52 Comments

1. mrp:

During a press conference yesterday (6/22), Donald Rumsfeld stated that the 500+ Iraqi chemical shells and other munitions had never been declared to the UN inspectorate.

Which means that the WMD munitions were WMD in 1991, 1992, 1993, …, autumn 2002, …, and 2006.

Possession of those undeclared WMD shells violated several UN resolutions and the the 1991 cease-fire accords, no matter what the ruby-slippered congresswoman thinks.

Jun 22, 2006 - 10:23 pm 2. john.cunningham:

I think it is noteworthy that Harman sees so little danger in these weapons. Some years ago, there was rampant hysteria over US chemical weapons in storage in Utah, which we seen as so heinously perilous that they had to be done away with immediately.

Jun 22, 2006 - 11:04 pm 3. kpom:

Congresswoman Harman is invited to visit the Umatilla Chemical Depot in Umatilla, Oregon (three hours east of Portland, just off the freeway), where we’ve thought it necessary to spend $1.2 billion on an incinerator to destroy mustard gas, VX, and Sarin shells left over from the Cold War. These shells are decades old, and apparently aren’t inert yet.

Jun 22, 2006 - 11:43 pm 4. chuck:

Given that Harmon is a lawyer, I expect she would find someone to sue if she discovered sarin under her sink. That said, I wouldn’t make too much of this until we know more about the provenence of the weapons. More information would be very helpful and I hope Santorum and Hoekstra are able to get more stuff unclassified. It seems that the Times and its insider contacts have fallen down on the job.

Jun 22, 2006 - 11:50 pm 5. Bostonian:

Chuck: “It seems that the Times and its insider contacts have fallen down on the job.”

Ha. Their job is to promote Democrats and undermine the eeeevil Republicans. They could hardly do this job better.

Jun 23, 2006 - 3:43 am 6. Terrye:

Here in Indiana we have been trying to get rid of chemcials weapons at Newport for years. And all we had to do was put them under harman’s sink, who knew?

Jun 23, 2006 - 3:45 am 7. Good Ole Charlie:

As a chemist in good standing, I’d run like heck out of the kitchen, the house, and maybe the neighborhood.
Just read the Wikipedia entry on Sarin…you’d run too.
This is the chemical agent that even Adolph Hitler refused to use during WWII (largely perhaps because Adolph was gassed himself during WWI [see Mein Kampf's opening pages for his description]).
The same impure (~1% pure) agent that raised a ruckus in the Tokyo subway system a few years ago. Even the decomposition products are nasty, but not as deadly as sarin itself.
Tell you what: have Harman check out the shell(s) herself. We’d have a chance for a real election with an open seat…and a nice funeral to attend in our full coverage butyl rubber suits (with aspirator).
Labs where sarin and other agents are handled have syringes with the antidote every few feet. Yes, it’s that deadly, folks…a drop or two on your skin and that’s all she wrote.

Jun 23, 2006 - 6:08 am 8. Old Dad:

Roger,

I’ll accept that Ms. Harman is usually rational, and probably of above average intelligence.

But what should we do when an elected official publicly says something so incredibly stupid, crazy, and dangerous?

Did anyone challenge her idiocy?

Jun 23, 2006 - 6:17 am 9. Fausta:

Just when you think you’ve heard it all, along comes another Dem and whacks you on the side of the head.

In addition to Good Ole Charlie’s information on sarin, my husband, who’s a scientist, says that the main difference between fresh mustard gas and decayed mustard gas is that the decayed mustard gas doesn’t burn the skin, lungs and eyes as badly as the fresh.

On the subject of WMDs, this morning I listed at my blog some of what has been found over the past three years (with apologies for the self-promotion). Even the UN has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

Betcha Jane doesn’t have one of those under her sink!

Jun 23, 2006 - 7:01 am 10. Keith_Indy:

Hey, if these discoveries are “no big thing” then the people making those statements shouldn’t have a problem volunteering to open these shells up in their unprotected precense…

Think of the PR and political potential.

Fully suited chem teams cracks open a shell. The NBT crew takes a big wiff. See there, nothing to worry about. Next shell please.

