|
Wmd? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| WhoaNellie1487 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
ABC yes. I don't know so much about MSNBC, but I never watch it. Joe Scarborough is clearly more of a conservative though. Obviously that doesn't speak for the other 23 hours of programming on MSNBC that I never watch.;) |
Yeah, MSNBC is a liberal source. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
Yeah, MSNBC is a liberal source. |
Must have been ever since they got rid of Michael Savage, right? |
|
|
| Shakka |
From William Safire this morning...
NY Times
| quote: | Sarin? What Sarin?
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
Published: May 19, 2004
You probably missed the news because it didn't get much play, but a small, crude weapon of mass destruction may have been used by Saddam's terrorists in Iraq this week.
The apparent weapon was sarin gas, a highly toxic nerve agent that causes victims to choke to death. Developed by the Nazis, it has been used in the past by terrorists in Japan to kill a dozen subway riders and panic thousands, and by Saddam Hussein, who produced tons of it to kill Iraqi Kurds.
Rigged as an "improvised explosive device," or roadside bomb, the 155-millimeter howitzer shell was accidentally detonated by a U.S. ordnance team. Two men were treated for what an Army spokesman called "minor exposure" to the nerve gas.
You never saw such a rush to dismiss this as not news. U.N. weapons inspectors whose reputations rest on denial of Saddam's W.M.D. pooh-poohed the report. "It doesn't strike me as a big deal," said David Kay.
"Sarin Bomb Is Likely a Leftover From the 80's" was USA Today's Page 10 brushoff; maybe the terrorists didn't know their shell was loaded with sarin. Besides, say our lionized apostles of defeat, a poison-gas bomb does not a "stockpile" make. Even the Defense Department, on the defensive, strained not to appear alarmist, saying confirmation was needed for the field tests.
In this rush to misjudgment, we can see an example of the "Four Noes" that have become the defeatists' platform.
The first "no" is no stockpiles of W.M.D., used to justify the war, were found. With the qualifier "so far" left out, the absence of evidence is taken to be evidence of absence. In weeks or years to come — when the pendulum has swung, and it becomes newsworthy to show how cut-and-runners in 2004 were mistaken — logic suggests we will see a rash of articles and blockbuster books to that end.
These may well reveal the successful concealment of W.M.D., as well as prewar shipments thereof to Syria and plans for production and missile delivery, by Saddam's Special Republican Guard and fedayeen, as part of his planned guerrilla war — the grandmother of all battles. The present story line of "Saddam was stupid, fooled by his generals" would then be replaced by "Saddam was shrewder than we thought."
This will be especially true for bacteriological weapons, which are small and easier to hide. In a sovereign and free Iraq, when germ-warfare scientists are fearful of being tried as prewar criminals, their impetus will be to sing — and point to caches of anthrax and other mass killers.
Defeatism's second "no" is no connection was made between Saddam and Al Qaeda or any of its terrorist affiliates. This is asserted as revealed truth with great fervor, despite an extensive listing of communications and meetings between Iraqi officials and terrorists submitted to Congress months ago.
Most damning is the rise to terror's top rank of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who escaped Afghanistan to receive medical treatment in Baghdad. He joined Ansar al-Islam, a Qaeda offshoot whose presence in Iraq to murder Kurds at Saddam's behest was noted in this space in the weeks after 9/11. His activity in Iraq was cited by President Bush six months before our invasion. Osama's disciple Zarqawi is now thought to be the televised beheader of a captive American.
The third "no" is no human-rights high ground can be claimed by us regarding Saddam's torture chambers because we mistreated Iraqi prisoners. This equates sleep deprivation with life deprivation, illegal individual humiliation with official mass murder. We flagellate ourselves for mistreatment by a few of our guards, who will be punished; he delightedly oversaw the shoveling of 300,000 innocent Iraqis into unmarked graves. Iraqis know the difference.
