So now what? Is it finally fair to say that we were right in taking down this regime? Or is this something that we should have found before attacking?
Can anyone clarify which site the linked story is referring to? Other news sites are reporting that some earlier reports of chemical weapons were incorrect. Is this the same story, or are these two entirely separate sites?
I just signed out of hotmail, which auto-directs you to msn.com and msnbc was all hyped up about this news (even blaring out EXCLUSIVE in front of the link). Not sure if that helps.
I’ve really no doubt that the white powder just explosives and that traces of toxins have been or will be found at Ansar al-Islam, but I cannot believe that msnbc.com is running tests for toxins, reading that was probably just a morning hallucination on my part…they have credibility/impartiality issues enough as it is in the world.
There was one report from South of Baghdad of finding a chemical weapons cache (boxes of white powder). That report has now been refuted, as the chemicals appeared to be used in the production of conventional explosives.
This report is of a verification of ricin and botulinum traces. However, this verification is from Northern Iraq where the group Ansar al Islam operated. This group existed in Kurdish controlled territory, outside the of the current regime’s direct control.
I’ve sure many observers in the US will not understand the difference, but it hardly leads to a retro-active justification of removing SH.
Did you take to the time to read the story that you posted a link to? I don’t think you have, this story has more to do with islamic militant group Ansar al-Islam and not the Iraqi government.
I find it odd also that the news organization is running the tests. It looks like the kit may have been mistaken for a pregnancy test.
Though I do believe that iraqi intelligence had loose ties to the group, I feel that it was more in the sense of a common enemy that an organized issue. It’s common knowledge that Al-Queda had no love for Saddam. It’s entirely possible that Saddam gave his nasty stuff away when he saw the writing on the wall, and these local representatives were more than willing to accept. I suspect it will take months or years for information on the relationship and the sources to come out, if at all.
The way the news has been coming out, it may turn out that some randy reporter held a pregnancy test under a pregnant goat because he felt the anchors had been ignoring him. I’ll take my daily ascribed grain of salt and wait for further information.
Well, wasn’t the whole thing “We’re going after terrorists or those who harbor terrorists?” Even if it is in a Kurdish controlled territory, it is still within the sovereign nation of Iraq. The story was too long for me to read the whole thing, I’ve got the attention span of a 6-week old golden retriever.
A goat??? Proof positive! Iraq has weapons of grass reduction!
runs
Iraq has grass now??
Democracy can’t be far behind…
Someone’s on grass and I don’t think it’s the goat.
Sounds plausible, right?
Considering that the portion of Iraq under discussion is only outside Saddam’s control due to the US/UK enforcement of the northern no-fly zone, that seems kinda self defeating. How can we expect to SH to control portions of Iraq we expressly prevent him from controlling?
That’s like suggesting that we should overthrow our own government since we have proof that anthrax was mailed from a mailbox in New Jersey. We’re a sovereign nation, so we should have been in control. We’re obviously harboring terrorists…
The distinction is in your use of the word “harbor”. The word typically has a positive connotation, meaning the one doing the harboring knows they’re there and/or provides material/personnel/other services to make their lives/jobs easier. Iraq does support some organizations which use terrorist tactics, particularly Hamas. In this sense the word “harbor” would be appropriate, but we’ve known about that forever. The Hamas aren’t interested in the US, they care about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict(well, they’re interested in the US by proxy because the US supports Israel). Still there has been no strong link between the Iraqi regime and the major terrorist network Al Queada.
Now if you just want to say “They’re there, let’s go get em” and feel justified destroying the local military/government and causing collateral civilian/civilian infrastrucutre casualties then we’re in a world of hurt. I guarantee there are Al Queada cells in the US. If the mere presence of terrorists, known or unknown to local government, is good enough justification to declare war on the country, then… Well, let’s just say we’re really screwed.
Enjoy,
Steven
I read the article.
-
It’s evidently a real test.
-
However, it’s evidently not an extremely accurate test, on the level of what a district attorney would need in order to get a murder conviction–it’s only intended to be a quick “Yes/no” test. Like an early pregnancy test, but early pregnancy tests can be wrong, too.
-
In order to get an “extremely accurate” test to detect ricin and botulinum, you apparently need to use a Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometer.
-
This is what the CIA is in the process of using to test the same camp as NBC.
-
Just because they found ricin on a boot and botulinum on a running shoe doesn’t prove that the militants at the camp had anything to do with those particular WMD. It only proves that one or two people who were at the camp at the time it was bombed had recently been in a place where ricin and botulinum were being manufactured or otherwise dealt with.
-
I am astounded that NBC would undertake something so blatantly headline-grabbing as this. It’s the kind of thing Geraldo does, like with that “Tonight we open Al Capone’s vault!” thing. It’s a stunt, no more, no less. It doesn’t prove a thing, except how far the media will go to pull in ratings.
-
Um, are these reporters actually interfering with the evidentiary chain, or what? IMO this is laying the whole thing open to charges later of planted evidence, since apparently people are allowed to roam around in the camp at will and “do stuff” like pick up evidence.
-
The logic jumps are making my head hurt.
“Ooh, look! We found a list of chemicals! That proves Saddam has WOMD!”
“Ooh, look! We found some ricin and botulinum on a boot and a shoe! That proves the Islamic militants were dealing with it!” If the boot and shoe were evidence in a murder trial, a second-year law student could have it thrown out. “How did the boot and shoe come to be at the murder scene? What ties the boot and the shoe to my client?”
Is it just me, or do the pro-war folks appear really eager to find anything resembling chemical/biological weapons in Iraq? This is like the fifth or sixth “wolf cry” we’ve gotten in the last ten days, it seems.
I wonder if it’s because, deep down, they realize that the arguments for this war are highly tenuous, and are desperate for anything to give their position legitimacy…
Not precisely that, rjung. I suspect it is more like anxiety that the last feeble hint of a justification has no more substance than Saddam’s Nuke.