July 01, 2004

More WMD

Does this even matter any more? Or do the moving targets of "stockpiles" and "imminent threats" make it irrelevant to the critics?

A week ago, Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group charged with looking for WMD in Iraq, recently said that they had found "10 or 12 sarin and mustard gas shells" in various locations in Iraq.

Yesterday in a radio interview, Don Rumsfeld relayed the reports from the Polish minister of defense that Polish forces had also discovered 16 or 17 shells that contained mustard and sarin in the last few days.

If properly used in an urban environment, one shell with sarin gas can kill 10,000 people.

Via the Command Post.

Posted by richard at July 1, 2004 05:26 PM

How many people can a MOAB kill if "properly used" in an urban environment?

Posted by: Brad A. at July 2, 2004 11:29 AM

Right, because as Saddam said, "Bush is the real criminal."

Posted by: richard at July 2, 2004 12:30 PM

But it's an artificial distinction, isn't it, between "Weapons of Mass Destruction," which we don't like, and "MOABs" and "Daisy Cutters" and "Bunker Busters," which we watch explode and say, GODDAMN, ain't it somethin' else what those eggheads in the DOD kin build fer us?

I fully expected to get ripped here; I'm still at a fever-pitch from seeing Fahrenheit 9/11, and I figured I bit off more than I could chew with that line. I didn't even know what my point was when I clicked "Post." My head is so far up my butt right now it sees daylight on the far side.

I'm pleasantly surprised, though, to see that my inane comment was met with just another "We're not as bad as Saddam" argument.

Well, no shit. What else have you got? Because I laid myself wide-open on this one, and you fired a suction-cup dart at me.

Where's the MOAB?

Posted by: Brad A. at July 2, 2004 12:47 PM

I figured your throw-away ridiculous comment didn't need more than one in return.

But, to respond more fully, why stop at MOABs? We have thermonuclear bombs, we can destroy the world. Will we? Probably not. And we probably won't use a MOAB, properly or otherwise, in an urban environment. To kill everyone hiding in a cave, maybe. To destroy an underground weapons facility, maybe. But not to destroy a city.

Our enemies in this war, will not hesitate to do so. So yes, in the end, it is that we are better than Saddam, that we are better than al Qaeda. So sue me for thinking that the French nuclear weapons are less concern than North Korean, that US daisy-cutters are okay but Iraqi sarin not, that UK anthrax strains are okay but al Qaeda's ricin not.

I won't back down from that position – even (especially) when pressed by someone hopped up on Mooreish delight.

Posted by: richard at July 2, 2004 01:14 PM