MOE, LARRY, CURLY: THERE WERE NO WMD!

Did you know WMDs have been found in Iraq?
* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

This is only a PARTIAL LIST of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet, Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces found NO weapons of mass destruction.

The question is… WHY do they believe this (”No WMD”) lie?

Hmm. Maybe The New York Times should be nominating Judith Miller for a Pulitzer instead of considering firing her.
_____________________

UPDATE: I have learned that these stats and much, much more are in a new book by Richard Miniter called “Disinformation: 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror,” which has officially moved to the top of my Christmas list.

UPDATE 2: In response to Comment 1 below, I have included links to stories from sources I would hope the commenter considers “actual news,” specifically (listed in order of appearance):
- a US embassy press release (7/8/04), based on a 7/6/04 Department of Energy press statement.
- The Washington Post (8/14/05).
- SFgate.com via AP (7/2/04).
- Military.com via AP (7/7/04).
- CNN (for mustard gas-5/17/04).
- Fox News (for sarin gas-5/17/04).

More here from Tom over at Bizzzy Blog and me

Meanwhile.......................EUROPE IS BURNING!
The Paris Intifada continues: Sixth Night of Violence Erupts Near Paris

The Dutch resist. The French fold under pressure. There's more on young Danes rioting for the last 4 days. In France, the riots by French muslim youth in Clichy sous Bois are inspiring youths in other suburbs to copy and paste.
hat tip Tom P via no-pasaran
                                                    

Comments

[monkyboy]

"Roadside bombs" are WMD?

By the above list, the cluster bombs the U.S. regularly drops on buildings in crowded cities are WMD.

Are we using WMD on civilians in Iraq?

I think you can stop beating this dead horse. Bush, Cheney and Rummy all admit they never found any real WMD in Iraq.

Or ties between Saddam and 9/11 either.

[wxjames]

I could be wrong, but I think it is Richard Miniter.
At any rate, why let facts get in the way of a leftist crusade against efficient, effective military action in defense of America. Don't you realize that future elections may hinge on this ongoing fabrication ?

Okay, back to earth: Does anybody think that the situations in Gaza, Left Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Indonesia, Thailand and Euroabia will end without a fight ?
Okay, how about this; Will any of the above end peacefully ? Any, come on, anybody.....

[Pamela aka"Atlas"]

Monkeybrain,
Promise me one thing, please.
Remember all the things you've said as they are sawing your head off.
Best, Pamela

[Amador]

Monkey scat, why don't you run for office ?
Surely you live in an area full of jerks who can't see the forest, and get their news from Dan Rather. You just don't make a dent, kid. In your mind, it all fits, but we who know the facts consider you a late bloomer and self-misinformed by nature. It may be a chemical imbalance, then it may be an uncontrolled desire to be noticed, or a need to debate trivial factors ad nauseum. Whatever, I hope you snap out of it and join the flow, the obvious overwhelming current.
It's out there, you will find it.

[irishlad317]

The point missed by the left is that Saddam was dangerous with WMD. Right? OK... so we didn't find the stockpiles the intelligence community of the entire world said would be there. However, in the same report that said the stockpiles weren't there, it was made clear that Saddam's intention was to get the sanctions lifted and then resume production of WMD. (see http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi-06.htm) So, even if Saddam had actually destroyed the WMD, his lack of cooperation with UNSC Res. 1441, which would have included telling us where and how he destroyed the WMD (something he, in the worst political decision ever, refused to do), was reason to go in. The report that he intended to reconstitute the WMD program, including the nuclear program, means that, even if at the moment he didn't have WMD, he would've had them again in a short period of time. So, if Saddam was dangerous with stockpiles on-hand, was he not equally as dangerous with the ability and desire to create new stockpiles? This is NOT difficult to understand. The point is that Saddam was obsessed with WMD. It was WMD that gave him (perceived) power in the region and the world.

As I recall, shortly after he was captured he said that there were no WMD, but he wanted the world to continue to believe they were there. Insane? Yeah. But, Saddam was considered a "madman" by both sides of the isle, so why wouldn't he be making insane decisions? Shouldn't be a surprise.

Bottom line: If he was dangerous with stockpiles of WMD, he was just as dangerous with the ability to reconstitue the program. His continuing desire to possess them, his ongoing ability to do so (all those "dual-use" facilities) and the threat that he might pass them to others to use against us (remember, Zarqawi was welcomed in Iraq before Operation Iraqi Freedom), justifies the war just as surely as if we'd found stockpiles.

[Sizzle]

Well, the dems have shown there is nothing better to do than waste time and money in a theatrical effort to smear the current administration. This has to be some type of admission that really doing beneficial work for the nation is only a comedy as this sideshow suggests.
Keep something in mind, before the tool gets its head sawed off it would certainly conform to Islam…..It hss almost conformed already.
Still not sure who tool is referring to when it says “we” and “us”. Must have some Islamic context!

[Tom Blumer]

Monkyboy--Until you refute EVERY sourced claim above (with sourced claims from "actual news" sources, as all of the above are), don't waste your time.

YOUR side is saying there were NO WMDs, so YOUR side has set the bar that high.

Good luck.

BizzyBlog

[Conservatus Maximus]

Monkyboy:

The Democrats are like Oliver Stone on acid. Stuck on the Grassy Knoll. As Churchill said, they occasionally stumble over the truth; but pick themselves up and move on as if nothing had happened.

Also, speaking of lack of evidence, where's the evidence of "the cluster bombs the U.S. regularly drops on buildings in crowded cities. . ."?

[Sizzle]

Who will rescue the French this time?

[Pamela aka"Atlas"]

Who will indeed?

[Ben]

Monkyboy,

You've got to tell me, because I'm really curious, and its got me both stumped and fascinated. How does it work? Obviously, human consciousness is a mutable thing, but when you read "roadside bombs" do you subconsciously edit out the words "with mustard and sarin gas", or is it a deliberate effort on your part? I know these things can be physical, real effects, I mean, there have been all sorts of documented strange twists of the mind in the pages of Scientific American. People can even vividly "remember" events that never happened. But still- what does it take to predispose someone to simply not see words?

The real irony of the whole thing is the complete mythology that has grown up around "WMD". It has become a substitute for the more exact military phrase "Nuclear, Biological, Chemical", usually initialled "NBC". It used to be "ABC" but for reasons I'm not clear on they replaced "Atomic" with "Nuclear" in the NATO lexicon. So, NBC tells you something- WMD is meaningless political phrase. Think about it- Weapons of Mass Destruction. What the hell does that mean? Yes, a B-52 strike or a hundred suicide bombers can cause a lot more destruction than a large mustard gas bomb.

Maybe we should have gone with "Weapons that can cause panic". Lord knows the effect of a small chemical or "dirty" attack on a major city would be minor compared to the effects of the induced panic.

But let's face it, what we REALLY meant was "weapons that can cause a lot of death and destruction to civilians, if used in the manner in which our enemy generally employs them." The HOW is as important as the WHAT. A weapon is a tool, like any other, and, well, have you ever heard the phrase "any tool is a hammer in an emergency"? Just about any tool is a weapon when you choose to use it as such. Taken in terms of passenger miles per unit of energy expenditure, a jumbo jet is a great tool for transportation. Given the mindset of the enemy, it makes a terribly effective Weapon of Mass Destruction, does it not? Just like, with the proper frame of mind, the magazine of an M-16 rifle makes an effective bottle opener. It's in the mind.

And this is where the real search for WMD is- in the mind. This goes back to that mutability of consciousness thing I started with. We see a bakery delivery truck, the enemy sees a great weapon which can, if used properly, kill a hundred or more in a crowded market or schoolyard. Reality is a Necker Cube. Yes, we've probably hit a market or two, but remember, we're not trying to do that. When we kill a civilian, its an inadvertant and tragic outcome of a necessary task, when the enemy does so, its a job well done. Different? Yes, like an ambulance driver inadvertantly hitting a pedestrian while rushing a heart attack victim to a hospital, and a pathological maniac steering his car onto a sidewalk, because that's where the women with the baby carriages are. The difference is very real and yet entirely subjective, what you see in the Necker Cube.

(You see, I'm a real liberal- I believe in the existence of a subjective reality)

So we are searching for WMDs, in the best places to find them, minds, and apparently, we are finding them in spades. The problem is, if you have the mindset of the enemy, "WMD" is such an amorphous concept- if all you have is a tire iron, it can be a WMD if your decide to make a day care center full of toddlers into your target.

And there is an "Aha"- if you see nothing else here, if whatever blinded you to the words "mustard" and "sarin" take this much: this is a fundamental difference in the way we kill and the way they kill. By Fate or Fortune, we have a target, and then try to select the weapon that will most effectively do the job. But with them it's the opposite: Fate or Fortune hands them a weapon, and then they choose the target most likely to be hurt by it. One of our warriors sees an insurgent on a rooftop, and says "how can I attack him, and with what weapon?" while the insurgent says "I have a mortar, how can I use it so as to create the most harm?". It is a contest of opposites. Again, it's a war of minds and world views- one or the other will prevail. In that frame, what is a WMD, really? And who can say we haven't found any?

[irishlad317]

P.S. to Monkeyboy... The administration never said there were ties between 9/11 and Iraq. The left created this falsehood that they said that and discovered there was none. The administration said there were ties between Iraq and terrorists, and there were. Also, interesting things have come to light regarding direct ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, such as emmissaries from Saddam meeting with Bin Laden, the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war, bringing a member of the al Qaeda team from the first WTC bombing into Iraq and supporting him, etc. In addition there were the terror training camps, payments to Palestinian homicide bombers, the presence of Abu Nidal, etc. There are also reports from foreign sources that Iraqi Intelligence Service agents just happened to be hanging around in the same places that the 9/11 crew was doing their planning and preparation for their mission. It's easy to say, "Iraq had no connection to 9/11" (as though you KNOW it's true, when the Senate report actually only said they had no proof that there was a connection, but no proof there was a connection does not equal proof there wasn't a connection). However, that bumpersticker statement doesn't account for connections to terrorists, including al Qaeda, and the possible ramifications thereof when the person in question not only hates the US, but is also bent on becoming a hero to the Arab world... a position he hoped to secure by victory over the US.

An aside: has anyone seen that photo of the painting of Saddam smoking a cigar with a pleased look on his face in front of the burning WTC towers? Was he expressing pleasure, or was he bragging?

[Patrick Chester]

Ben: No, I think monkeyboy simply has a deep hatred of strawmen, so he keeps setting them up and knocking them down with utter abandon.

(I mean, where the hell did he get the "roadside bombs as WMD" from Pamela's article? That's right: it's not there, MONKEYBOY brought it up, pretended Pamela was saying that and was all mocking to "refute" a claim she never made. I guess the Strawman Nation should ask themselves why Monkeyboy hates them, and surrender immediately.)

[neverforget]

The final CIA report said very clearly that Hussein had well-developed plans to re-start his WMD programs once the UN monitoring ended.

As an aside, all of you should check Zell Miller's article in the Antlata Journal-Consitution for the real story about Plam, Wilson, and rogue CIA officials.

[neverforget]

The final CIA report said very clearly that Hussein had well-developed plans to re-start his WMD programs once the UN monitoring ended.

As an aside, all of you should check Zell Miller's article in the Atlanta Journal-Consitution for the real story about Plame, Wilson, and rogue CIA officials.

[Patrick Chester]

"* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency"

Okay, I should not post before the caffeine kicks in. Unfortunately, this is not saying IEDs are WMDs. It's saying that the terrorists picked up a chemical shell and tried to use it as an IED, and if I recall the incident correctly, it didn't work because the terrorists didn't know it was a chemical shell and it didn't detonate properly.

Monkeyboy's still slaughtering strawment left and right, alas.

[Rancher]

First, I've heard nothing about any cluster bomb ever being drop on cities, I say BS, (or MS), show me a credible link monkytroll. And Bagdad Bob, Fisk, and others spreading Saddam’s propaganda are not credible at least not by me. As to WMDs I guess if you define it as something that can take out whole cities, then no we haven’t found large enough amounts of these chemical weapons, delivery systems, nukes, etc. But the Bush lied meme isn’t going to fly. today Rush was listing quote after quote after quote from everyone on the left saying Saddam had WMDs. Hillary, Bill, Kerry, Kenedy, everybody was saying this

[Cousin Dave]

I'm still not convinced that there weren't WMDs. So maybe we haven't found a lot of them. But we know that at one time Saddam had chem and bio weapons (just ask the Kurds). So the question is: what went with them? Disposing of these types of things isn't just a matter of throwing out the trash. You can't just drive out in the country somewhere and pour out all the leftover sarin that you've had laying around in the garage. Even if you lived to tell about it, the dumped material would leave traces that would be detectable for a long time. It takes some pretty sophisticated, costly, and bulky equipment to destroy some of this stuff, and even then, it usually leaves residues that are detectable.

But we haven't found anything like that. No disposal sites. No cement kilns with suspicious residues around. No traces of anything being dumped. We know Saddan had the stuff at one time. So what went with it? Clearly it wasn't destroyed. The only logical answer is that it went somewhere else. Syria is my guess.

[monkyboy]

On the Demos delaying Congress - Let's not forget Congress(and Bush) just got back from a month long vacation, and they were scheduled to be on vacation again from this week through January...

As far as reasons we went to war, the only thing that matters is the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

You can read it here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

I see nuclear weapons mentioned four times.

I see 9/11 mentioned four times.

I see references to prior U.N. resolutions on Iraq, but, seeing as the U.S. couldn't even get a majority of the U.N. Security council to agree to military action against Iraq, those points are moot.

In short, every reason for war against Iraq listed in the Joint Resolution turned out to be wrong.

That is what all the fuss is about...

Spin away!

[Tom Blumer]

the U.S. couldn't even get a majority of the U.N. Security council to agree to military action against Iraq, those points are moot.

They were corrupted and bribed by Oil for Food money. As in, BFD that they didn't agree.

[irishlad317]

Monkeyboy, you read that document and found that "every reason for war against Iraq listed in the Joint Resolution turned out to be wrong"? Really? All I can say is: Wow. That's amazing. Nice going. I would've thought the left avoids talking about it because it's so obvious that there were so many reasons above and beyond WMD listed in there, including the left's own 1998 resolution calling for regime change because Saddam is a danger to the US. Little did I know that lefties believe all those reasons were wrong too. Amazing.

[monkyboy]

Yes, irish, even liberals are wrong once in a while. At least they admit it.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

[Conservatus Maximus]

Wow. Everyone piles on Monkeyboy.

I almost want to take the other side. You know, to make things fair.

Just kidding.

[lowandslow]

The irony of it is, the west is hated by so many is because of people like monkyboy. Elitist snobs that think they know what's best for everyone without really knowing anything at all. I can tell by his posts he looks down his nose at all of us here. Yet he never has anything to offer as alternative solution, mainly because he isn't all that bright, still he thinks he is.
Tell us monkyboy what should the U.S. policy be in defending ourselves and the World from constant threats from radical tyrants?

[monkyboy]

Well, l&s, I'd hope that spending half a trillion dollars a year would provide us some safety from all the bad people that worry you so. Especially if we just focus on the ones that actually attack us.

[lowandslow]

monkyboy

Especially if we just focus on the ones that actually attack us.

The ones that 'actually' attacked us are dust along with about 3000 irreplaceable decent human beings. Are you that stupid to believe that it is only al Qaeda that wishes our destruction? If you can't or refuse to see that the threat is far larger than that, you're a fool.

[monkyboy]

You are exactly right, l&s. The ones who attacked us are dead. It's tragic that 3000 people died in the attack. It's also tragic that the world loses over 50 million irreplaceable humans each year.

Many people may wish our destruction, but few will act on that wish. I can't help you with your fear. All I can suggest is that you try to be as brave as the average Iraqi citizen, trying to live their life in the hell we have turned their country into in the name of our own safety...

[Pamela]

"trying to live their life in the hell we have turned their country into in the name of our own safety..."

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? Purple finger hell? I would give my eyes, my legs, my arms to live under the cacophony of freedom than the silence of totalitarianism.

MONkeybrain, me thinks ye full of shite.

Final warning..........this aint discourse this is no course.
My men died today, they died. They understood. And there you stand pud in hand making a case for what? In G-d's name what is it that you want? ..............dhimmitude?

The GO! Go to Paris or Sweden or France or Denmark or Londansitan or Gaza............just go

[Billmil]

Lets see, Saddam did in fact use both nerve agents against the Kurds and mustard and other blister agents against the Iranians, this is all well documented. So for any liberal to doubt their possession and use is simply ridiculous.
The question needs to be, where did they go? Moving the chemicals that make up these agents or even finished weapons themselves would not be that hard. Simply load them in a truck and drive away. We probably have airborne intell from the JSTARS A/C that were deployed in theater prior to our forces crossing into Iraq that show evidence of these convoys departing known chemical locations and driving to Syria. I’m personally convinced that this is the case and that these agents are in Syria and the Assad government is waiting for the other shoe to drop. As far as monkey boys claim “By the above list, the cluster bombs the U.S. regularly drops on buildings in crowded cities are WMD.” What an asshat, men like him should serve a hitch, see what threats are really out there and then they may get a clue of why we are fighting. Number one you do not use cluster munitions against building and such, they are an area weapon designed to disperse across the target field. The warheads are generally the size of softballs. What we do like to do is use various sizes and types of LGB’s (laser guided bombs) which due give our crew s the ability to pinpoint a specific Bld and take it out. I have friends who are target planners and they assign the weapon that is needed to get the job done. No sense in dropping a GBU-10 2000lb weapon when you can get the job done with a GBU-12 500lbs weapon.

[Eg]

Rescuing the Fwrench? Indeed. To be more to the point I'd be asking, 'Who has the fork?'

[Sizzle]

Monkeycrap, you insist on we and us, when really, you are them. I am sure you get considerable stimulation to all the attention you receive.
Folks like you are my fear. Head so far in your colon only feces comes out when you try to communicate.
Misinterpretation, misrepresentation and disingenuous commentary are your stimuli for fecal propelled cerebral hemorrhaging. Unfortunately, you see this as entertainment. To me, I see it as treason, and find a traitor less than as virtuous as the romantic left would portray it to be.
Feel confident you have annoyed some people with your traitorous comments. But please understand that you have earned attention not because your views are of any social or entertaining value but that you are receiving notoriety for being below the pedestal of value someone might offer to a bad dose of head lice.

[monkyboy]

Sorry you feel that way, Sizzle.

I don't think of myself as a traitor, just someone who disagrees with our current effort in Iraq.

Tactically, it seems our troops are using the wrong equipment and tactics for the task at hand. When I see our Marines driving near the Syrian border in lightly armored amphibious landing craft, I know the administration could care less about their safety.

Strategically, I question whether removing Iran's biggest enemy in the region from power and handing over Iraq to the Shiites will make us safer in the long run.

On our use of cluster bombs in Iraq:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2912105.stm

[lowandslow]

monkyboy
Reread your last post, still no alternatives, just bitching.
Why don't you answer some of the questions posed to you.

Tell us monkyboy what should the U.S. policy be in defending ourselves and the World from constant threats from radical tyrants? or, In G-d's name what is it that you want? ..............dhimmitude?

Waiting.

[Sizzle]

ou keep scratching away

[monkyboy]

l&s

Our policy should be:

1. Keep our defenses up
2. Strike back hard at anyone who actually attacks us

[Sizzle]

Our policy should be:

1. Keep our defenses up
2. Strike back hard at anyone who actually attacks us

You are stuck on stupid....

[Billmil]

Once again the asshat monkey boy speaks, on our use of cluster bombs in Iraq: and gives the BBC link. I guess he thought I was saying we didn’t use them, wrong answer. The left constantly wails about these weapons and I’ve never been able to figure out why. In days past we used to use napalm on targets that we now use cluster munitions on. Of course the left was not happy with napalm either. It seems the only time they are happy is when US Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are killed. Civilian casualties are a fact of life no one likes it and we go to extraordinary measures to reduce the number of civilians killed.
Now as far as cluster munitions we use them; and they are a very effective weapon against area targets. What we don’t due is use them on building in built up areas because this is not effective. The main issue with cluster bombs is the same with any monition. There will be a percentage of weapons that fail to detonate and then they create a hazard for civilians later. Any unexploded ordnance is a dangerous thing and should be avoided. Shoot when I was stationed in the Netherlands in the mid 80’s on a routine basis whenever a new building was built either on base or in the area there was a darn good chance that the construction guys would find an unexploded bomb. This would give EOD something to do and they would secure it. The ironic thing is most of the ordnance found were bomb dropped in WWII by either the 8th AF or the RAF since Holland was occupied by the nazi’s.

[protonavy]

monkeybone,
You wish to "keep our defenses up"
and "Strike back hard at anyone who actually attacks us"...Let's think back to the last time this worked out so well. Ah yes this worked up until December 6th 1941.