Jun 23, 2006 - 7:19 am 11. Steven Mitchell:

“Congresswoman Harman is invited to visit the Umatilla Chemical Depot in Umatilla, Oregon …”

When she gets done there, she can visit Anniston, Alabama–where the government has spent I don’t know how much doing town evacuation drills in case something goes wrong with chemical disposal at the base there.

Jun 23, 2006 - 7:26 am 12. jedrury:

First point:

Jane Harmon “normally level headed?” Try empty headed.
When asked if she had been briefed about the NSA wire taps she said she was at the debriefing meetings, she listened, but since her science advisor was not there, she did not understand the lingo.

Second point:

Pelosi is reportedly going to remove Harmon from being the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee in favor of the infamous Alcee Hastings, presently a congressman from South Florida but before that the impeached Federal judge from South Florida. Not just impeached but removed from office.

Alcee is living proof that there are indeed second chances in America especially if you are a Democrat.

Jun 23, 2006 - 7:26 am 13. kcom:

“Pelosi is reportedly going to remove Harmon from being the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee in favor of the infamous Alcee Hastings,…”

I’d heard that earlier and that’s what got me to thinking. Perhaps Ms. Harman is trying to re-establish her credentials with Ms. Pelosi by acting a little more moonbatty than usual. Trying to get on her good side, in other words. Who knows?

Jun 23, 2006 - 9:17 am 14. Shochu John:

Well, I hope Roger doesn’t catch anybody saying they are so hungry they could eat a horse. No doubt it would lead to an in depth exploration of whether or not it would be possible to eat a horse, and how many sittings it would take, before finally declaring the maker of the statement to be totally batty.

The point I gleaned from her comments is that the sarin gas shells are at this point not useful as weapons, which is true. They are little more than junk, toxic junk that should be disposed of properly, but nonetheless, junk.

It is cute to watch Rick Santorum and commenters here try to claim all over again that this counts as a possession of WMDs. “Weapon of Mass Destruction,” however, assumes that firstly, it is a weapon, and secondly it is capable of mass destruction. Clearly these 500 shells are not capable of mass destruction, and I am hard pressed to think of how they could be used effectively as weapons, at least any more than any other run-of the mill toxic industrial or military waste product.

If I supported the war, I think I’d keep quiet about WMDs. It just reminds everyone of the initial failure that begot all subsequent failures.

Jun 23, 2006 - 9:51 am 15. David Thomson:

ì…says that the main difference between fresh mustard gas and decayed mustard gas is that the decayed mustard gas doesn’t burn the skin, lungs and eyes as badly as the fresh.î

Canisters of mustard gas and other poisonous substances from the First World War can still be dangerous:

ìUnexploded WWI ammunition, including chemical ammunition, was a major problem in former battle areas after the end of the War, and has ever since been present. Shells may be, for instance, uncovered when farmers plough their fields; more importantly, shells are regularly discovered when public works or construction work is done. While classical shells pose a risk of explosion, their disposal is relatively easy. It is not the case with chemical shells.î

http://www.answers.com/topic/poison-gas-in-world-war-i

Jun 23, 2006 - 9:53 am 16. Keith_Indy:

The existance of these 500 shells (not an insignificant handfull) is proof that Saddam wasn’t complying with the various resolutions calling for the accounting and verified destruction of his chemical weapons.

That they may or may not be degraded to the point of being useless militarily, isn’t the question and doesn’t bear on that point…

And because something isn’t usefull militarily, doesn’t mean it isn’t usefull to a terrorist.

Jun 23, 2006 - 10:05 am 17. Fausta:

Canisters of mustard gas and other poisonous substances from the First World War can still be dangerous

David is exactly right. I must clarify that my husband’s point is that, while the initial skin/eye/lung burning characteristic of mustard gas is not as strong in decayed mustard gas, the decayed gas is still lethal.
My apologies for any misunderstanding.

Jun 23, 2006 - 10:23 am 18. Fausta:

Additionally, decayed mustard gas can penetrate fabric and any permeable surfaces.

Jun 23, 2006 - 10:29 am 19. Fausta:

Additionally, decayed mustard gas can penetrate fabric and any permeable surfaces.

