disposal is more difficult with gas shells and their deadly fumes. They used to be encased in concrete and dumped at sea, but that practice is now illegal under terms of an international convention on chemical warfare. Belgium stopped ocean dumping in 1980.

First two articles.
Link to Orderly Room


As far as I know, there is a point in the degradation process at which the chemical reaches a level of toxicity below that required to kill a human.

Certain conditions such as extreme cold, also affects degradation.


I think what would constitute proof and would validate the war for me would be evidence that the Iraqi regime was actually producing chemical weapons after the gulf war, and thus not complying with the UN sanctions.

"The Sulphur Mustard contained in artillery shells that had been stored for over 12 years, had been found by UNMOVIC to be still of high purity." page 77

Link to UN

I have read less than 2 dozen pages but it looks like a good read.

Anonymous said...

Dan S. here -
not a scientist, chemical weapons expert, etc., so don't have anything of substance to add along these lines.

This, however, is interesting:

"CIA officer claims US ignored warnings about WMD errors
Sun Jun 25, 10:15 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - US administration officials chose to ignore a CIA officer's warnings that an Iraqi defector's claims of purported biological labs made by Iraq for germ warfare were unproven.

Sunday's edition of The Washington Post quoted veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller who, it said, "recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar.

"The CIA officer took his pen," he recounted in an interview, "and crossed out the whole paragraph" in a statement to be presented by then secretary of state Colin Powell to the United Nations.

"A few days later, the lines were back in the speech. Powell stood before the UN Security Council on February 5 (2003) and said: 'We have first-hand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails.'

Drumheller was stunned, the newspaper reported.

"We thought we had taken care of the problem," it quoted the man who was the CIA's European operations chief before retiring last year, as saying. "But I turn on the television and there it was, again . . .""

-Dan S.

highboy said...

Interesting yes. Reliable? I think not.

highboy said...

This
too is interesting.

Anonymous said...

Interesting, yes. Reliable? I think not.

Lobo: I'll post a reply later when I have more time.

-scohen

Anonymous said...

Highboy: The reason that the story isn't reliable is? Sources are named, it appeared in the Washington Post, etc. Why do you discount it out of hand, and believe the CSNews story?

from your link:
"The 2004 report by CNSNews.com detailed purchases of mustard gas on Aug. 21, 2000 and "malignant pustule," another name for anthrax, on Sept. 6, 2000."

Santorum's report confirmed no such thing. Read the PDF if you must, but every time WMDs were mentioned, the words 'pre gulf war' appeared. The santorum report also did not mention anthrax at all.

Reliable indeed.

-scohen

Anonymous said...

"Officials Discuss Report on Munitions
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: June 23, 2006

. . . Intelligence officials who briefed reporters on Thursday and who were granted anonymity provided these details of the findings:

¶All the chemical weapons found to date were manufactured before the 1991 gulf war and have been found in "small numbers" in various places.

¶The munitions are "generally in poor condition" and "are not in condition to be used as designed."

¶Nonetheless, the projectiles contain chemicals that could be dangerous or even lethal to small numbers of people if incorporated in an improvised explosive device or released by other means.

¶Insurgents have publicly expressed the desire to use chemical weapons and could conceivably acquire such aged shells on the black market.

The officials said military and intelligence agencies had no evidence of unconventional weapons produced in Iraq after 1991 or of stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that President Bush and other top administration officials cited as a potential threat in justifying the invasion in 2003.
"

I'm having a hard time thinking up any reason why these officials would lie or otherwise mispresent these findings (short of evil insurgents sneaking up to the officials and doing the evil insurgent Jedi mind trick - "these are not the WMDs you're looking for." "These are not the WMDs we're looking for . . ."). Certainly reality isn't limited by the feebleness of my imagination, but still . . . Nor is it clear, as Cranky brought up all the way up top, why an administration increasingly considered to be a bunch of dishonest and/or incompetent warmongers wouldn't showcase what would be a major vindication - especially since they're already shown a flair for this kind of political theater even with the most minor of events.

It would be one thing if we'd found non-degraded weapons stockpiled* in a (former) government facility, clearly having being maintained, etc. This would indicate that the public reason for going to war with Iraq actually had some connection to reality. As far as I can tell, what really seems to be happening is that we keep finding little caches o' crap that's been sitting around (probably) forgotten since the Iran-Iraq war. It's like the chemical warfare version of coming across a buldging container of something sitting way back in the fridge one day while you're cleaning - except that the mystery fridge surprise might actually be more lethal.

