The Accidental WMD
The left is toddling around the WMD story like it's a big win for them. Oliver "Like Cream Cheese to Bagels" Willis says:
Either way, it's a far cry from stockpiles just outside Tikrit (as Rumsfeld said) or the capability to launch an attack on Europe in minutes (as Tony Blair said) or a mushroom cloud (as Bush said).
And of course, the imperial Secretary Rumsfeld refused to listen to the people who know and send an adequate amount of forces into Iraq in the first place, then at least whatever weapons or weapons material would have been secured.
Leave aside the left's incessant inconsitency (should we have more troops in Iraq, or none at all?) - the left seems to want to establish a acceptable level of WMDs in Iraq.
Problem is, that limit is already completely blown: Between the two sarin-armed artillery rounds, the recent discovery of mustard gas, and of course the huge, busted attack in Amman, any "acceptable" level of WMD in Iraq is long breached.
The Monkeys put it well yesterday, in response to Hugh Hewitt's interview of Ron Brownstein:
In poo-pooing the discovery/deployment of a sarin-containing artillery shell in Iraq (in addition to last week's mustard gas shell), Brownstein was asked if they had any bearing on the notion that "WMD's haven't been found." He said that they didn't, and pondered, "We don't even know where that shell came from." Brownstein was obviously suggesting that the artillery round could have been brought in from somewhere outside Iraq by someone other than Iraqis, but not in so many words.
Taking Brownstein's implication to its logical conclusion, I have to ask: if it's possible that chemical-weapon artillery shells were brought into Iraq in the time since its occupation, isn't it possible that chemical-weapon artillery shells were taken out of Iraq (say... into Syria?) during the many months between the obvious hardening of U.S. resolve for invasion and the point at which all of the hoops had been jumped through to make it happen? I'm bothered by Brownstein's implication that since we have not already uncovered an IKEA or Cosco of chemical, biological, and radiological nasties, there simply could not have been any.
What does the WMD discovery mean?
One of three things. Let's phrase them in the form of standard-issue leftist poo-poohings:
- It's just a couple of cannonballs - Ah. So what's the threshold of acceptable nerve gas in the hands of terrorists, genius?
- The terrorists got the shells by accident - Hm. So Sarin gas is lying around where any moron can grab it? That's comforting.
- It's still no proof that there are any significant numbers of WMDs in Iraq - Hm. So we're supposed to feel better that Iraq's fine, upstanding neighbors in Syria and Iran are supplying sarin gas and Allah knows what else?
So what's the
bad news?
Posted by Mitch at
May 18, 2004 06:19 AM
That was my second thought when I heard the stories. Either the stockpiles are hidden in plain sight ( the rounds were not apparantly marked as gas shells ), or they had been shipped in from the outside. If shipped in, they could even more easily have been shipped out (thank you Turkey).
I suppose there really is no reason to worry. I mean, who ever heard of terrorists using sarin gas to attack civillians? Did AUM Shinrikyo have an acceptable amount of sarin?
Posted by: aodhan at May 18, 2004 09:39 AMThe terrorists got the shells by accident - Hm. So Sarin gas is lying around where any moron can grab it? That's comforting.
Yeah, that's what we said when your asshole president and SecDef insisted that there was adequate troop strength in Iraq even as all the weapons caches were being looted.
Look, the goalposts aren't being moved -- we know the odd WMD component got buried in a scientist's flower garden or what-have-you. Saddam always wanted to restart this program. Thing is, he couldn't -- the heat was on.
The WMD threat you all promised us was there -- why wasn't it used between mid-March and the fall of Baghdad? Why wasn't it used in the year after that? Why isn't it being used now? One or two rusting weapons that's are almost as old as the Olsen Twins do not constitute a WMD program that justified ignoring al-Qaeda.
Posted by: Steve M. at May 18, 2004 09:59 AM1. Did enough chemicals to kill 80,000 Jordanians constitute a WMD program?
2. You think "adequate troops strength" would have taken every cache fast enough to stop the looting the the stockpiles Hans Blix still says didn't exist - i.e., instantly, as in moving at the speed of light?
3. "We" were taunting conservatives a few weeks ago, saying that "Bush Lied" about WMD. Whoah - he didn't.
4. I'm amazed when people call the President "simplistic" on the one hand, and then draw firm delineations between Al Quaeda and every other Islamofascist terror group on the other. As if there's a meaningful striation.
5. Our most recent a-hole president left office in 2000.
Posted by: mitch at May 18, 2004 10:17 AMAh... the "ignoring" Al-Qaeda accusation once again. You would have thought that such "ignorance" would lead to an environment where the terrorist group would thrive. But apparently we did such a good job "ignoring" them that since 9/11 they have been unable to launch an attack against the United States, and in fact, terrorist attacks world wide have declined. Maybe we should "ignore" them more often.
Posted by: the elder at May 18, 2004 10:48 AMTo Steve M: (perhaps I have an evil twin?)
The goalposts on the WMD issue have not only been moved, they've left the stadium entirely.
I can't imagine any WMD discovery that will convince the 'Bush Lied!!!' crowd. They are primarily motivated by hatred of Bush, and this subject is only a club to beat him with.
Posted by: Steve Meyer at May 18, 2004 10:55 AMWhat I want to know is, if the terrorists only had ONE artillery shell with WMD, why would they use it as a ROADSIDE BOMB?
Posted by: the markman at May 18, 2004 11:37 AMNow , Now Steve M.
I can take a lot of overblown rhetoric about Neocons and GWB Lied and Do you want Sarin gas with that War...
But dragging the Olsen Twins into this ? Thems fightin' words
My Seconds shall call upon you Sir!
Posted by: MisterFish at May 18, 2004 12:17 PMNo worry Steve, its not like it is being reported. After dozens of editorials and hundreds of letters to the editor and countless front page stories detailing the lack of WMD's found (none of which acknowledged they were hidden in flower gardens, Bush lied ya know) I think I stumbled accross it on A6 today. No story here, change the subject, ect ect ect.... BTW, did you hear about the prisoner abuse scandel?
Posted by: Dave at May 18, 2004 02:21 PM