Jun 23, 2006 - 10:29 am 20. Old Dad:

Sochu John,

Her comments were idiotic, and your defense is lame. She was somehow waxing metaphorical when she baldly stated that the shells were no more dangerous than, say, a bottle of Dawn dish soap?

As to the shells no longer being weapons, that’s ridiculous. Perhaps, they are no longer effective as designed, but what if Johnny Jihad happened to pop one open in your local Starbucks?

Weapon or no?

Jun 23, 2006 - 10:44 am 21. AisA:

“Well, I hope Roger doesn’t catch anybody saying they are so hungry they could eat a horse. No doubt it would lead to an in depth exploration of whether or not it would be possible to eat a horse, and how many sittings it would take, before finally declaring the maker of the statement to be totally batty.”

Your attempted analogy is flawed. “Hungry enough to eat a horse” is a well-known expression that everyone realizes does NOT literally mean one could actually eat a horse.

Harmon, by contrast, has made a specific claim and she is obligated to back it up. Otherwise, it remains an unsupported assertion — one which you are, apparently, prepared to swallow because it fits your pre-determined conclusion that the war was based on a “failure”.

Personally, I don’t know how dangerous these old shells are at present. I don’t know whether they can kill 0, 500 or 50,000 people. But I do know that at one time they were intended to be more deadly than standard artillery rounds — else why bother to make them? And I also know that it is in our best interests to eliminate any regime of madmen who have proven BOTH their ability to make things like nerve gas and their willingness to use it on civilian populations — especially when that regime is hell-bent on getting back at America.

Like so many opponents of the war, you are trying to re-write history by claiming that the war was based solely on the contention that Iraq possessed WMDs. That is false, and if you doubt it, go back and read the congressional resolution that authorized the war — you know, the one signed by all those Democratic Senators that desperately hope the American people will forget both the contents of the resolution and their signatures on it.

Jun 23, 2006 - 10:58 am 22. Shochu John:

It can be used as a weapon, Old Dad, but so can chlorine gas, which can be whipped up with two things a lot of people have under their kitchen sinks, bleach and ammonia. I wouldn’t want anyone releasing chlorine gas in my local Starbucks either.

When it comes right down to it, there are a lot of nasty weapons that can be made and used by terrorists using very simple and widely available chemicals. Thusly, claiming that these old dysfunctional shells would somehow be a special asset to terrorists is quite a stretch.

Jun 23, 2006 - 11:04 am 23. Fausta:

claiming that these old dysfunctional shells would somehow be a special asset to terrorists is quite a stretch
said he, as the fencepost moved . . .

Jun 23, 2006 - 11:10 am 24. Old Dad:

Sochu John:

Neither of us knows the actual status of the sarin shells. A prudent man would assume that they were extremely dangerous until proven otherwise.

A ridiculously imprudent woman would attempt to spin them as comparable to Drano.

It’s odd that Saddam didn’t spend 10 years lying about his hidden stashes of Clorox.

Jun 23, 2006 - 11:20 am 25. ElMondo:

I’m not trying to justify Harman’s belittlement of finding chemical weapons, but I think we need to keep in mind that it wasn’t a phrase she originated. The reason it’s being used so much is because it was uttered by UN Weapons Inspector David Kay some time ago. I think that was actually in the verbiage of an official report, although that I’m not quite certain of. It could’ve also been a press conference; that detail I don’t remember.

My point is that folks who are saying “kitchen sink” have been echoing what a weapons inspector said. It’s not something they’re coming up with on their own.

Jun 23, 2006 - 11:21 am 26. Shochu John:

First, AisA, “Your attempted analogy is flawed. “Hungry enough to eat a horse” is a well-known expression that everyone realizes does NOT literally mean one could actually eat a horse.”

I’m sorry, AisA, perhaps we should all try to stick to the more well known expressions of not precisely literal language. Otherwise, “everyone” might not understand that we are using exaggerated langauage to make a point. Perhaps someone should tell the congresswoman to speak in simple, declarative sentences so the idea she is trying to convey is not lost on Roger Simon’s comment section.

AisA further tortures logic with, “Otherwise, it remains an unsupported assertion — one which you are, apparently, prepared to swallow because it fits your pre-determined conclusion that the war was based on a ‘failure’.”

Were I to swallow that assertion, would that not mean that I actually thought that the congresswoman had the equivalent of old sarin gas shells under her sink? Perhaps you would care to explain how you think I believe that when I have said nothing of the sort. I was merely enjoying the fact that exaggeration to make a point about the uselessness of the shells is viewed here as either stupidity or mendacity in what appears to be an effort to avoid discussion of her actual point.

Also, my conclusion that the war is a failure is based on my own observations as well as conceptions of what consitutues success. If I thought a good war is one that turns nations into barely governed cesspools of violence at tremendous cost to us, then I should think the Iraq war has been a smashing success.

And finally, “Like so many opponents of the war, you are trying to re-write history by claiming that the war was based solely on the contention that Iraq possessed WMDs.”

Well no, though it was the chief justification given. I seem to remember Colin Powell getting up in front of the United Nations and saying quite a bit about WMDs. I seem to remember it being a major theme in the 2003 SOTU. But the other half of the story, which I am not forgetting, was that the WMDs Iraq no doubt had would be given to the shady terrorists they were purportedly in cahoots with.

And now, Fausta, “‘claiming that these old dysfunctional shells would somehow be a special asset to terrorists is quite a stretch’
said he, as the fencepost moved . . .”

I am assuming “fencepost” is used here when “goalpost” is typically used. If so, you’ll note that I did not in any way deviate from my initial post when I said, “I am hard pressed to think of how they could be used effectively as weapons, at least any more than any other run-of the mill toxic industrial or military waste product.”

Jun 23, 2006 - 11:43 am 27. Fausta:

I am assuming “fencepost” is used here when “goalpost” is typically used
You assume correctly. I should have said goalpost.

The said goalpost is that there were WMDs in Iraq (as even the UN has said).
Their viability as effective weapons remains to be determined.

However, as I understand it (and I leave that to the experts) is that the WMDs found are by definition, already in weaponized form, unlike “any other run-of the mill toxic industrial or military waste product.”

Jun 23, 2006 - 11:53 am 28. David Thomson:

Why is Shochu John engaging in such a pathetic attempt at hair splitting? The answer is easy: he probably doesn’t believe in the war on terror. The United States has been allegedly victimizing the darker skin Muslims of the Third World. All of our problems would virtually disappear overnight if we truly tried to understand our foes. At the end of the day, the Bush administration and the neoconservatives are only interested in enriching Halliburton and protecting the fascist government of Israel.

Jun 23, 2006 - 12:04 pm 29. David:

Good old Charlie has it right. Without exposure to oxygen the half life of sarin is quite long. I would be spooked with a 50 year old shell. Mustard gas has a half life of just about forever in the absence of oxygen and water. Every once and a while somebody in France still gets gassed by an unexploded WWI gas shell.

Jun 23, 2006 - 12:04 pm 30. ElMondo:

Okay, everyone, I want to make an extended comment. But before I do, keep in mind that I’ve been a supporter and defender of the US in Iraq since it all started. At any rate: Why is everyone making such a big deal about this find? The military has known about this and other chemical munitions for some time now and hasn’t made a really big deal about any of it. This current find is not an insignificant one because it clearly shows that Iraq did not, as claimed, destroy all their chemical weapons. But on the other hand, it’s hardly proof of a then (2003) current, fully functional program. We need to put the find in perspective: This and others is proof of non-compliance with the destruction of stockpiles, but that’s all they’re proof of. If we keep pushing this story around, we open ourselves up to an attack about lack of proof of an effective, functional, productive WMD program at the time of the invasion. And that does nothing but allow the anti’s to keep the irrelevant themes alive.

If we keep on worrying about the WMDs, we’re also going to allow war opponents an opportunity to minimize or outright ignore the issue of Saddam’s brutality and his regime’s sheer evil, which in my mind is a far more important factor in going to war than whatever weapons they would’ve chosen to employ. I don’t care if Saddam’s people had nothing but tanks, rockets, and rifles; his stain on the middle east had to be addressed regardless of whether conventional or unconventional munitions were used. Continuing to hammer on the point of WMD’s allows war opponents to evade that point.

