Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
A word about WMDs
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, June 22, 2006

And a short one at that.

Finding 500 1991 vintage artillery shells with mustard or sarin gas proves two things.

A) the inspectors didn't find all of the WMDs in Iraq despite the claims of some team members and Saddam hadn't gotten rid of them all despite his claims to the contrary. Neither come as any surprise.

B) WMDs did exist in Iraq when the invasion took place.

So to all the WMD deniers, that meme is dead.

However, it doesn't prove:

A) Saddam had an ongoing WMD program.

B) That the intelligence was right about WMDs.

Remember, the intelligence said the capability existed and that his ties with terrorists combined with this capability were what posed the threat.

I agree with this Defense Department official's assesment:
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
So while an interesting find, I don't see it as particularly significant.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
and not the WMDs for which this country went to war
I think that official will regret that specific choice of wording, since it implies no other reason for going to war. I’m sure we’ll be seeing a lot more of that quote in the future.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
I agree with his point, however.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Lies...Fabrications...Politically Timed Release...Distract Us From Rove’s Indictment/Testimony Against Cheney...Quagmire...Redeploy.
HAH, beat you Capt. Joe.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I agree with his point, however.
I don’t. The WMDs that Iraq had in 1991 were supposed to be destroyed for Saddam to be compliant with the cease-fire agreement. 500 artillery shells are a lot of munitions to forget about especially when Saddam was claiming full compliance up to the start of the war.

That official’s first two points were accurate. He should have not said the portion that quoted earlier in the thread, IMO. YMMV and probably does.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
B) WMDs did exist in Iraq when the invasion took place.

So to all the WMD deniers, that meme is dead.
I don’t think the "WMD deniers" ever denied the possibility that some old defunct shells may be discovered. It’s nice spin, but it entirely misses the point.
 
Written By: Rosensteel
URL: http://
Curse you joe!!!!

;)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Actually, I don’t find the "revelation" nearly as interesting as the media’s near silence on the subject.

Even a "discredited" find of WMDs ought to be worth a mention, doncha think?

 
Written By: Cassandra
URL: http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/
Actually, I don’t find the "revelation" nearly as interesting as the media’s near silence on the subject.

Even a "discredited" find of WMDs ought to be worth a mention, doncha think?
Not really. This isn’t the first time that minor findings to this extent have been revealed to the public. I seem to recall several, off the top of my head. Everytime this happens certain groups on the internet claim it as vindication, meanwhile their counterparts in the mainstream (including the administration itself) brush off some findings because they realize how petty and inconsequential they are.

Why is the media’s silence on the subject telling, but the administrations silence on the subject not?
 
Written By: Rosensteel
URL: http://
Even a "discredited" find of WMDs ought to be worth a mention, doncha think?
To a point, however, we’ve done this before when a few arty rounds were previously found. And Fox and WaPo did mention it. But in all seriousness, it doesn’t really merit that much coverage.

When I first heard it I assumed it was a recent find and that it was some proof that there had been production post 1991. Or should I say when I heard all the hoopla about it I made those assumptions.

But it was 2003 stuff and pre-’91 to boot. Not worth the hoopla.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net

500 artillery shells are a lot of munitions to forget about especially when Saddam was claiming full compliance up to the start of the war.


Not that much when chemical weapons were used so liberally during the Iran-Iraq war. From UNMOVIC, at least 200K such shells and warheads were made by Iraq. Such shells and rockets were found by UNMOVIC at different times — they found 16.

Now, if there were some strong indication of an ongoing program or even of some strong proof of intent to reuse these, it would be very interesting, but as is, no.

Remember that we have all but one of Saddam’s top officials (excluding his dead sons). We also have the vast documents of the bureaucracy. We have top scientists. If there were proof of an ongoing program, why did the ISG not find it ? [ Spare me conspiracy theories about the ISG being filled with Clinton moles]

 
Written By: Mark m
URL: http://
The NYT and the Wash post have more detailed articles on this today. The NYT also has a profile of a WMD hunter. Its quite respectful of him, and doesn’t portray him as a kook.
 
Written By: Mark m
URL: http://
Ice cubes are not icebergs.
Santorum’s foofaraw, no more, no less.
 
Written By: Dale
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider