Those Iraqi WMDs Again

[Cervaise]

@Zoe

It must be really humiliating for the last of the Bush apologists to go all the way from the threat of a mushroom cloud to Mark Twain’s “brickbats at forty paces.”

Actually, in order for them to feel the humiliation they should, they’ll first need to re-acquire their sense of shame.

[Spiny_Norman]

Thanks, Diogenes. Surprised I am not.

[RTFirefly]

He thinks the Administration’s hiding the truth about what he regards as the WMDs (that’s stupid enough for starters), but who does he blame? The press.

No, I’m not making this up:

The NYT and its ilk pound their chests about the revelations of the successful search of financial data to catch terrorists. They declare they are acting because of the public’s right to know. But in the matter of WMDs found in Iraq, the public’s right to know is totally dissed. There is NO call for the declassification of that document, NO righteous indignation at Negroponte, Cambone and the others who quite improperly failed to inform Congressional oversight committees of the existence of this document, and are fighting its declassification and release, NO investigative action to discover why this information was suppressed, NO curiosity about how Hoekstra and Santorum found out it existed.

And above all , NO concern, despite the clear statement in the document itself, and despite the explicit statement from Rumsfeld yesterday, that these weapons are still out there, and constitute a very real threat to our soldiers.

These people are not acting like journalists at all. They are acting as a fourth branch of government, co-equal with the others. They arrogate to themselves the power to classify and declassify, to protect or reveal secrets and sources, as they see fit. Which is to say, according to their political ambitions.

They aren’t journalists at all, they’re pols. And they should be treated that way.

They are already treated with contempt by the American people; just look at the polls. But they are not yet being held accountable for their actions, as elected and appointed pols are. They should be. The other branches of government should fight them with every weapon in their arsenal, just as the ‘journalists’ wage war on the other three branches.

Isn’t this bizarre? It’s not his old colleagues in the Administration who are to blame for hiding the WmD info (small ‘m’ because they ain’t very mass), but the press for not ferreting out the story that the Administration is hiding.

I knew Ledeen was crazy as a loon, but I didn’t know he was stupid as well.

Needless to say, most of his buds at The Corner are along for the ride on this one.

[Apos]

Boy, does Shodan desperately want to be right here, or what? Virtually every post here has been a full body slam of truth against his little excited false WMD find, and still he gets up and denies clear facts.

Oh, it’s worse than that. Much like a fabled month-named member of these boards, for him this thread has clearly been an exercise in ignoring most of the devastating arguments that show his case to be ridiculous, and instead trying to nitpick little statements irrelevant to the actual meat of the topic in order to avoid the obvious conclusions (for instance, jumping on the question of whether Saddam had terrorist ties, or splitting hairs about whether the shells can be considered WMD under some definition when the thread is about THE claimed WMDs, which anyone can see these are not).

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@vibrotronica

Please describe how these spoiled munitions could be used by a terrorist to cause mass casualties. Then provide evidence that Sadaam had ties to terrorists and would be willing to give them said spoiled munitions. Then explain why it was worth spending $400 billion we don’t have and ending the lives of thousands upon thousands of people to stop it.

During rush hour they could be rolled down the subway steps in NYC resulting in massive bruising of shins.

[RTFirefly]

Following a link from K-Lo at The Corner, I wound up here where I (as Rufus) raised the question of whether these things can cause mass destruction. A poster named Redline argues in response that it’s a term of art - that all NBC weapons are WMDs, regardless of their actual lethality or destructive capacity.

I find that disingenious, because I can recall no indication in the popular media, either during the run-up to war or afterward, that the term “Weapons of Mass Destruction” was being defined in any way other than the natural way, given the definitions of the individual words. When NBC weapons were described as WMDs, well, we knew nukes could kill many thousands at one time, and the implication was that bio and chem weapons were being called WMDs because of their capacity to kill large numbers of people at once too.

Since this is a new argument not previously addressed in the thread, I thought I’d toss it in to see what people think of it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@RTFirefly

Following a link from K-Lo at The Corner, I wound up here where I (as Rufus) raised the question of whether these things can cause mass destruction. A poster named Redline argues in response that it’s a term of art - that all NBC weapons are WMDs, regardless of their actual lethality or destructive capacity.

I find that disingenious, because I can recall no indication in the popular media, either during the run-up to war or afterward, that the term “Weapons of Mass Destruction” was being defined in any way other than the natural way, given the definitions of the individual words. When NBC weapons were described as WMDs, well, we knew nukes could kill many thousands at one time, and the implication was that bio and chem weapons were being called WMDs because of their capacity to kill large numbers of people at once too.

Since this is a new argument not previously addressed in the thread, I thought I’d toss it in to see what people think of it.

Here’s where “Redline” is full of shit:

While it’s true that WMD are technically defined as nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (NBC), the chemical agents in these particular munitions are degraded to the point where they can no longer be weaponized as such. The issue is not really so much whether they were CHEMICAL but whether they are now chemical WEAPONS. They have no utility as chemical weapons, therefore they are not WMD.

Redline’s insistence that WMD is a “term of art” is especially disingenuous since it was precisely that term of art – precisely USED as a term of art – that was exploited to sell the war.

[Shodan]

@RTFirefly

Following a link from K-Lo at The Corner, I wound up here where I (as Rufus) raised the question of whether these things can cause mass destruction. A poster named Redline argues in response that it’s a term of art - that all NBC weapons are WMDs, regardless of their actual lethality or destructive capacity.

I find that disingenious, because I can recall no indication in the popular media, either during the run-up to war or afterward, that the term “Weapons of Mass Destruction” was being defined in any way other than the natural way, given the definitions of the individual words. When NBC weapons were described as WMDs, well, we knew nukes could kill many thousands at one time, and the implication was that bio and chem weapons were being called WMDs because of their capacity to kill large numbers of people at once too.

Since this is a new argument not previously addressed in the thread, I thought I’d toss it in to see what people think of it.

[The most widely used definition is that of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons (NBC). http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/mtcr_anx.html]), although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition.](WMD - Wikipedia)

ISTM that WMD is a class of weapons, not a size. YMMV.

Regards,
Shodan

[Revenant_Threshold]

Shodan, are you actually saying that a pinch of sarin is a WMD? One that would provoke invasion of another country to remove the threat from?

I understand the usual citing of a definition from a source, but I can’t agree that WMD-status doesn’t depend at all on size or quantity. Is that honestly what you’re arguing?

[Squink]

@Revenant Threshold

Shodan, are you actually saying that a pinch of sarin is a WMD?

The 18,000 acres now planted to castor beans – mostly in California,Arizona and Oklahoma – is triple that of last year and, soon, is expected to reach 120,000 acres.

This represents more than a ‘pinch’ of Ricin. Shall we tremble in fear over this grave and gathering danger? What about castor bean fields in less than friendly nations? Do they provide a legitimate rationale for invasion?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

These munitions are no longer chemical weapons. They are not WMD even under the most tendentious definition. The fact that not even the White House is trying to call them WMD shows just how lame that claim really is.

[Loopydude]

Isn’t this kind of “fish in a barrel” at this point? I feel like all that’s left of this thread is the equivalent of arguing against superstition with a palm reader.

[RTFirefly]

@Shodan

[The most widely used definition is that of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons (NBC). http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/mtcr_anx.html]), although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition.](WMD - Wikipedia)

ISTM that WMD is a class of weapons, not a size. YMMV.

Regards,
Shodan

In places like discussion amongst arms-treaties experts, I’m sure it is. But that was precisely my point - that this was a term-of-art usage amongst specialists that differed substantially from the understanding of the term among the American citizenry.

Find me three cites in the popular press during the run-up to war where an article, editorial, or op-ed made it clear that the ability to cause mass death or destruction wasn’t a prerequisite for a weapon to be classified as a “weapon of mass destruction.” Happy hunting.

[rjung]

@Loopydude

Isn’t this kind of “fish in a barrel” at this point? I feel like all that’s left of this thread is the equivalent of arguing against superstition with a palm reader.

Sure, but there’s some perversely pathetic humor to be derived from watching the palm reader run around with his hands over his ears while singing “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” at the top of his voice.

[ululate]

@RTFirefly

In places like discussion amongst arms-treaties experts, I’m sure it is. But that was precisely my point - that this was a term-of-art usage amongst specialists that differed substantially from the understanding of the term among the American citizenry.

Heh. You know, if “chemical weapons” qualify as WMDs regardless of their ability to cause mass destruction, the Bush administration can at will produce the arsenal of some Baghdad police department and claim mission accomplished. “Jesus, look at all those tear-gas grenades next to the rubber bullets and the rest of the riot gear! Saddam was in breach after all!”

[BrainGlutton]

@Shodan

ISTM that WMD is a class of weapons, not a size.

:rolleyes:

1. For purposes of justifying the invasion, Shodan, the salient question was what damage Hussein could actually do with whatever was in his arsenal.

2. And for those purposes, the cache mentioned in the OP would have merited no attention or concern whatsoever.

3. Both of which facts are so stunningly obvious I should not have to point them out to you.

[Merijeek]

@BrainGlutton

3. Both of which facts are so stunningly obvious I should not have to point them out to you.

But he’s hoping you’ll attrit eventually.

So, is there a universally accepted standard for “chemical weapon”? Bleach and vinegar? Freon and a lighter?

-Joe

[Squink]

@Merijeek

-Joe

What, no Limerick?

[BrainGlutton]

@Squink

What, no Limerick?

Shodan knows just how to o’ercome
The denial of liberal scum
That Hussein’s WMD’s
Would bring us to our knees
Repeat lies, plug your ears tight, and hum!

[David_Simmons]

@BrainGlutton

1. For purposes of justifying the invasion, Shodan, the salient question was what damage Hussein could actually do with whatever was in his arsenal.

According to Ron Suskind in his bookThe One Percent Doctrine the amount of damage is immaterial. According to him Cheney has enunciated a doctrine that if there is the slightest suspicion on our part of any damage whatever to the US, we are entitled to strike.

How about that for an approach to international relations?