The fourth "no" is no Arab nation is culturally ready for political freedom and our attempt to impose democracy in Iraq is arrogant Wilsonian idealism.
In coming years, this will be blasted by revisionist reportage as an ignoble ethnic-racist slur. Iraqis will gain the power, with our help, to put down the terrorists and find their own brand of political equilibrium.
Will today's defeatists then admit they were wrong? That's a fifth "no." |
And some intemperate thoughts from Boortz..
| quote: | HOW MUCH DAMAGE COULD FOUR LITERS COST?
About a gallon. That's how much Sarin gas was in that artillery shell found by US troops near the Baghdad airport. I don't know the answer to my own question, maybe you do. Just how much damage could be done with about one gallon of this deadly nerve agent?
Today we have reports that Al Qaeda is trying to set up an attack on US soil with either a chemical or a biological weapon. What do we do? Maybe The Poodle will suggest that we immediately start an intense program of appeasement to forestall such an attack. Perhaps Kerry could offer to crawl on his hands and knees to Kofi Annan even before he's elected, if it will make the terrorists just leave us alone. |
| quote: |
MEDIA ROOTING FOR THE INSURGENTS
This should come as no surprise. It's already started: the media is rooting for us to lose the war on terror. Today, The Washington Post has declared that there is a "fear of failure growing." Once again, the doom and gloom media has declared the war lost. The terrorists must be thrilled. The whole terrorist game plan in the Middle East and in Iraq is based on creating an atmosphere of fear, gloom and doom in the American citizenry. It seems as if some of these media outlets actually have signed on to help the Islamo-fascists achieve that very goal. We have 150,000 troops deployed, the country of Iraq remains under our control, and casualties for the whole war are under a thousand. If we hold on to our resolve this situation is winnable. That, however, wouldn't be good for the left and for those who want America to follow instead of to lead.
Downplay the good, hammer the bad. Run the Abu Ghraib story on the front page for three weeks. Bury the Nick Berg story after one day. Ignore the Sarin and mustard gas finds. If the story will help Bush, bury it. If it will hurt Bush, run it day after day. |
|
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
From William Safire this morning...
NY Times
And some intemperate thoughts from Boortz.. |
Well now, did you skip over the NYTimes editorial right next to Safire's column? Right back at ya:
| quote: | May 19, 2004
The New Weapons Find in Iraq
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was appropriately cautious in reacting to the discovery of a suspected nerve-agent weapon in Baghdad last week. There have been myriad false alarms in the thus-far fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. At this point no one can be certain whether the artillery shell rigged as a roadside bomb really did contain deadly sarin and, if so, what significance that may have.
The shell was discovered by an American convoy last Saturday. It partially detonated before an ordnance team could disable it, dispersing a small amount of the chemical contents. Field tests found very small traces of sarin, but such tests are designed to err on the side of caution. They yield many false positives, which are later proved invalid by sophisticated laboratory testing.
Two soldiers were treated for minor exposure and released, hardly the kind of devastation one expects from a lethal chemical weapon. Military officials say the artillery shell was a binary weapon. That means two chemicals have to mix after the shell is fired to produce sarin, something that wouldn't be expected to occur when the shell was rigged as a homemade bomb. Indeed, they speculate that whoever made the bomb may have had no idea that the shell contained chemical agents rather than explosives. On the other hand, the lack of lethality may simply indicate that the agent had long ago lost its punch or was not even sarin.
If laboratory tests confirm the presence of sarin, that finding may not tell us much about whether Saddam Hussein retained a hidden chemical arsenal after supposedly destroying it.
The dwindling band of die-hards who remain convinced that Mr. Hussein squirreled away stockpiles of illicit weapons worry that insurgents may use them against American forces. But finding some residual weapons that had escaped a large-scale destruction program would be no great surprise — and if the chemicals had degraded, no major threat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/opinion/19WED4.html |
Bottom line:
1. Final lab tests have not confirmed the often faulty initial field tests yet. For Safire and any other Weekly Standard neocon blowhard to jump to such a conclusion, given the faulty past of initial field tests putting egg on their collective faces, is nothing shy of plain ignorance.
2. If the final tests conclude it was a Sarin precurser, why is it not likely that it is an old relic, as Kay and Blix have suggested? Give me one good reason that this is not a possibility, esp. if this is just 1 finding with no actual stockpile found.
Furthermore, again I must stress: we went to war over this 1 finding? Sorry, but without "stockpiles of WMD" being the actual "grave and serious" threat (or "imminent threat" according the the former Press Secretary), as well as the real possibility "mushroom clouds" on our soil, this is a very weak case for war, at best. |
|
|
| Shakka |
Zig....
Zag....
ZING!!!
Thank goodness you didn't quote Maureen Dowd!
It's like a friend of mine once said about disagreement..."It's good that we disagree. If we both felt the same way, one of us would be redundant". :cool: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Zig....
Zag....
ZING!!!
Thank goodness you didn't quote Maureen Dowd!
It's like a friend of mine once said about disagreement..."It's good that we disagree. If we both felt the same way, one of us would be redundant". :cool: |
Oh yeah? Well, take this!
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/16/o...%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd
Trojan War comparison? I guess we shoulda seen that comin'. Damn cheesy women writers.:D |
|
|
| Shakka |
I honestly can't stand her. She has little, if any journalistic integrity. I think she has a personal vendetta. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I honestly can't stand her. She has little, if any journalistic integrity. I think she has a personal vendetta. |
Ya think?
:haha: |
|
|
| smokeape |
All in all a bad move by the media. I know we're looking for WMD, but telling the terrorists we found one as an IED and that they didn't ignite it properly gives them too much intelligence. Now they know that the IED they placed there was a nerve agent, and there's plenty more where that came from. End result? Another attack where they unleash the lethality of chemical rounds. Should've never been publicized.
:whip:
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
All in all a bad move by the media. I know we're looking for WMD, but telling the terrorists we found one as an IED and that they didn't ignite it properly gives them too much intelligence. Now they know that the IED they placed there was a nerve agent, and there's plenty more where that came from. End result? Another attack where they unleash the lethality of chemical rounds. Should've never been publicized.
:whip:
[[[smoke]]] |
Hmm, I'm pretty sure they kinda had the idea of what was inside. |
|
|
| Massive84 |
you know what i am wondering.
even if a stockpile of WMD got found, (something that is fair enough to "justify" this war)
I wonder how the people will think.
Will it be like? ya good job, now i can finally sleep..or something like, ya well i lost my kids (both sides) you..and it's a mess and no freedom etc..
I mean seriously if you look back when this all started, i remember seeing people discussing how america should fight, and how iraq's elite army will make alot of deaths when america invade Bagdad.
Everything went smooth, even people cheerd when statue went down, now if you look at things. it's not the same..not for usa and not for iraq..
so i wonder, how people respond if a stockpile of WMD will be found. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Massive84
you know what i am wondering.
even if a stockpile of WMD got found, (something that is fair enough to "justify" this war)
I wonder how the people will think.
Will it be like? ya good job, now i can finally sleep..or something like, ya well i lost my kids (both sides) you..and it's a mess and no freedom etc..
I mean seriously if you look back when this all started, i remember seeing people discussing how america should fight, and how iraq's elite army will make alot of deaths when america invade Bagdad.
Everything went smooth, even people cheerd when statue went down, now if you look at things. it's not the same..not for usa and not for iraq..
so i wonder, how people respond if a stockpile of WMD will be found. |
Well, it would provide a semi-legitimate casus belli (although the weapons couldn't strike US or Britain as claimed), but it wouldn't justify the chaos and lack of planning that is going on. Heh, now for cheering, there were like 50 people there. |
|
|
|
|