So far, the best evidence in support of the administration's public reason for going to war has been, basically, some degraded pre-gulf war chemical weapons, found scattered around in small numers, that might, at best, be lethal to small numbers of people if you jerryrigged some way of releasing them, and from everything I've read, probably weren't destroyed along with the rest because (one gets the impression) they slipped through the cracks and were basically forgotten.

Well, as these things go, it's better than declaring war against Spain for blowing up your battleship only to discover, decades later, that it might well have been an accident. Although granted, a lot of folks were convinced that Iraq did 9/11, so . . .

That PIPA poll "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War" from Oct. '03 still sort of sums it up for me:

" . . 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq [if you want to glorify those old pre-gulf war past-their-mass-kill-by-date munitions as WMDS, then this was not known to be true in any sense at this point, and indeed I don't think any had been found yet] , and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions.

Such misperceptions are highly related to support for the war. Among those with none of the misperceptions listed above, only 23% support the war [compared to ]86% for those with all 3 misperceptions. Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, “While we cannot assert that these misperceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions.”

. . . the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

. . . While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to pay attention to the news, in fact, overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention."


Whatever the merits of the various later (at least for the public) justifications, the fact remains that the adminstration got to take our country to war against Iraq based on beliefs that have, to the best of our knowledge, little or no relation to reality, largely thanks to, frankly, the impressively wrong right wing media, and with a big assist from most of the so-called liberal media. The question is whether and to what extent the administration's decision was the result of (a) honest mistakes by well-meaning but badly frightened and bungling people (perhaps thinking that we couldn't afford uncertainty, and any mistakes were in a vital cause, (b) not-so-honest mistakes by people who didn't really care so much whether their claims were correct or not, or c) outright dishonesty intended to mislead.

I tend to lean towards 30% a, 50% b, and 20% c.

And also: a pretty decent number of people realized that - at least - the administration's case wasn't nearly as certain as it claimed, and picked up on the various behavioral and organizational clues that something fishy was going on. After all, 20% of primarily -Fox News didn't have any of those three misperceptions. I would think it's pretty important to find out the ways various folks saw through the, well, lies (knowing or not) - after all, you guys on the other side of this divide, there's no guarantee that the next time the government attempts to bamboozle people, it will be headed by people you agree with.

The tragedy is that if there had been more pushback, the gov't (or so I like to believe) would have been forced to justify its assumptions, so at least the country wouldn't have gone to war undermanned, imagining we were fighting a certain threat that had already attacked us once, and dreaming of flowers. We might have even had a plan covering what to do after Baghdad fell!

Ok, probably not.

* 500 CW-filled shells, while certainly not a massive stockpile, isn't nothing - it's the equivalent of 25 or more Halabja massacres - (and don't forget that the U.S. "provided satellite photographs and battlefield intelligence to Iraq which it knew was to be used in "calibrating" Iraqi chemical weapons attacks against Iran [at this point the city was in Iranian hands.] Furthermore, the US provided dual use helicopters, ostensibly for crop spraying, which intelligence sources believe were used to deploy the chemical weapons in Halabja."

** and indeed, a poll from earlier this year found that "[w]hen asked “If, before the war, US intelligence services had concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and was not providing substantial support to al-Qaeda,” 53 percent of Republicans believe the US should not have gone to war, as do 87 percent of Democrats.

While this number is unchanged for Democrats, for Republicans it has declined from 60 percent in 2004. A growing number (36% to 43%) say that the US should have gone to war for other reasons. This shift may be related to the growing awareness that Iraq did not have WMD [seriously, this stuff just doesn't count] or links to al-Qaeda. Three-fourths of Republicans continue to believe that going to war with Iraq was the right decision, down only slightly from the 80 percent who held that view in October 2004. Thus it appears that continuing to support the war increasingly requires thinking that it was necessary for other reasons.
"

It's an interesting if not especially surprising poll: "Iraq: The Separate Realities of Republicans and Democrats". I'd wish it was broken down more extensively . . .

-Dan S.

highboy said...

"Highboy: The reason that the story isn't reliable is? Sources are named, it appeared in the Washington Post, etc. Why do you discount it out of hand, and believe the CSNews story?"

Why are you doing the same thing?

"from your link:
"The 2004 report by CNSNews.com detailed purchases of mustard gas on Aug. 21, 2000 and "malignant pustule," another name for anthrax, on Sept. 6, 2000."

Santorum's report confirmed no such thing. Read the PDF if you must, but every time WMDs were mentioned, the words 'pre gulf war' appeared. The santorum report also did not mention anthrax at all.

Reliable indeed."

So you are saying the CNS story is unreliable because it does not match up with the PIECE of the report read by Santorum, which you also think is unreliable? Can you tell me how this circular reasoning makes sense in your eyes, or are you rejecting them both based on the Washington Post, and an anonymous "official?"