Also, I happen agree with Wretchard’s take on the whole matter:

“…questions in Iraq have long moved past the stated casus belli of 2003. Saddam’s a prisoner. His state is dismantled. The Sunnis, if not overthrown, are at least no longer in control. There is Shi’ite versus Shi’ite conflict in southern Iraq. Iran is not going to walk in and take over the whole place. The issues are different. The development of a missile weapons delivery system by North Korea now adds a dimension to Iranian efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability that wasn’t there in 2003. In this context, a pile of 500 gas artillery shells though it is everything that 500 gas artillery shells ought to be, may not seem like a hill of beans in this crazy world.”

Jun 23, 2006 - 12:34 pm 31. Shochu John:

Fausta,
I am going to have to disagree that any goalposts have been moved here. The entire reason why weapons of mass destruction are a problem in the first place is that, weaponized as they are, they have the ability to cause a lot of mayhem and destruction. Remove that capability, as is the case here, and what do you have? That they may have once been weapons is irrelevant to their state in the here and now, which is junk.

“At the end of the day, the Bush administration and the neoconservatives are only interested in enriching Halliburton and protecting the fascist government of Israel.” Yes, David Thomson, you got me, but don’t forget that I also have Mao and Che tattooed on my left and right butt cheecks, respectively, and I’m carrying Michael Moore’s love child.

Jun 23, 2006 - 12:38 pm 32. Fausta:

Shochu,
First, there were no WMDs;
then, if there were WMDs, they couldn’t be used effectively as weapons;
later then, the WMDs that were found, sarin and mustard gas, which even in highly decayed form are lethal, would be no more harmful than “any other run-of the mill toxic industrial or military waste product” ;
later yet, “That they may have once been weapons is irrelevant to their state in the here and now, which is junk.”

Some junk.

I wish I had ElMondo’s wisdom.

When are you due?

Jun 23, 2006 - 12:58 pm 33. Terrye:

Sochu John:

Oh puhleaze, it is just like the lame attempts of Demcorats to distance themselves from any responsibility for the war even though there was a Democrat in office for eight years before Bush came along and that Democrat maintained for the entire 8 years that Saddam was armed and dangerous and ultimately that he should be removed from office. It was only when the guy in the White House had a R behind his name that all that changed.

The point here is that Sadddam lied about what he had and this stuff is dangerous. The whole reason for having UN weapons inspectors go in is to see to it that these dangerous weapons are destroyed and dismantled.

Jun 23, 2006 - 1:10 pm 34. Steven Mitchell:

Fausta, my guess is he is hoping for delivery on the first Tuesday in November, 2006. But you know how these things are sometimes indeterminate.

“If I thought a good war is one that turns nations into barely governed cesspools of violence at tremendous cost to us, then I should think the Iraq war has been a smashing success.”

I agree, no goal posts moving. Why bother with goal posts when you just define terms to mean whatever you want and make things up? I especially appreciated that “turns” in there. I’d forgotten about all the free ice cream and visits to the Baghdad Disney World that characterized Iraq in the ’90s.

Saddam was doing his best (however productive or pathetic that was) to get WMD. Only a fool thinks otherwise. By all means, let us keep talking about it if it allows the fools to ensure many more such first Tuesdays in November.

Jun 23, 2006 - 1:11 pm 35. Good Ole Charlie:

Shochu John:

As one of them, you are trying to argue with two people – myself and Fausta’s husband – who have technical training. Moi – PhD in organic chemistry from Harvard and undergradate at Caltech. I would expect Mr/Dr Fausta’s background to be similar.

So, would you stipulate in advance that we have some knowledge of organic chemistry? Thank you.

I have no particular axe to grind here, but am trying to inject a note of knowledge. While at Caltech I did some analytical work for the prof who invented the standard army field detector for mustard gas, Dr. Ernest Swift. We did some talking about the problem and the method, which is where I have gained some knowledge about mustard gas.

In a word, in a purified state 2,2′bis(2-chloroethyl)sulfide is stable for a long time. This is one feature that a good gaseous weapon has: long shelf life.

With my background, I would qualify as an expert witness in any US civil or criminal court on mustard gas. So much so that I would be allowed to express my opinion and judgment on the stand.

