Friday, June 30, 2006
Curt Weldon, WMD Expert. (Not.)
By the way, remember the ancient and deteriorated "WMD" Santorum and Weldon are yammering about? A real WMD expert (not Curt Weldon) confirms what we already knew: You have chemicals under your kitchen sink that are more dangerous. The stuff Weldon and Company are whining about? It stopped being WMD about a quarter of a century ago.
Comments:
<< Home
What about this quote from Reuters from Lt Gen Michael Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and, I would assume, an expert on WMD.
From Reuters: "If the chemical agent, sarin, was removed from the munitions and repackaged, it could be lethal. Its release in a U.S. city, in certain circumstances, would be devastating, Maples said."
From Reuters: "If the chemical agent, sarin, was removed from the munitions and repackaged, it could be lethal. Its release in a U.S. city, in certain circumstances, would be devastating, Maples said."
# posted by 
: 6/30/2006 09:15:00 AM
: 6/30/2006 09:15:00 AM
So could the contents of most people's medicine cabinets, Anonymous.
I heard a bit of Maples do his dance before the Congress, with Ellen Tauscher. I guess Maples hasn't learned to lie very well, because it was pretty pathetic. Tauscher wasn't impressed, either. Her statement:
The munitions cited in this report were produced in the 1980s and are aged, degraded, and in no way demonstrate that after 1991 Saddam Hussein was producing, manufacturing or stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. These weapons do not pose an imminent threat to the United States, and certainly do not justify the pre-emptive strike led us into a three year war and cost the lives of more than 2,500 American soldiers.
So Maples was lying. Something we have come to expect from this Administration. Sad that military officers are whoring this way.
I heard a bit of Maples do his dance before the Congress, with Ellen Tauscher. I guess Maples hasn't learned to lie very well, because it was pretty pathetic. Tauscher wasn't impressed, either. Her statement:
The munitions cited in this report were produced in the 1980s and are aged, degraded, and in no way demonstrate that after 1991 Saddam Hussein was producing, manufacturing or stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. These weapons do not pose an imminent threat to the United States, and certainly do not justify the pre-emptive strike led us into a three year war and cost the lives of more than 2,500 American soldiers.
So Maples was lying. Something we have come to expect from this Administration. Sad that military officers are whoring this way.
Anonymous: Real experts, and not pro-Bush liars, know that chemical weapons a) typically have a useful life of five years at best, and b) are very difficult to use as WMD. (Remember the Tokyo subway attack? That killed a little over a dozen people, and that took place in an enclosed space. Out in the open air, it's highly unlikely anyone would have died.)
Want to be scared of an actual threat to America and freedom? Check out Bush's use of signing statements to override the will of Congress.
Want to be scared of an actual threat to America and freedom? Check out Bush's use of signing statements to override the will of Congress.
Sorry, didn't realize the only WMD experts were those who agreed with your position. Oh, and Ellen Tauscher a Democratic Members of Congress. Obviously the head of DIA doesn't qualify. Sheesh.
# posted by : 6/30/2006 07:58:00 PM
: 6/30/2006 07:58:00 PM
He doesn't qualify when he is lying, Anonymous.
This whole issue was hashed out years ago by the scientific and arms control community. This is the CIA's summary of the Bush Administration Duelfer Report:
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter...ISG did not discover chemical process or production units configured to produce key precursors or CW agents...we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items.
So they didn't produce any weapons in bulk and they destroyed their existing weapons in 1991. That left ancient munitions.
To quote the Federation of American Scientists:
When the Iraqis produced chemical munitions they appeared to adhere to a "make and use" regimen. Judging by the information Iraq gave the United Nations, later verified by on-site inspections, Iraq had poor product quality for their nerve agents. This low quality was likely due to a lack of purification. They had to get the agent to the front promptly or have it degrade in the munition. This problem would have been less severe in their mustard rounds because of less aggressive impurities. The problem of degradation inhibited their ability to deploy and employ nerve weapons but probably did not have a great effect on their use of mustard....The chemical munitions found in Iraq after the Gulf War contained badly deteriorated agents and a significant proportion was visibly leaking.
To quote cbwinfo.com:
Iraq mass produced sarin during the Iran-Iraq war with the expectation that it would be used quickly, and they therefore skipped several purification steps. Fresh agent was about 60% pure and heavily contaminated with hydrogen fluoride (which, of course, also causes health problems in exposed individuals). When production caught up with demand, the Iraqis started storing their sarin in refrigerated "igloos" to prolong its storage life. However, even when stored in the igloos, the material rapidly degraded, becoming less than 10% pure within 2 years.
You don't know anything, but you think your opinion has any value whatsoever. You accuse people of being partisan because they know what they're talking about.
Ten to one, you're a Republican.
Post a Comment
This whole issue was hashed out years ago by the scientific and arms control community. This is the CIA's summary of the Bush Administration Duelfer Report:
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter...ISG did not discover chemical process or production units configured to produce key precursors or CW agents...we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items.
So they didn't produce any weapons in bulk and they destroyed their existing weapons in 1991. That left ancient munitions.
To quote the Federation of American Scientists:
When the Iraqis produced chemical munitions they appeared to adhere to a "make and use" regimen. Judging by the information Iraq gave the United Nations, later verified by on-site inspections, Iraq had poor product quality for their nerve agents. This low quality was likely due to a lack of purification. They had to get the agent to the front promptly or have it degrade in the munition. This problem would have been less severe in their mustard rounds because of less aggressive impurities. The problem of degradation inhibited their ability to deploy and employ nerve weapons but probably did not have a great effect on their use of mustard....The chemical munitions found in Iraq after the Gulf War contained badly deteriorated agents and a significant proportion was visibly leaking.
To quote cbwinfo.com:
Iraq mass produced sarin during the Iran-Iraq war with the expectation that it would be used quickly, and they therefore skipped several purification steps. Fresh agent was about 60% pure and heavily contaminated with hydrogen fluoride (which, of course, also causes health problems in exposed individuals). When production caught up with demand, the Iraqis started storing their sarin in refrigerated "igloos" to prolong its storage life. However, even when stored in the igloos, the material rapidly degraded, becoming less than 10% pure within 2 years.
You don't know anything, but you think your opinion has any value whatsoever. You accuse people of being partisan because they know what they're talking about.
Ten to one, you're a Republican.
<< Home
More blogs about politics.
