The latest case concerns discussion of the "news" that Americans believe spin rather than facts, courtesy of a bylineless editorial opinion at New Jersey's the Record.
I happen to know something about the issue, since I wrote about it back when it could still be considered news (in the sense of being timely, July 26).
The editorial, as I noted in my comment over at TN, was hilarious.
The author admits that WMDs were found in Iraq, yet thinks strange the results of a Harris poll indicating the belief that Iraq possessed WMD leading up to the Iraq War increased from 36 percent to about 50 percent "despite the fact that, after the invasion, U.S. inspectors took 16 months and spent $900 million to conclude that Saddam had no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons leading up to the invasion."
A couple of paragraphs later, the author is apparently admitting the existence of the munitions publicized earlier this year by Senator Rick Santorum and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, both Republicans, yet without any acknowledgment that the admission contradicts the accuracy of the claim he earlier attributed to U.S. inspectors. Instead, those munitions apparently do not count since they are over 15 years old. As I wrote over at TN:
The author admits that Iraq had hundreds of WMD munitions at the beginning of the war, yet thinks that it is ridiculous that as many as 50% of Americans believe that Iraq possessed WMD.
I must have missed the part of UN resolution 1441 that made it okay for Iraq to keep undeclared caches of WMD.
(discussion thread)
DJEB was the first to reply, succeeding in getting a foot in his mouth within the space of two sentences.
Regarding the weapons, I've heard the claim by the Republican senators, I haven't seen any proof of their claims. Their claim goes directly against the finding of the ISG.
(discussion thread)
Too funny.
DJEB's site posted the editorial. The editorialist acknowledges the account of the weapons ("The containers are abandoned munitions at least 15 years old. Even the Pentagon says so.").
DJEB just picks and chooses what he wants to believe, apparently.
The editorial says that the "U.S. inspectors" flatly claimed that there were no weapons? Great, 'cause that's what DJEB believes.
The editorial acknowledges the existence of pre-Gulf War WMDs? Whoa! Where's the proof of that?
In fact, the editorial misrepresents the findings of the ISG.
From the initial Duelfer Report:
(Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD)
- Although only a fraction of Iraq's total munitions inventory was identified and exploited for CW rounds, a review of high priority facilities and munitions caches and locations identified prior to OIF as suspect CW storage or transfer sites, did not reveal caches of chemical weapons.
A few lines later:
(Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD)
- ISG technical experts fully evaluated less than one quarter of one percent of the over 10,000 weapons caches throughout Iraq, and visited fewer than 10 ammunition depots identified prior to OIF as suspect CW sites.
- The enormous number of munitions dispersed throughout the country may include some older, CW-filled munitions, and ISG cannot discount the possibility that a few large caches of munitions remain to be discovered within Iraq.
And from the report addendum:
Remaining Uncertainties. Some uncertainties remain and some information will continue to emerge about the WMD programs or the former regime. Reports cited in the Comprehensive Report concerning the possible movement of WMD or WMD materials from Iraq prior to the war remain unresolved.The U.S. inspectors conclude that there were no chemical or biological weapons in Iraq leading up to the invasion while remaining uncertain as to whether such weapons had been moved out of Iraq?
(.pdf, page 4)
That's rich, and clearly the burden of proof rests on those who interpret the report in like manner to substantiate the claim. In the interim, it is appropriately regarded as an error (if it's not instead an outright lie).
***
***
As usual, DJEB and _H_ fall all over themselves trying to defend either the article or some position that they feel is topically related to the article.
After his initial phagopodia, DJEB says that even if there were WMDs, the war is not justified on the basis of what was found.
And that's not changing the subject? Review the title of the editorial, DJEB.
DJEB acts as apologist for Hussein: "Also, the existence of degraded pud would almost certainly be due to clerical error."
And how about unfilled chemical warheads? Was that also "almost certainly" clerical error? Was it a clerical error that resulted in the warheads being empty, or a clerical error resulting in the warheads not being destroyed?
Maybe a clerical error allowed their discovery by UNMOVIC in the first place?
Then, predictably, DJEB claims that degraded chemical payloads do not constitute chemical weapons. The fact that the chemical could still kill people (or incapacitate in the case of the less lethal types) apparently no longer counts. Since it is less effective, it simply doesn't count.
Kind of the way a loaf of bread is no longer a loaf of bread once the last date of sale passes.
For that matter, Iraq possessed binary-type sarin warheads. The binary warhead largely sidesteps the problem of degradation over time, since the weapon subdivides the deadly toxin into more stable constituent parts.
One would think that Scott Ritter would have remembered to mention that (about sarin).
The rest of DJEB's post consists of quotations from a book by (wacko) Ritter and some other chap named William Rivers Pitt.
DJEB loves those unbiased sources.
The Ritter quotations seem focused on Ritter's about-face assurances that Iraq was disarmed, while DJEB continues to ignore the acknowledgement in the posted article that WMD had been found in Iraq.
After his initial phagopodia, DJEB says that even if there were WMDs, the war is not justified on the basis of what was found.
And that's not changing the subject? Review the title of the editorial, DJEB.
DJEB acts as apologist for Hussein: "Also, the existence of degraded pud would almost certainly be due to clerical error."
And how about unfilled chemical warheads? Was that also "almost certainly" clerical error? Was it a clerical error that resulted in the warheads being empty, or a clerical error resulting in the warheads not being destroyed?
Maybe a clerical error allowed their discovery by UNMOVIC in the first place?
Then, predictably, DJEB claims that degraded chemical payloads do not constitute chemical weapons. The fact that the chemical could still kill people (or incapacitate in the case of the less lethal types) apparently no longer counts. Since it is less effective, it simply doesn't count.
Kind of the way a loaf of bread is no longer a loaf of bread once the last date of sale passes.
For that matter, Iraq possessed binary-type sarin warheads. The binary warhead largely sidesteps the problem of degradation over time, since the weapon subdivides the deadly toxin into more stable constituent parts.
One would think that Scott Ritter would have remembered to mention that (about sarin).
The rest of DJEB's post consists of quotations from a book by (wacko) Ritter and some other chap named William Rivers Pitt.
DJEB loves those unbiased sources.
The Ritter quotations seem focused on Ritter's about-face assurances that Iraq was disarmed, while DJEB continues to ignore the acknowledgement in the posted article that WMD had been found in Iraq.
"Iraq today is not disarmed, and remains an ugly threat to its neighbors and to world peace. Those American [sic] who think that this is important and that something should be done about it have to be deeply disappointed in our leadership."
(Scott Ritter's Senate testimony, 1998)
***
_H_ is just as bad.
He begins, quoting me via italics:
_H_ has a weird idea of what constitutes spin.
I wrote with the knowledge of official document, the only official statement (so far as I'm aware) as to the nature of the recovered "containers."
Here is the relevant text of that document:
What an utter load of hogwash. The original declassified document used the term "weapons munitions." _H_ has no clue what he's talking about, apparently misled by writers such as our anonymous editorialist (in an oh-so-delicious ironic turnabout).
_H_ blathers on (taking advantage of the hosts' privilege of going off-topic):
France and Russia (USSR) had by far the closest economic (especially military) relations with Iraq. Iraq had chemical weapons before the U.S. began to support Iraq as Iran gained an advantage in the Iran-Iraq War. The US did supply chemical precursors which may be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons, but those chemicals were dual-use items with legitimate applications in industry and agriculture.
Nations at war are particularly in need of a functional economy. I know of no evidence that any chemicals intentionally provided by the US (or the UK) were employed in the manufacture of chemical weapons--and I doubt that _H_ would be able to produce any such evidence, though he is certainly invited to post that evidence here in the commentary thread. If he chooses to make that move, I pledge to reproduce his evidence prominently in a main blog post so that it gets the attention it deserves.
1) I didn't quote at all from the article, so the decision not to include that portion in addition to all of the other portions I chose to exclude was very easy.
2) I was trying to be brief and to-the-point.
3) I counted on the reader being aware of the content of the article and to recognize the contradiction between the above-quoted claim and the discovery of armed chemical warheads in Iraq.
I'm setting the record straight (and I invite correction where the correction is appropriately documented).
The legality of the Iraq War is a worthy topic, since there are so many on the left who sustain the misperception that the war was illegal. I'll probably get around to posting on that separate topic.
In partial answer, however, the refusal of the UN to act is probably explained by the money trail--one should learn to follow the money for nations other than the United States.
France and Russia, as already mentioned, were the two nations with the closest economic ties to Saddam Hussein's regime. Both nations had outstanding debts in the billions owed to them by the Iraqi government. Those nations, coincidentally, were those who presented the key UNSC opposition to anything resembling "serious consequences" as a result of Iraq having broken resolution 1441, and it should not be seriously questioned that Iraq materially breached that resolution (try reading it).
_H_ ought to click on the link above and refresh his memory as to what nations drafted resolution 1441, by the way.
By all appearances, _H_'s claim above stems from his own uncritical acceptance of spin. Neither he nor DJEB has approached any degree of demonstration that I have accepted spin. They have, however, demonstrated that they do tend to uncritically accept false news reports. DJEB and _H_ affirmed belief that the ISG found that Iraq did not have WMD, consonant with the incorrect opinion from the editorial.
The ISG made no such determination.
Now, that would truly be news to many of TN's left-leaning readers. Let's see how long it takes them to share it.
Note, Aug 19, 11:00 a.m.
I just fixed an error in my transciption of the declassified information for which Santorum and Hoekstra pressed. My earlier transcription read "degraded sarin or nerve agent" but should have read "degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent."
It's worth pointing out at this point that the language is ambiguous. The sarin nerve agent may not have degraded, particularly if the munitions were of the binary type discussed above.
I would say that it is more likely, however, that the sentence intends to say that either type of chemical had degraded over time, though to an unspecified degree.
I apologize if any confusion or false belief resulted from my error.
***I located a second error that requires an apology. I quoted DJEB as replacing "ISG" with "IDF" but that substitution occurred only in my transcription; it was not part of the original. The corrupted quotation made DJEB look silly in an unjustified manner.
He begins, quoting me via italics:
The author admits that Iraq had hundreds of WMD munitions at the beginning of the war.
Isn't it great when you can spin things out of context
The paragraph before clearly describes hundreds of unearthed chemical weapons containers.
(discussion thread)
_H_ has a weird idea of what constitutes spin.
I wrote with the knowledge of official document, the only official statement (so far as I'm aware) as to the nature of the recovered "containers."
Here is the relevant text of that document:
Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.If anybody is spinning, it's the writer of the editorial. The munitions are probably (at least most of them) artillery or rocket warheads, not mere "containers" of chemicals as _H_ seems to suppose based on the editorial spin of the opinion piece that appeared at TN.
(source)
It makes no claim that the content of the containers can be defined as chemical weapons. The article talks of munitions ... Which does not mean weapons but simply War materials(note: In common usage, "munitions" [plural] can be military weapons, munitions, and equipment) . The cases are munitions but are certainly not weapons (well unless you wanted to bang somebody over the head with the useless container).
(discussion thread)
What an utter load of hogwash. The original declassified document used the term "weapons munitions." _H_ has no clue what he's talking about, apparently misled by writers such as our anonymous editorialist (in an oh-so-delicious ironic turnabout).
_H_ blathers on (taking advantage of the hosts' privilege of going off-topic):
I wonder what percentage of those Americans are unaware that those weapons(when they were weapons) were developed with US support and approval and technology and in many cases the chemical themselves were supplied by US and UK companies with the full authority of the Governments concerned and predate the first gulf war.
(discussion thread)
France and Russia (USSR) had by far the closest economic (especially military) relations with Iraq. Iraq had chemical weapons before the U.S. began to support Iraq as Iran gained an advantage in the Iran-Iraq War. The US did supply chemical precursors which may be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons, but those chemicals were dual-use items with legitimate applications in industry and agriculture.
Nations at war are particularly in need of a functional economy. I know of no evidence that any chemicals intentionally provided by the US (or the UK) were employed in the manufacture of chemical weapons--and I doubt that _H_ would be able to produce any such evidence, though he is certainly invited to post that evidence here in the commentary thread. If he chooses to make that move, I pledge to reproduce his evidence prominently in a main blog post so that it gets the attention it deserves.
why did you exclude the sentence U.S. inspectors took 16 months and spent $900 million to conclude that Saddam had no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons leading up to the invasion. He had dismantled them more than a decade before.That's an easy question.
(discussion thread)
1) I didn't quote at all from the article, so the decision not to include that portion in addition to all of the other portions I chose to exclude was very easy.
2) I was trying to be brief and to-the-point.
3) I counted on the reader being aware of the content of the article and to recognize the contradiction between the above-quoted claim and the discovery of armed chemical warheads in Iraq.
You are not only spinning the facts , you are spinning the article. :)The article contained enough spin to confuse _H_ about the facts.
I'm setting the record straight (and I invite correction where the correction is appropriately documented).
I must have missed the part of UN resolution 1441 that made it okay for Iraq to keep undeclared caches of WMD.Hmmm. One of us seems to have drifted away from the topic of Iraq possessing WMD to another topic, again illustrating the freedom the hosts at TN allow themselves while forbidding the same to others.
Now that is hilarious ...
I must have missed the part of resolution 1441 that made it okay for the United [S]tates to invade and occupy a sovereign nation breaking the UN charter and hence international law.
I must have missed the part of resolution 1441 where it allowed the US alone to define what the UN security council could only define as serious consequences.
I must have missed the part of resolution 1441 that means that the US-led invasion was anything other than illegal.
If you wish to punish Saddam for breaching resolution 1441 (and let us not forget that the UN never agreed that he did break 1441 and would have declined any US request to claim that he did at least until Hans Blix had finished his inspections) Then you should also punish the US for going beyond the scope of 1441 and breaking the UN charter.
The US can not [sic] decide if Saddam broke 1441 for it was not the US that defined the terms of 1441. It was the UNSC who wrote 1441 and only the UNSC as a whole could have determined if he was or was not in breach of the resolution.
(discussion thread)
The legality of the Iraq War is a worthy topic, since there are so many on the left who sustain the misperception that the war was illegal. I'll probably get around to posting on that separate topic.
In partial answer, however, the refusal of the UN to act is probably explained by the money trail--one should learn to follow the money for nations other than the United States.
France and Russia, as already mentioned, were the two nations with the closest economic ties to Saddam Hussein's regime. Both nations had outstanding debts in the billions owed to them by the Iraqi government. Those nations, coincidentally, were those who presented the key UNSC opposition to anything resembling "serious consequences" as a result of Iraq having broken resolution 1441, and it should not be seriously questioned that Iraq materially breached that resolution (try reading it).
_H_ ought to click on the link above and refresh his memory as to what nations drafted resolution 1441, by the way.
It is no surprise to see just how accurate the claim Americans believe spin, not facts seems to be. The proof appears right here in this very thread.
(discussion thread)
By all appearances, _H_'s claim above stems from his own uncritical acceptance of spin. Neither he nor DJEB has approached any degree of demonstration that I have accepted spin. They have, however, demonstrated that they do tend to uncritically accept false news reports. DJEB and _H_ affirmed belief that the ISG found that Iraq did not have WMD, consonant with the incorrect opinion from the editorial.
The ISG made no such determination.
Now, that would truly be news to many of TN's left-leaning readers. Let's see how long it takes them to share it.
Note, Aug 19, 11:00 a.m.
I just fixed an error in my transciption of the declassified information for which Santorum and Hoekstra pressed. My earlier transcription read "degraded sarin or nerve agent" but should have read "degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent."
It's worth pointing out at this point that the language is ambiguous. The sarin nerve agent may not have degraded, particularly if the munitions were of the binary type discussed above.
I would say that it is more likely, however, that the sentence intends to say that either type of chemical had degraded over time, though to an unspecified degree.
I apologize if any confusion or false belief resulted from my error.
***I located a second error that requires an apology. I quoted DJEB as replacing "ISG" with "IDF" but that substitution occurred only in my transcription; it was not part of the original. The corrupted quotation made DJEB look silly in an unjustified manner.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please remain on topic and keep coarse language to an absolute minimum. Comments in a language other than English will be assumed off topic.