Can we also stipulate that? Thank you.

So: my judgment, based upon my knowledge of the art and past study of the material is that these shell are most probably (>95% confidence) very, very dangerous and would still be considered usable munitions.

Further, I would advise anyone handle said shells to be fully protected and operate under stringent safety conditions. Full protective suit, aspirator and/or self contained breathing apparatus…the works.

A good source for a nodding acquaintance with these gases can be found in Wikipedia. I am checking the basic literature out for further details.

“A little learning is a dangerous thing:/Drink deep else ne’er approach the Pierian Spring!” Alexander Pope, Essay on Man…

A word of father advice, Johnnie…go away, boy: you bother me…

Jun 23, 2006 - 1:21 pm 36. PeterUK:

“claiming that these old dysfunctional shells would somehow be a special asset to terrorists is quite a stretch.”

If those shells are dysfunctional as opposed to non-functional there really is a problem.

But firstly you are begging the question,so far that all the shells are inert or at least not dangerous,you don’t know.Chemicals decay at different temperatures and conditions,volatile explosives still explode,sixty and nearly ninety years after WWI and WWII.
More importantly that 500 shells still exist indicates that there was a production line manufacturing these shells.That 500 did not get destroyed by weapons inspectors or the Iraqis themselves give an ominous indication to the extent of the problem.

Jun 23, 2006 - 1:22 pm 37. Bostonian:

Steven Mitchell:
A lefty friend of mine asserted to me the other day that Iraq was “just like ‘Mad Max’.”

He would not even discuss it. The idea that Iraq is in a state of total brutal anarchy is a pure article of faith among the Left.

It doesn’t matter how many Iraqis turn out to vote, what percentage of the provinces are considered stable, or any other thing. Observations are irrelevant.

Jun 23, 2006 - 1:30 pm 38. PeterUK:

“run-of the mill toxic industrial or military waste product.”

Not only was this not a “run of the mill military waste product” it was banned by international treaty as well as under the terms of the Gulf WarI ceasefire.
It is worth noting that any industry which had this kind of waste floating around uncontrolled and unmonitored would be shut down.

Jun 23, 2006 - 1:34 pm 39. Steven Mitchell:

Bostonian, since the lefties I know seem to get their military knowledge from Hollywood, at least they are somewhat consistent. One would think, however, that the failure of the Reagan administration to turn the whole planet into a post nuclear disaster area would make them pick their “source” cites more carefully.

Jun 23, 2006 - 1:46 pm 40. Skookumchuk:

PeterUK:

Exactly. Just as in Europe, farmers and school children playing soccer and bulldozer drivers will be uncovering these things a century from now. It is interesting to speculate on what all these little discoveries, over and over, may do to Iraq.

Jun 23, 2006 - 2:57 pm 41. kynna:

Hello everyone. I haven’t posted here in a long time. But I had to applaud you all for your excellent take-down of Shochu and his pathetic spin of the WMD find. Scholarly, knowledgeable, to the point. Excellent, informative reading. It’s the kind of thing that brings me back to Roger time and time again.

Thanks.

Jun 23, 2006 - 4:38 pm 42. PeterUK:

Skookumchuk,
Depending on the detonation system and the kind of ground they landed on,bombs are discovered when post war buildings are torn down for new.
This one was eleven metres down

Jun 23, 2006 - 4:47 pm 43. Kevin Peters:

Roger:
Oh, whats a little poison gas between friends. Of course Saddam was no threat to us. Oh, and by the way, it’s important for the New York Times to tell Al Queda the methods that we are using to track their financial funding. I trust the U.N. to protect us from International Terrorism and I trust the press to know what National Security Secrets to expose to our enemies. After all, The NYT was so spot on about the Soviet Union and the fact that they were not the true threat to world peace and were in reality the vanguard of progressive political thought. And the U.N. has done such a good job with the major Human Rights abusers of the last century how could I not put my faith in that glorious institution.

Jun 23, 2006 - 4:57 pm 44. Neo:

I think Harman has it about right about the “under the kitchen sink” analogy, but don’t short change the power of that stuff under your kitchen sink Ms. Harman.
In the hands of experts, that stuff can blow the doors and window into the next block.

Jun 23, 2006 - 9:25 pm 45. ElMondo:

Bostonian,

“The insurgency hasn’t expanded. Fourteen of the 18 provinces still have about nine attacks a day or less. And if you look at where the sectarian violence is occurring, it’s occurring within about a 30-mile — 90 percent of it is occurring in about a 30- mile radius around Baghdad; some down in Basra, some in Diyala Province, the majority right there in the center of the country.”

Link…

Now, General Casey wasn’t trying to paint an overly rosy picture of the situation; he admitted that the situation was getting increasingly “complex”. And he didn’t say there was no violence outside that radius. And (again), I agree with Wretchard’s analysis: “Criminal gangs and ethnic militias are the rising threat…”, which is a problem no one should diminish or dismiss. But the point is that not all of Iraq is not “like Mad Max”. It’s nowhere near as calm as all of us wish it were, but it sure as heck isn’t wall-to-wall Road Warrior either.

Jun 23, 2006 - 9:41 pm 46. David Thomson:

“At the end of the day, the Bush administration and the neoconservatives are only interested in enriching Halliburton and protecting the fascist government of Israel.” Yes, David Thomson, you got me, but don’t forget that I also have Mao and Che tattooed on my left and right butt cheecks, respectively, and I’m carrying Michael Moore’s love child.î

Without exception, it has been my experience that people like yourself believe the war on terror is something of a fraud. You donít even begin to behave like someone worried about Islamic nihilists murdering your loved ones. Is it possible that you are not in ìtouch with your feelings?î Alas, could I be treating you unfairly? Am I placing you in the situation of some guy who is asked how often he hits his mother? I do not think so. Please tell me if Iím wrong.

Jun 23, 2006 - 11:10 pm 47. esquirerumson:

Harman didn’t say it. David Kay said it.

What a bunch of idiots. Nice job proving you’re willing to believe anything you read, even though no source was indicated.

Michael Ledeen is the one who’s drooling. He apparently originated this nonsense. If he’s run a correction, I can’t find it.

Jun 24, 2006 - 11:50 am 48. Good Ole Charlie:

esquirerumson:

But whoever said it, still…chemical facts are chemical facts. The best bet is that the stuff is still very deadly, and, most importantly, are WMDs that were specifically forbidden to Saddam. How they got there and who sent them is immaterial: mere possession is against UN Resolutions, plus – IIRC, the Geneva Convention as amended after World War II.

Or do you have a different set of facts??

Do tell…I’m all agog…

Jun 24, 2006 - 12:35 pm 49. michael ledeen:

esquire: fine with me, David Kay’s drooling. Big time. Why don’t we all ask Negroponte to declassify the whole thing (protecting whatever sources/methods may be in there) and we can make a judgment ourselves. But note that even the little bit that has been declassified says explicitly that some, at least, of the 500 shells are very dangerous.

the source I had for the Harman quote was Jim Angle, on Fox News. He may have had it wrong, if so, limited apologies to Congresswoman Harman. But the substance of her remarks comes to the same thing, doesn’t it?

Jun 24, 2006 - 2:25 pm 50. Sandy P:

Guys, you might want to read this, seems there might be 4 bunkers not checked yet:

Via All Things Beautiful:

http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/

received an important e-mail from my good friend and brilliant blogger Antimedia, with startling information only thus far printed in the New York Sun back in February, and picked up by his local Dallas CBS news yesterday. “The Times was apparently too busy working on a story revealing national secrets” says Antimedia.

David Gaubatz, an ex-intelligence officer, and former special investigator for The Pentagon, has been trying for three years to get the American weapons inspectors and the media to listen to his claims that no less than four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq are believed to contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. Antimedia:

……..

Jun 24, 2006 - 3:39 pm 51. esquirerumson:

charlie: “But whoever said it, still…chemical facts are chemical facts. The best bet is that the stuff is still very deadly”

English translation: “Even though Kay was anointed by Bush as one of our top weapons inspectors, I’m going to pay no attention to what he said, because I’m smarter then he is.”

You’re also ignoring Duelfer, who said “they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction.”

“are WMDs that were specifically forbidden to Saddam”

Yes, which is why he got rid of literally 99% of them, which meant that a few were left forgotten, lost and rotting in the desert somewhere. Please remind me of the speech where Bush said “1% of Saddam’s old CW shells are rusting in the desert, and it will be well-worth 20,000 US casualties to go dig them up.”

ledeen: “David Kay’s drooling. Big time”

If Kay is an idiot, why did Bush hire him to begin with?

“Why don’t we all ask Negroponte to declassify the whole thing”

That’s fine with me. But it will never happen. If the unpublished portion was remotely helpful to Bush, Cheney would have presented it to Brit Hume’s cameras long ago.

“some, at least, of the 500 shells are very dangerous”

Yes, and so is Windex mixed with bleach (do a google on “bleach ammonia explosion”). Chemicals that can be “very dangerous” are not all properly described as “weapons of mass destruction,” unless you’re a propagandist.

Number of US troops killed in Iraq by Saddam’s conventional arsenal, which he left behind and which we failed to guard: approaching 3,000. Number of US troops killed in Iraq by Saddam’s misplaced, degraded chemical shells: zero.

If there were really lots of them, and they were really dangerous, that number would be higher than zero. That number is all the proof needed to indicate that you’re making a mountain out of a molehill.

“limited apologies to Congresswoman Harman”

Any apology belongs on your site, where someone other than me and charlie will get to read it. If the apology is already there, I don’t know how to find it.

“the substance of her remarks comes to the same thing”

If she said it, it means she’s acknowledging Kay’s expertise, who was picked by Bush, after all. If you reject his expertise, you should say why. An accusation of “drooling” is a poor substitute for presenting facts.

Jun 25, 2006 - 2:06 am 52. Good Ole Charlie:

esquirerumson:

This is fun!

You wrote: “English translation: “Even though Kay was anointed by Bush as one of our top weapons inspectors, I’m going to pay no attention to what he said, because I’m smarter then he is.”"

Well, yes I am…see the original note.

Further: “You’re also ignoring Duelfer, who said “they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction.”"

Sorry about that pal: the Geneva Convention as amended after WWII makes the same assumption. If the shell do contain sarin, say, by definition they are weapons of mass destruction.

Let’s see…further: “Yes, which is why he got rid of literally 99% of them, which meant that a few were left forgotten, lost and rotting in the desert somewhere. Please remind me of the speech where Bush said “1% of Saddam’s old CW shells are rusting in the desert, and it will be well-worth 20,000 US casualties to go dig them up.”

Let’s take this one one by one…99% you contend that almost all were disposed of, yes?

How and where? You just don’t flush these agents down the toilet. Unless you know what you’re doing and have the right commercial size plant, you can’t – and really shouldn’t try – dispose of either sarin or mustard gas. No one – left, center, or right has ever claimed that a disposal facility was operating in Iraq under Good Ole Saddam (very distant relative). You have other information?

Where do you get 20,000 casualties? We operate disposal facilities – I believe at Dugway, among other locations – without any known casualties. Get real: these facilities were not designed by sociology majors or operated by English Literature graduate students.

Speaking of which: any technical knowledge comparable to mine? Guess not, eh, pal…check out my post on 6/23 at 1:21pm.

Onward…

YOu also wrote: “Number of US troops killed in Iraq by Saddam’s misplaced, degraded chemical shells: zero.”

Fortuneately true, largely because US troops went in wearing protective suits in some cases. If you had some knowledge of military affairs you might consider one of the main effects of chemical warfare is to slow military forces down. Suited as above, they move slower. Civilian populations would get most of the fatalities…collateral damage, y’know.

You further wrote: “…belongs on your site, where someone other than me and charlie will get to read it. If the apology is already there, I don’t know how to find it.”

Now you insult our host…not too civilized, pal. We’re having a beer and a talk in his living room and you’re complaining about the attendance. This is just plain silly…if you and I are the only ones reading this, why are you jumping around?

The rest is silence. I’m off to cook dinner tonight…another of my many talents.

Bon Appetit, y’all…

PS: My name should be capitalized, since I do so in my posts. Good grammatical practice…

Jun 25, 2006 - 2:50 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: