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…

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.

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:

……..

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?

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…

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.

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.

“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.