73 Comments

1. Syl:

This entire business has smelled from the beginning. Especially when I noted that Wilson claimed there had been no sale consummated and Bush only said there had been an attempt.

It went downhill from there.

Jul 11, 2004 - 7:56 am 2. gk:

I hope Roger takes Josh Marshall to task for trying to inflate this non-story with every partisan bone in his body. Check out Josh’s “yeah, but” defense of the yellow cake story . Josh, when you are in a hole, stop digging!

Jul 11, 2004 - 8:06 am 3. Samuel:

Roger,

Having been out of town again and having missed much, before I comment on Wilson/Plame I would first like to say something concerning your Kaus comments.

First I believe you are dead on Kaus. If Kaus sees now as a time to retrench into his old ways then so be it. I will forever view this as a disappointment. As a person myself who has staked much personally on the changes of a post 911 world, I see such examples of behavior in terms best described by the Prophet Isaiah as a “dog returning to its vomit“. The assumptions people are willing to make concerning the WOT for the sake of self-validation is ridiculous. I will leave it there.

–

Concerning Valerie Plame having recommended her own husband? Obviously it was done with an upfront agenda somewhat sabotaging in nature. Shameless indeed. Look, Bernie Goldberg has said that liberal media bias is somewhat done in ignorance because they view their liberal ideas as mainstream, I somewhat reject this. It truth it is rooted in deep prejudice period. These media types view Republicans as dangerous and Democrats as moderate and safe. They reject the positions of average Americans and view such people ignorant and simple or in other words people that need to be saved from themselves. They tried to save us from Reagan and now Bush their bias is staggering. They spike stories that would hurt Democrats and run with the equivalent stories that would skewer Republicans. They covered for Clinton they endeavored to slay Ryan (Illinois), if Ryan were a Democrat bearer of hope these personal stories would have been spiked.

I live Inside the Beltway and have subscribed to the Post for years. You do not have to answer your own rhetorical question about which type stories are on the front page and which are on Page 9. I just hope that the media has a another moment like on election night in 2000 when I witnessed with my own ears Tom Brokaw say “we lost” after being shock by the Florida reversal giving the State back to Bush. Of course then I agreed with him, now I am just plain disgusted. Anyone who has been a Democrat and now views politics differently like I do see it clearly, I believe even more so. The MSM is so biased against Republican?s as to be a joke, at least Rush Limbaugh declares his biases. The MSM declares centrism and objectivity they are collective liars. Half truths are the most damnable lies and the MSM be damned!

Jul 11, 2004 - 8:39 am 4. David Thomson:

Roger Simon has made a good point about the ÔøΩliberal media.ÔøΩ We need to find another way to describe these scoundrels. I’ÔøΩm truly at a lost. These individuals so despise the West that they seem indifferent if our nationÔøΩs enemies get the upper hand. Indeed, a pithy one liner must be found. Any suggestions?

Jul 11, 2004 - 8:42 am 5. TedM:

The thing which annoyed me most about Joe Wilson was his personality. I could not imagine him being a diplomat. He was, and is, the least diplomatic looking or sounding “ambassador” I have ever seen. I wondered how a loose cannon like him made his way around Foggy Bottom. He just didnt fit the mold.

His now exposed blatant lies brings, even more ,into question his ability as a diplomat.I wonder who pushed his career?

Jul 11, 2004 - 9:02 am 6. sammy small:

TedM

I agree. Wilson appears to personify the phrase “turd merchant”. His wife Valerie Plame seems to be in the same boat. The “outing” of her CIA status has smelled to high heaven ever since it was first brought out in the media. That one still has legs to this day. What a joke.

Why is it that almost every politically charged scandal thrown at the Bush administration has connections to the CIA? It makes me wonder why he kept Tenet around for so long.

Jul 11, 2004 - 9:13 am 7. David Thomson:

IÔøΩm convinced that President Bush would have a comfortable lead in the polls if it werenÔøΩt for the major mediaÔøΩs never ending slime campaign. These folks know that many Americans barely look at the headlines and the first few paragraphs. We must somehow make sure that Joseph Wilson is truly ÔøΩoutedÔøΩ as a lying scum bag. Our very lives are at risk because of the media’ÔøΩs shenanigans. The very survival of American may depend on it. Am I employing hyperbolic rhetoric? Nope, the possible election of John Kerry should frighten the crap out of all of us—and this is perhaps the number one goal of the media elite.

Jul 11, 2004 - 9:16 am 8. Paul:

Samuel nails it:

“These media types view Republicans as dangerous and Democrats as moderate and safe. They reject the positions of average Americans and view such people ignorant and simple or in other words people that need to be saved from themselves.”

The MSM’s noxious combination of arrogance and ignorance is truly infuriating.

The fact that they consider the Democrats “moderate and safe” after witnessing the shenanigans of Dean, Gore, Moore, et al, shows how deranged they’ve become. Disgusting.

Jul 11, 2004 - 9:19 am 9. Mike_Nargizian:

GK,

I lost all respect for Marshal when he continued to recommend Juan Cole after Cole tried to do anything possible to tie Israel to the Abu Ghraib scandal like Al Jazeera from the start.

I won’t even go into that but I emailed Marshal and he stuck by it. I incredulously how could stick by that with the obvious libeling and blatant attempt to do anything to blacken Israel. I mean its such vicious propaganda on so many levels. He didn’t budge and then got angry when I asked him if I could email out his opinion on it.

A Lebanese blogger I read now is slaying all of the “dragonmen” which is a name given to the Ottoman Empire (turkish) historians who 100 and 200 years ago provided information to the West about the area but did so of course in a misleading light to the Ottomans’ liking.

Khalidi, Cole and other Arabist whose opinions were prior to 9/11 valued are in the spirit of the “dragonmen” and likely would come back into favor in a Dem administration (my opinion).

I am trying to find the emails and information and it looks like I lost them already, and I can’t fin believe I didn’t save them!!

Here’s more from the lgf football post on the Plame Affair anyway.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8352

Joseph Wilson: Moonbat. 9/29/2003

Here’s a tremendously revealing talk by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson at the ?Education for Peace in Iraq Center,? in which Wilson demonstrates a level of moonbattitude that has to be heard to be believed. Among other outrageous and self-contradictory statements that wouldn?t be out of place in an Indymedia (far left wing hate media) post, Wilson says that ?warmongers? are assholes, and that the real purpose of the Iraq War was to benefit Israel.

Scroll all the way to the bottom of the page for the section about Wilson; here is a direct link to the MP3 recording of Wilson?s talk.

UPDATE: As of February 15, 2004, the links to the pages and MP3 sound file have been removed from the EPIC site. Covering their tracks.

An interesting footnote - at the bottom of the HTML source of this web page is a section that has been hidden from view for some odd reason, listing the sponsors of the Education for Peace in Iraq Center - (They liked it better with Saddam in power when he was killing Muslims?)

Arab American Institute, American Friends Service Committee, Fellowship of Reconciliation, Focus on American and Arab Interests and Relations (FAAIR), Friends Committee for National Legislation, American-Arab Anti-Descrimination Committee, American Muslims for Global Peace and Justice, Church of the Brethren Washington Office, Mennonite Central Committee USA-Washington Office, Muslim American Society, NETWORK, Pax Christi, Peace Action, Veterans for Peace, Voices in the Wilderness, and Women?s Action for New Directions.

(And yes?I made a copy of the source code.)

Jul 11, 2004 - 9:30 am 10. Ralph:

Roger,

The “Plame Affair” coverage and a recent posting by Jim Miller about “Who Should You Bribe” had helped me focus on an issue that’s been troubling me for some time, so I’m making a similar comment to this one on several blogs to, hopefully, stimulate discussion.

It has often occurred to me that the “media,” in the U.S. at least, has appointed itself as the watchdog of corruption in others, and yet there is NO question of the affairs of the media’s members.

As an example, there’s been much play in the media about potential conflicts of interest related to Dick Cheney and Halliburton. NOWHERE has anyone asked for a posting of the financial affairs of Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, etc. How do we KNOW that they are free of conflict of interest? What gives them the right to pass judgement on the affairs of others when their own affairs are far from “transparent?” It’s rather like giving the UN credit for “moral authority.”

When the first of the “Oil for Palaces” scandal started to become public, it occurred to me that I wouldn’t be surprised to find some news media members on the list.

A paradox that’s NEVER pointed out is that it’s not, in general, ILLEGAL for a member of the news media to accept a “bribe.” It certainly is not if the bribe is even remotely disguised: for example as a consulting contract for “media advice.” So, it would be appear to be quite easy for a media person who might already be opposed to, for example, the war in Iraq, to accept some such payments and allow them to color his reporting. After all, he can tell himself, quite honestly, that it’s NOT illegal, and “all he’s doing” is be certain that the “truth comes out about this horrible war.” Quite an easy rationalization to tell oneself, I’d suspect, particularly if what you report is still the literal truth (as in reporting only negative incidents in Iraq — they are “truth,” just not all of the truth.)

Do I have any evidence that this is taking place?

No, not direct and uncontestable evidence anyway, but the mere fact of the very one-sided reporting of events gives one reason to be suspicious. The simplest explanation for a phenomenon is one that should not be dismissed lightly, and human corruption has been with us a LONG time. We suspect it of politicians (particularly those of the other party! But of all politicians), police officers, government workers, “captains of industry,” why is it not een suggested for reporters?

The press has acquired/assumed a voice of moral authority to which it has presented no legitimate credentials. I’m NOT suggesting that reporters are all corrupt, but I’m very confident that they are not all honest either — that’s only human nature. The possibility of outright corruption of reporters deserves, I think, to be more seriously considered.

Thanks for your great blog.

Jul 11, 2004 - 9:33 am 11. Sandy P:

I read something interesting when this all came down.

I’m looking forward to Fitzgerald’s report, if this option I read could be confirmed. Wilson’s cred will be zilch for those who remember (unfortunately, most of America will not, and the MSM will do anything to make us forget).

His wife could have been outed in the mid-90s by convicted spies Ames or Hanssen. The CIA really don’t know/didn’t know, and could have possibly moved her around because they weren’t sure.

They really don’t know what those spies told the commies and whoever else.

Jul 11, 2004 - 9:34 am 12. David Thomson:

ìI incredulously how could stick by that with the obvious libeling and blatant attempt to do anything to blacken Israel.î

ì…and that the real purpose of the Iraq War was to benefit Israel.î

Letís be frank, most left wingers of the Democrat Party are anti-Israel. Why is this obvious fact ignored? Moreover, why do so few American Jews seem to care? Are they unable to outgrow their knee-jerk adulation of the Democrat Party?

Jul 11, 2004 - 9:54 am 13. PeterUK:

I agree with Roger and David Thomson,that we are in need of new political definitions.Perhaps the term liberal has run its course since the 19th century,I certainly don’t recognise the animal that calls itself by that name now.

BTW It was good to see Plame has lost none of her trade craft,wearing dark glasses to preserve her annonymity and the scarf,a brilliant piece of extemporisation.

Jul 11, 2004 - 10:00 am 14. Goof®:

There is a lot more to the “bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report” than a repudiation of Wilson’s claims. My reason for not voting for Bush can be found in the last comment to 11/01/2003: Confessions of a War Monger.

I will not vote to re-elect Bush because I think that when a man is charged with making decisions that will cause other men to die he has an affirmative responsibility to be right regarding the reasons for making those decisions. In my view, he and his people were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction, the popular (Iraqi) reaction to our victory and the state of the Iraqi economy.

That being written, I support the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq and I believe it will continue, perhaps with different justifications, regardless of who occupies the office of President of the United States.

114 days to go.

Jul 11, 2004 - 10:04 am 15. Syl:

So the meme has changed from ‘Bush Lied’ to ‘Bush didn’t lie but so what’?

Sheesh.

Jul 11, 2004 - 10:13 am 16. Goof®:

Syl

The meme? That’s what I wrote on 11/3/03.

More motes and beams. What a smile.

Jul 11, 2004 - 10:18 am 17. Rick Ballard:

Sandy P.,

Fitzgerald’s report is unlikely to clarify the situation. The statute involved is rather technical in nature regarding the elements necessary for conviction. It is very unlikely that those elements have been met. Here is the statute.

“authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent” is problematic from the start because a plain reading would seem obviate those who had “un”authorized access. Adding “or unauthorized” to the statute seems to be an intentional omission.

“knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States” is using a compound construction that appears to require both elements to be met in order to constitute a violation.

I fully expect a negative report from Fitzgerald and a “they got off on a technicality” spinstorm from the MSM. I have no doubt that the Dem talking points have already been tattooed on the back of the usual suspects hands.

Jul 11, 2004 - 10:23 am 18. sammy small:

Goof

“..he and his people were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction…”

Are the CIA and the other country’s intelligence agencies his people? It was a commonly held position since Saddam hadn’t accounted for them.

Aside from that, I caught another bit on the news this morning about Libya assisting Saddam in hiding his nuclear program. I am curious to see where that leads. And the yellowcake thing of course has been put back on the credible table.

Gee, is there a common thread to all of this. It seems that those working against Bush have jumped out quickly and bitten on the bait of deception. Maybe dumb old Saddam was smarter than the diplomatic community gave him credit for. But I guess events unfolding in due time don’t matter to those who want instant results and answers. Mayabe we should postpone the election for another year or two. Maybe you can base your judgements on the full facts, not just conjecture. Or would you just shift to other issues.

Jul 11, 2004 - 10:41 am 19. richard mcenroe:

David Thomson ó I disagree. The left wing of the “Democratic” party is not anti-Israel, it is anti-Jew.

I have never been called a “Zionist” at any of the rallies I’ve attended, but “Fuck you, Jew,” and “Where are the Jews in the army?” are weekly events.

Of course, when you call them on it, like frothing islamofascist imams, they immediately fall back on “Oh, I didn’t mean all Jews, only the Zionists.”

The simple fact: a vote for the Democrats in November is a vote for murdered Jews. Of course, they’ll feel just awful about it, after the fact…

Jul 11, 2004 - 10:43 am 20. Mike_Nargizian:

TO GOOFA -

I think its clear that the Bush team wanted to invade and depose Saddam. I think the unsaid reason for it is clear in my opinion.

Al Queda is only a branch of the overall problem of Islamic fundamentalism spreading in the Middle East. The war was going on 30 years ago when Nixon said there was going to be a huge confrontation with Islamic fundamentalism at some point. You know of all of the prior attacks so I won’t rehash them.

The only way to get at the root of the problem is to try and moderate and somewhat democratize one state there. Iraq was the only card in the deck and the move from a geo-strategic vantage point had a lot of advantages all around including the gradual lessening of Saudi dependence, at least the Pentagon’s view. Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan were all out for different reasons.

So you can hold it against the Bush team if you like but in the end g-d willing Iraq will hopefully become a jack to slowly change and turn the tide in the Middle East. I am not hopeful but if it turns bad then I would say stay out of skyscrapers, airplanes, malls and buses for the rest of your life.

Mike

Jul 11, 2004 - 10:46 am 21. Goof®:

sammy

My position has not changed in over a year. I’m fine with having the election on November 2 and with referring to the victor as “My President.” You?

I haven’t forgotten your comment regarding the countdown. You never did reply to my response.

Best,

Pat

Jul 11, 2004 - 10:47 am 22. David Thomson:

ÔøΩDavid Thomson ÔøΩ I disagree. The left wing of the “Democratic” party is not anti-Israel, it is anti-Jew.ÔøΩ

I actually agree with you, but prudently wish to be very cautious with my rhetoric. It is best that I allow one to reach their own conclusion. I do not wish to be accused of exaggeration. Early in the Howard Dean campaign, I mentioned that the liberal wing of the Democrat Party seems to be anti-Semitic. Needless to add, I got blasted for this opinion. A number of folks reminded me that DeanÔøΩ’s wife is Jewish. Thus, I must be a stark raving lunatic.

Jul 11, 2004 - 10:52 am 23. sammy small:

Goof,

I’m ok with whatever the result is on Nov 2. Neither candidate’s election will change the end goal of radical Islamics, just the near term tactics. I believe it will take years before they can muster a truly critical attack that will cripple us to any great degree. Whether we continue with the full court press or sit back and play diplomatic footsie will only dictate the timeline, not the end result.

Sorry, I didn’t follow up on the last comment. I don’t get a lot of time to read the blogs as I’d like. What was it about?

Jul 11, 2004 - 11:11 am 24. sammy small:

Goof,

Oh now I remember, the “incident” prior to the election, where I got the countdown wrong. Sorry, my memory is fading with age.

Yeah, well lets see. Maybe all of my speculation is bogus too.

Jul 11, 2004 - 11:19 am 25. sammy small:

Goof,

On a personal level I like GWB. He’s from Texas and was a fighter pilot. Same as yours truly. That says it pretty well for me. What’s not to like?

On the other hand, I realize personal characteristics don’t necessarily reflect how a candidate will do as prez. If it did, no one would vote for Kerry.

But as far as Nov 2, whoever is elected will be the prez. I hope if it is Kerry that he doesn’t suffer from the insults, slurs, and demonizing that GWB has endured. For some reason, I don’t quite think that the media will resort to that for him. And I would be greatly disappointed in the Republican party if they chose to follow the Dems (Kennedy, Gore, Dashle, etc. in that regard.

Jul 11, 2004 - 11:42 am 26. Miles Hawthorne:

I don’t know about other people, but I am beginning to find this WMD argument a little bit specious and self-serving. It would seem clear now that Saddam was looking for uranium (even the French say so). Does anyone think he would have stopped after the sanctions were lifted or diminished? I believe it was Joseph Lieberman who said during his abortive campaign that Saddam himself was the WMD. I don’t think there is any question but that he was right. A dictor with a record of mass murder was one phone call away from nuclear weapons Those who jump up and down pointing to “No WMDs” and so forth must respond to that directly. They don’t.

The gentleman or lady known as “Goof” above seems supericilious to me and fundamentall unserious on the issue.

Jul 11, 2004 - 11:48 am 27. Sandy P:

Rick, a columnist(?) also wrote — trying to defend - ARRGGHHH! - I can see the face, but not the name — of the column NOVAK!

He said he’s known for a couple of years, IIRC, that Plame was CIA and it was a “well-known secret” in DC who she worked for.

Jul 11, 2004 - 11:56 am 28. Mark Poling:

Ralph, Andrew Sullivan was all over Paul Krugman a while back for just what you worried about:

From Jane Galt:

“Sullivan’s point, however, is well taken: for Krugman to criticize the administration for doing pretty much what it would have done anyway after taking money from Enron is the height of hypocrisy, the more so because Krugman admits straight out that he couldn’t figure out any legitimate reason for Enron to give him that $50K.”

Follow the links in her post to get the full, fascinating story.

The bottom line is that any politician who did what Krugman did would at best be out of a job, at worst in jail.

Jul 11, 2004 - 11:58 am 29. Goof®:

Miles

Thank you for your support.

Sammy

I like GWB. I don’t think he should be President.

Best.

From that, as it turns out, 11/6/03 comment

Baudelaire: ‘They forgot two rights in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The right to contradict oneself, and the right to leave.’ - Albert Camus

Back tomorrow. I’m off to see the latest “true” story of King Arthur and I’m just a week away from “real” fun: Cedar Point, Ohio.

Jul 11, 2004 - 12:02 pm 30. richard mcenroe:

Sammy small — I’m more worried about the insults Kerry will heap on this country if he gets in.

His handlers are crowing about the “bounce” Kerry gets from Edwards as Veep. In other words, they’re now counting on Kerry getting elected and then dying so they can get the guy they really wanted all along.

Jul 11, 2004 - 12:17 pm 31. Paul:

Listening to Tammy Bruce yesterday she had “the perfect theme song” for the Kerry-Edwards ticket.

Sung by Angela Lansbury, the three lines I recall from the end:

Both a little scared

Completely unprepared

Beauty and the Beast

LMAO!!

Jul 11, 2004 - 12:32 pm 32. Paul:

Re the WMD issue, it seems to me the discovery of the A.Q. Khan nuclear supermarket and the disarming of Libya more than make up for the the missing stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq.

Imagine if we hadn’t invaded Iraq…the sanctions would have been lifted sooner rather than later, Saddam would have bought weapons grade nuclear material from Khan and had atomic weapons in, what, a year or two? I’m sure John Moore knows exactly how long it would take once he had fissionable material.

Then we would have had a nuclear Saddam with his psycho sons, next door to the atomic mullahs, with Mohammar Q. right behind them.

Way to go Democrats. You really have a plan to make us safer. Asshats

Jul 11, 2004 - 12:45 pm 33. Sortelli:

“So how can you all claim this vindicates that theory when it’s filled with so much guesswork?”

Niger’s got two main exports, goats and uranium. Iraq approached Niger to trade.

Maybe Saddam really just wanted some goats.

Jul 11, 2004 - 1:48 pm 34. PeterUK:

Really Sortelli! A mans private life is his own,Saddam might be a mass murderer but he did not have relations with that goat.

Jul 11, 2004 - 2:20 pm 35. Syl:

Peter…LOL!

BTW has anyone seen Terrye? I don’t think I’ve seen her since Typekey.

And I’m wondering why I have to sign in over and over. Sigh. Lost many posts because of it. I have my cookies turned on and all.

Jul 11, 2004 - 2:24 pm 36. Jack Okie:

All:

Are you tired of recycling the same arguments about Iraq and the WOT? The proper response to “No WMD have been found” is “So what?”. I personally refuse to waste any more time debating the Iraq war. Saddam was on probation and was refusing to abide by the terms. It was *his* responsibility to provide the information that he was complying. A proximate cause was Clinton’s failure to deal with North Korea. That no stockpiles have be found so far is completely immaterial (and the proper response to that is a sigh of relief). The potential for for harm was too great to allow Saddam to continue to be a scoff-law. Too many other bad guys were watching. Period. End of paragraph. If you live in a dangerous neighborhood, it’s not wise to seem a pussy.

Re the MSM:

I submit that the reason the left and MSM continue to get away with kicking the shit out of the truth is that they stick to message and have no shame. Given the sheer numbers of us who are on the other side, there has *got* to be a way to call them on it. Perhaps some combination of 527 group and the blogosphere. With the blogosphere it’s possible to react quickly. Perhaps when a particularly egregious story appears, we can agree it meets the criteria for response and deliver a massive reply calling them on it. Maybe I’m just fantasizing, but I am sick to death of just sitting here letting them get away with it.

Jul 11, 2004 - 2:43 pm 37. Rick Ballard:

Syl,

I’m finding it easier to use my word processor for comments. I write them in Word, then log in and post. It’s an extra step but I feel that efficient troll removal is worth it. Plus if I remember to run spell and grammar checks some of my comments are almost comprehensible.

I’m also trying to change my log in name and password to the minimum number of characters possible.

Jul 11, 2004 - 3:05 pm 38. sammy small:

Robert McC

“…despite the parade of bona fied experts on the subject who keep claiming there weren’t any.”

So sarin shells don’t count or what. Well, maybe they were just lost ones that didn’t get buried or moved properly.

By the way, have you seen any updates on the chem weapons captured from some terrorists in Jordan? Its been very quiet on that subject lately.

So what are these bona fide experts saying lately?

Jul 11, 2004 - 3:10 pm 39. Kevin P:

Roger:

Roger you just don’t get it.Mr. Wilson wasn’t lying, he just wasn’t telling the entire truth.All you neo-cons are so simple.You can’t handle a nuanced story.The fact that most of what Mr. Wilson’s story has been contradicted by the latest report is beside the point.Mr. Wilson is has the right idea’s about Iraq and national security so if he needs to balance the truth with a bit of subtle dis-information you can’t really blame the guy.

The fact that he took a picture with his wife and put it in a national magazine does not change the fact that his wife is still in mortal danger from having her identity exposed.Plus those sunglasses and scarf have so totally changed her looks that no spy will ever be able to figure out her identity.Plus I think it is very clever to go on a national media tour because none of the potential assasins of Valerie will believe anyone who is in fear of their life would ever be so stupid to allow pictures of themselves to be published or to have their husband get on TV any chance they get. It is so counter intuitive that it is a brilliant form of of hiding in plain site. You all are just so simple that you can’t can’t recognize how clever the Wilsons are. Your simpleminded reliance on facts, the truth and commonsense is so 18th century.

Jul 11, 2004 - 3:11 pm 40. richard mcenroe:

Sammy Small ó Don’t forget the sarin warheads the Sudanese suddenly want the Syrians to take back, when no one knew Syria had sarin until just before we invaded Iraq, quelle surprise, or the tons of enriched and partially enriched uranium we took out of Iraq, or the processing centrifuges dug up out of Iraqi scientists’ gardens…

my personal favorite was a fella I got into it with on another board who said in the same post that Saddam only had WMD’s because we sold Iraq “dual-use” technology in the 80’s, and didn’t have WMD’s in 2004 because we’d only found “dual-use” technology, like the “fertilizer lab” trucks we found buried in the desert…

Jul 11, 2004 - 3:31 pm 41. David Thomson:

–Roger you just don’t get it.Mr. Wilson wasn’t lying, he just wasn’t telling the entire truth.All you neo-cons are so simple.You can’t handle a nuanced story.—

The evil philosophy of deconstructionism is taking its toll. Objective truth is not even considered a possibility by the hard Left. One can apparently lie if it achieves victory in the political sector. Is it fair to assume that at least half of John Kerryís loyal followers share this distorted view of truth telling? If so, do we really want these people anywhere near the seat of power?

Jul 11, 2004 - 3:34 pm 42. PeterUK:

The question concerning Niger should be turned on its head why was Former Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf there at all.Niger has a life expectancy of 46 and an average wage of $180,holiday paradise it is not.Now unless he was on a mission from Saddam, trying the the glass slipper on some attractive and nubile goat,he was there for a reason.

Secondly since it was against UN sanctions to trade with Iraq,it is not surprising that the Nigerien official was economic with the actualite and even if it was goats, he would have wanted to keep his hands on the dowery.

Jul 11, 2004 - 3:54 pm 43. Charlie (Colorado):

I don’t have the ambition to go back and look for it, but in one of Roger’s original posts about la affair Wilson I mentioned the law of press coverage I deduced back when I was doing operational intel: whenever someone reveals something that is supposed to be classified, you can be nearly certain it’s a self-serving lie. The reason is that if it were true, you’d get arrested and or fired; they can’t fire you or arrest you if what you say isn’t classified.

On the other hand, anyone who knows the truth can’t reveal it without being arrested and/or fired, so you will go unchallenged.

(There is one exception: when a Senator says it, it may be a self-serving leak of the truth, or it may be a lie. The distinction is that Senators are for all intents and purposes immune from prosecution for that kind of revelation. Cf. Orrin hatch leaking the fact that we were intercepting UbL’s satphone calls.)

The frustrating part is that, working just from open sources (I no longer do that kind of intel) it was clear Wilson was either lying or completely misled, because sources had been reporting Saddam’s purchases of uranium for years.

By the way, Robert, you might want to keep this law in mind when you bring up WMD: given that a number of WMD shells have been found, but that exact numbers of them would certainly be classified, what is the probability that there exist no WMD, versus the probability that the claims of Blix et al are self-serving lies?

I’ll leave the computation of the answer as an exercise for the interested reader.

Jul 11, 2004 - 4:23 pm 44. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Sammy Small

Kerry is going to suffer some attacks on his character. They are, however, deserved in that they will expose who he really is. He won’t suffer the way Bush has because most of the slurs are carried by the media.

Miles

I agree. The issue was not whether he had WMD’s, but rather would he have WMDs. The left and the press ignore the alternate reality if Bush had not gone into Iraq. In that reality, the sanctions break down even more, the cheating goes up, and US removes its invasion force, and Saddam reimports the WMDs that UNMOVIC says were exported. In fact, it’s most curious that the report says there were no WMDs the same week that UNMOVIC reports that there were, and that they were exported.

Robert McClelland

Before 9-11, one could take chances. Now, we can no longer give the benefit of the doubt to members of the Axis of Evil (and similar regimes). Assume Saddam had no WMDs (he did, but assume he didn’t). Would he, today in July of 2004 still have none? Might he not put together a plot to blow up or gas something in the US, knowing that Al Qaeda would be blames? After all, this guy is a few bricks short of a load. Would Libya have flipped? Khadaffi told Berlusconi that he flipped after he saw what the coalition did to Saddam. There were many reasons to attack Iraq. Possession of WMD’s was one of the less important ones. Potential and past behavior were far more important. Jack Okie’s points on the Iraq war are appropriate.

Paul I’m sure if I had the fissile material, it would take at least 6 months. But I’m just an electrical engineer and programmer with a bit of a background in nuclear physics. If Saddam had the material (as I fear Iran does), it would have probably been a few weeks to a “gun” style weapon. Much longer to a more efficient and boostable implosion weapon - but that assumes the design doesn’t come with the material - an unreasonable assumption.

Jack Okie

I am part of a 527 group - Vietnam Vets for the Truth [ hint: donations and rally attendance appreciated ]. The MSM is like an iron curtain. Furthermore, 527’s have a $5,000 cap. If you want to see what a the MSM did to a 527 group that had critical information, check out Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth and then this analysis of MSM reporting. How many people, other than regular readers here, know that Kerry’s entire chain of command from Vietnam denounced him at a press conference on May 5? That would seem to be a historic event - certainly an unprecedented one.

Richard Mcenroe

I knew the Sudanese claimed to be shipping WMD back to Syria, but I never knew what it was. Do you have a link? Also, one wonders if the Proliferation Security Initiative folks interdicted the shipment (odds: very high)

PeterUK

The problem with Wilson’s mission from the start was that he was talking with people who had an incentive to lie about any relationship with Iraq, and that includes the French who would be involved in any such trade (they sure keep hopping from nasty role to nasty role).

Regarding MSM

For those curious about the MSM, Jay Rosen runs a blog that may be of interest. He is Chairman of the NYU Journalism Department. I learned a lot there.

I am convinced that if the media had simply played fair with the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, that Kerry would not be the Democratic Party nominee today. There is a whole lot behind why they denounced him (over 200 veterans). I don’t expect to hear it from the MSM, but I do think the information will be available.

Jul 11, 2004 - 4:25 pm 45. Kevin P:

To All:

You all still don’t get it.In todays complex world you need someone of JFK’s obvious brilliance . The subtle,nuanced campaign that he is running(Haliburton, I fought in Vietnam, Bush didn’t)proves he is more capable to run this country. When the French say no to Kerry’s request to help in Iraq he won’t need a translator to understand.

When Kerry states that he is going to put more troops in Iraq it takes a truly supple mind to come to the conclusion that it is the Republicans who are going to bring back the draft.You have to have more then a high school education to wrap your mind around the concept that the Kerry is not planning to raise your taxes when he plans to remove the Bush tax cuts. The fact that some of you will be paying more in taxes does not mean that you are getting a tax hike.When he says he is in favor of raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires(except for the billionaires like his wife who has her money in non-taxable trusts) but is starting the increases at $200,000 does not mean that non-millionaires will be affected.

It is obvious that the Democrats are running a clean campaign based on ideas(Haliburton, I fought in Vietnam, Republicans are chicken hawk brown shirted nazies. we have better hair) and that the republicans are divisive(HALIBURTON, I fought in Vietnam,Bush is a tool of the House of Saud and Israel and Haliburton, Haliburton Haliburton Haliburton, Haliburton, and don’t forget Enron.Oh, and I fought in Vietnam.You people are just too stupid to understand.

Jul 11, 2004 - 4:49 pm 46. sammy small:

Robert McC

Is this some sort of nuance-speak? I feel like a mental pretzel trying to follow your lack of logic.

Jul 11, 2004 - 4:56 pm 47. Kevin P:

Robert:

Your theories are all based on the notion that you can trust Saddam and he is not crazy.The fact that after he was embarrased in Gulf War I and then tried to Kill President Bush is not a sign that he was playing with a full deck. As far as being able to stop a Al Queda uprising in his own country he would just do to Al Queda what he did to the Kurds. Find out what city they are based in and gas the entire city.When you have killed 4 to 7 million of your own citizens you tend not to have worries about collateral damage or world opinion.He knew no matter what he did he could eventually bribe enough UN members to keep himself in palaces and since he doesn’t care about his peoples welfare he could wait out any sanction regime and still stay in power.I didn’t trust Saddam and I do think he is crazy and I would never place the security of this country on the good sense of a meglomaniac like Saddam.

Jul 11, 2004 - 5:03 pm 48. Charlie (Colorado):

One has been found and it was determined it was an old one from the time of the war with Iran.

Check your sources, Robert.

Total is between 20 and 40;

at least one — the famous “IED” shell — was of an advanced type (binary artillery shell) that Saddam had never admitted to having;

this one shell was clearly not a special one-off, but was in inventory

(because: it was a “technical munition” that you couldn’t build without tooling up a significant manufacturing capability; it was unmarked; and it was apparently scrounged from a general ammo dump)

at least one was filled with an advanced toxin (cyclosarin) that Saddam was not known to have manufactured or obtained.

we’ve already gone through this once in another thread.

Now, as I said, consider the “self-serving lie rule” I just mentioned.

Make sure to check your work, and write your name at the top of the paper.

Jul 11, 2004 - 5:03 pm 49. sammy small:

Robert McC

So you don’t think that the one famous sarin shell would be considered WMD. Imagine this: if a shell just like it was properly detonated in your backyard, how many of your family memebers and neighbors would no longer be with us. If you can answer virtually all of them, then it wasn’t a WMD.(I presume you don’t live in Loving County, Texas.)

Jul 11, 2004 - 5:39 pm 50. Charlie (Colorado):

“Well, the Intelligence commission report just the other day said there were no WMDs in Iraq.”

Well, no, although you might get that impression if you just read the New York Times. But I happen to have a copy of the report, all 23+ megabytes of it, on my desktop here. On page 14, it says, quote:

This report does not address the question of accuracy regarding WMD. When the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) completes its work in Iraq, we will then be able to evaluate to the maximum extent possible the accuracy of the IC’s ["intelligence community's"] judgments prior to the war.

Got that? The report explicitly disclaims any conclusions on whether the intelligence community’s estimates were accurate.

What the report does say is that estiamtes of the amount of stockpiled weapons, and capabilities for producing the weapons, were “analytical results” rather than reports from HUMINT sources. Would HUMINT have been better? You bet. But Saddam’s habit of torturing and killing anyone who he suspected, along with their families, apparently had a somewhat discouraging effect.

Jul 11, 2004 - 5:41 pm 51. PeterUK:

Charlie (Colorado)

Isn’t the problem that the Iraqi army had no marking system that differentiates between conventional shells and chemical ones.In effect nobody knows,including terrorists and weapons inspectors,how many or where these munitions are.

Out of hundreds of thousands of rounds littering Iraq the must be a substantial number of chemical shells.

Jul 11, 2004 - 5:48 pm 52. Charlie (Colorado):

Sammy — a little quibble. You’d have to set the sarin binary off well above ground to get the widest dispersion. Let’s see, I figured this out the other day….

Sarin has a specific gravity of about 1.1, and a lethal inhaled dosage of about 70 mcg/m**3. (Ack, Roger, your HTML doesn’t allow superscripts. What kind of technical journal are you running here?) That is “70 microgrammes per cubic meter of air”.

The single shell was about 4 liters, which means 4.4 kg, which means (applying my favorite little desktop program, Frink:

Frink - Copyright 2000-2004 Alan Eliasen, eliasen@mindspring.com

http://futureboy.homeip.net/frinkdocs/

(4.4 kg) / (70 micrograms)

62.857142857142857142e+6

Or about 63 million cubic meters. Assuming perfect mixing, of course, so that’s an upper bound. (The fact that it’s a heavy oily fluid and hard to disperse really well is why Aum Shin Rikyo killed so relatively few people.)

Say it this way: if you set if off in the air above Yankee Stadium during a game, there might be nobody in the stadium that walked away.

(Note the embedded plug, by the way. I don’t know of a better “desk calculator” program.)

Jul 11, 2004 - 5:52 pm 53. PeterArgus:

Refering back to Roger’s original post on the latest news on Wilson. Do any of you get the NYT? The last two issues (Sat and Sun)mention nothing about the info discrediting Wilson in the AP and WaPo stories. Furthermore none of the information in the WaPo story indicating substantial intelligence pointing to interest by Iraq in purchasing nuclear materials from Niger and very nicely vetted out by Winds of Change (who apparently has read the Intel Committee’s document) appears in the NYT. What we do have in the NYT is 2 full pages of “Excerpts from the Report” (pgs a7-8 for those of you thumbing through your gospels according to the MSM). On page a9 we have a section called “Niger” for which findings are reported. Reading them over one can only come the conclusion that the information provided by the CIA was faulty to the core. Again there is NO mention of the information provided by the other media sources cited above. So if facts fall in the woods and the NYT doesn’t hear it (possibly because their ears are plugged) do these facts really exist?

Jul 11, 2004 - 5:54 pm 54. Charlie (Colorado):

Isn’t the problem that the Iraqi army had no marking system that differentiates between conventional shells and chemical ones.In effect nobody knows,including terrorists and weapons inspectors,how many or where these munitions are.

Yes, that’s one of the problems: in fact, it’s not at all clear that the IED bombers knew what they had.

But consider the operational implications of not marking the CW shells: it means that the use of CW was SOP, standard operational procedure, for any artillery action, at least by certain units, and that operational commanders in the field weren’t necessarily supposed to know if they had CW or not.

This certainly clarifies why Saddam had gone to such lengths to equip the Army with anti-CW suits etc. (A conclusion, by the way, that the Commission report finds to have been completely supported by the facts.)

Jul 11, 2004 - 5:56 pm 55. sammy small:

Chalie

That’s kind of why I said “properly detonated”. I wasn’t sure of the best method. I suppose that’s why its got limitations.

However, I know a little more about nuclear weapon detonation since I spent many a day sitting Victor Alert. We always called it the most cost effective weapon. Airbursts were usually the best there too due to the mach “y” stem overpressure wave.

Jul 11, 2004 - 6:01 pm 56. Charlie (Colorado):

Yep, exactly. With these binaries, you’ve really got to fire it as artillery, to break the membrane, and to get the spin from rifling to thoroughly mix the stuff.

Which is why the attempt to use it as an IED was a CF.

Jul 11, 2004 - 6:09 pm 57. Roberts:

We see above an excellant example of the most common practice among Bush administration opponents. Claim the Bush administration lied and back it up with … outright and brazen lies.

I’m curious who this impresses?

Jul 11, 2004 - 6:17 pm 58. PeterUK:

Charlie,

Obviously Saddam didn’t trust his military because any unit known to be equipped with chemical weapons would be on suicide detail.The life expectancy of those units,when faced with a modern army would be lower than a WWI infantry subaltern

Jul 11, 2004 - 6:23 pm 59. D Anghelone:

And no rogue nation is going to risk annihilation by the US if it’s found out they gave WMDs to terrorists.

Why not? Why do you expect nutjobs to be rational?

According to Robert McNamara, Fidel Castro wanted a showdown between the USSR and the US over the Cuban missile crisis. Stunned, McNamara pointed to the fact that Cuba would have been devastated. Castro knew and didn’t care.

Why do you expect nutjobs to be rational?

Jul 11, 2004 - 6:35 pm 60. Charlie (Colorado):

We see above an excellant example of the most common practice among Bush administration opponents. Claim the Bush administration lied and back it up with … outright and brazen lies.

I’m curious who this impresses?

Sadly, it appears to impress a fair number of people.

Jul 11, 2004 - 6:44 pm 61. PeterArgus:

We see above an excellant example of the most common practice among Bush administration opponents. Claim the Bush administration lied and back it up with … outright and brazen lies.

NYT doesn’t actually lie…well at least most of the time they don’t. They’re just selective with the facts. Wouldn’t want to disappoint they’re readers.

Jul 11, 2004 - 6:52 pm 62. PeterUK:

“And no rogue nation is going to risk annihilation by the US if it’s found out they gave WMDs to terrorists.”

I offer you Adolf Schickelgrubber with his Romantic concept of Gotterdamerung.

Jul 11, 2004 - 6:57 pm 63. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

I didn’t realize the lethal dose (LD50?) was only 70 micrograms per meter.

Regarding Castro (a nutjob who has a very advanced biotechnology industry), the letter from him to Khruschev asking that the nukes be used is here, as is Khruschev’s reply (which is amusing).

I wonder about the Sarin shells. I’d bet that Iraqi artillerymen knew which shells were chemical and which were HE. There was probably some sort of visual indicator (fill holes for the binary agents?) or they weighed differently. If this is true, the Sunni insurgents may have sorted out some of these weapons for future use. Furthermore, al-Zarqawi is Al Qaeda’s chemical weapons “expert” (whatever that means).

For terrorist use of the binary shells, the trick would be to remove the binary components (I suspect a drill would do the trick), mix them together in something (well sealed) just before use, and then use some sort of aerosolizer to, for example, introduce the resulting agent into the air handling equipment of a large building.

Jul 11, 2004 - 7:03 pm 64. richard mcenroe:

John Moore ? here’s a link on Sudan and WMD’s…

Sudan orders WMD’s out

I’ll try to find the details on sarin and, if I recall, VX…

Jul 11, 2004 - 7:04 pm 65. Kevin P:

Roger:

I think both you and Powerline owe the Wilson/Plames an apology for calling Wilson a liar.You are missing the key sentence in his statement. Refering to the famous “16 words” Wilson said “…then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I UNDERSTOOD them”,caps mine,.Just because Wilson is an idiot and couldn’t figure the facts out does not prove that he was lying, just that he is a moron.And when Valerie came home one night and said that she had recommended Wilson for a special assignment he didn’t understand that it was the trip to Niger, he thought it was a bike messenger job.So once again he proves that when he claimed in his TV interviews that his wife had nothing to do with him going to Africa as far as he understood he was telling the truth.You can’t accuse a man of being a liar when he doesn’t have the smarts to understand the concept.Shame on you Roger!

Jul 11, 2004 - 7:11 pm 66. Charlie (Colorado):

John, the open source I found just listed 70 mcg/m^3 as the “lethal concentration for pulmonary exposure”. I would guess that’s an LD50, much as 600 rem is considered “lethal exposure” even though it’s “only” an LD50 dose. I’d bet there’s better data around that I just don’t have access to. But that 63 milliom cubic meters really is a sort of theoretical limit; it’s really tough to get the aerosol from one shell to mix like that, especially since sarin is very soluable in water.

As far as your other points, well, I’m a back-office intel guy; I never passed the physical to be a front line grunt. My opinion on front-line details should be taken with a little salt. However, as I learned it, we keep all our shells carefully marked. Even so, fairly often someone has a bad day because they called in smoke and got AP.

(As I’m sure you know, but many don’t, there are many kinds of artillery shells, from hit things and make loud noises, to antipersonnel fragmentation, to weird things that plant land mines or throw smoke, or burning white phosphorus, or some electronic packages that we wildly hope are still classified.)

But CW, in Iraqi SOP (and US, when we still used them) are used with HE and antipersonnel, because that forces you to keep your head down and makes it hard to use countermeasures like CBW suits. So it still seems to me the best explanation that they weren’t marked because SOP didn’t require markings.

Of course, I may be making the mistake of assuming that Saddam wasn’t a moron, too.

Your point about how a terrorist could use a binary shell is more or less exactly why I suspect the perpetrators of the IED didn’t know what they had, or weren’t sophisticated about their use.

Jul 11, 2004 - 7:25 pm 67. Sandy P:

While I appreciate all the technical info on mixing and binary shells, and might possibly have to use that information in the future, it makes me very sad I actually have to know about these things.

We in the blogosphere are really becoming a jack-of-all-trades.

—

Good job, Kevin, you’re bringing a smile to my face.

Jul 11, 2004 - 7:55 pm 68. Sandy P:

OT:

If you need a laugh - visit

jibjab.com and look for This Land

Jul 11, 2004 - 8:00 pm 69. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Charlie(Colorado)

I’m certainly no expert. I was Naval Air, so I’ve never played with artillery (as opposed to, say, Zuni rockets or torpedoes). So my guess on the ability to drill the shells is just based on common sense, not any knowledge. I would guess that one would want to know how to do so without setting off the dispersal charge, but hey, give a drill to a young jihadi and if he finds the charge by mistake, use another jihadi for the next one. I do agree that the IED Sarin Shell was used by someone who didn’t know what he had.usr

Jul 11, 2004 - 8:55 pm 70. Rick Ballard:

John M.,

I believe that only the ‘unitary’? type shells had filler holes. Binary type shells accept the two components in the form of a tube with the to elements divided by a membrane that ruptures upon firing. The chemical mix for the unitary type shells was so corrosive that the shells had to be filled at a time relatively close to use. I don’t have a clue as to exterior appearance of binary shells and I don’t think I’d mention it if I did.

Jul 11, 2004 - 9:10 pm 71. PeterUK:

A point being ignored by the left is the fact that chemical weapons are proscribed by international convention,usually they are big on international conventions, but this one seems to elude them.Iraq should not have had them both according to chemical weapons bans and weapons bans as terms of the Gulf WarI ceasefire.

Jul 11, 2004 - 9:12 pm 72. Roberts:

Indeed, Peter but Iraq was not merely banned from possession but from any program to build or acquire.

Jul 12, 2004 - 9:44 am 73. Charlie (Colorado):

Roberts (the dread pirate?): …Iraq was not merely banned from possession but from any program to build or acquire.

And don’t forget they were supposed to have declared all their weapons — but binary artillery shells were never declared.

John: I don’t think we’re disagreeing on anything substantive; I’m just saying I think the lack of markings indicates they were used by SOP, not some special unusual thing.

Jul 12, 2004 - 10:12 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: