I take it that the book mentions that mobile biological weapon laboratory found, too, although it's not in this exerpt too.

As I understand it, experts who were asked whether the lab could have been used for non-BW purposes basically said "maybe, but if that's what you wanted to use it for, you'd design it differently - however it's just about perfect for making certain biological agents".

Seems pretty damning to me.

If there were no NBC weapons, what was Saddam trying so hard to hide? Either he had some, he thought he had some, or he's a complete moron.

So does this book get ignored by MSM because it comes from Regnery Press?

In a Democratic and free US, anti and pro opinions about anything don't have to STFU. STFU is a language of dictatorship, ignorance, and of illiterate cowards. It's the privelege and right of every citizen of a free society to express themselves, regardless of others' opinions, and without having to resort to using weak, ignorant language.

About Iraq, facts are that there were no hidden WMDs. This is proven by the fact that the Bush Administration and Blair are very embarassed about their previous claims in which which they lied about to the American, British, and world public. Even Bush lately conceded that there were no WMDs as he previously claimed before the 2003 War. So it doesn't require a genius to figure this out.

Secondly, the claims of small chemical finds haven't been substantiated or proven by even the US. If they were proven then the US and Britain would have seized this as an opportunity to say "we told you so!"....Instead, they conceded that WMDs didn't exist and under much scrutiny and embarassment, criticism as the whole world and American public knows well now.

To the contrary, there is recent, documented, and proven evidence of our troops using Mk 77 (illegal napalm bombs) and White Phosphorus in Iraq on numerous occasions...This is a form of banned and illegal WMD. Our Foreign terror, crimes, and scandals are starting to stink.

"In a Democratic and free US, anti and pro opinions about anything don't have to STFU. STFU is a language of dictatorship, ignorance, and of illiterate cowards. It's the privelege and right of every citizen of a free society to express themselves, regardless of others' opinions, and without having to resort to using weak, ignorant language."

Unless you're the swiftvets or question Joe Wilson's honesty or motives.

OK, then, Samuel, how about this:

There is now clear and compelling evidence that there were WMDs, WMD precursors, and WMD components in Iraq. Under the terms of Iraq's surrender in 1991, they had to convincingly prove that they had none. Ergo, they violated those terms and the invasion was justified. So those who have been howling about "Iraq had no WMDs! Bush lied us into the war!" need to STFU about that point now that it has been shredded, and find something new to whine about -- a challenge I believe you and your colleagues are eminently able to do.

J.

Samuel,

I agree. In our free and open societies, people are free to make complete asses of themselves ad infinitum if they wish to continually repeat positions which have been thoroughly debunked.

However, it is obstructive, not constructive. We could be moving along to the next set of important things which merit serious debate. However, unfortunately, there are groups of people who are not interested in serious debate. They're interested in snarky comments and witty little phrases which are provably wrong but make good sound bites (example: "illegal napalm bombs").

So, I'm ready for serious discussion. As soon as I find someone with an opposing point of view, a brain and the willingness to bring the two together in reasoned debate, it will happen. Such people exist but are too few and far between for my liking.

If anyone actually wants to know the legal status of Incendiary Weapons (nobody uses Napalm any more, so far as I know), rather than just babble about it, you should read the CCCW:

http://www.mineaction.org/docs/120_.asp#p3

Keep in mind this document is a convention, not a law (we can all argue until we're blue in the face whether international law exists, who defines it, etc. so let's not), and as such applies to signatories. It was ratified by the US in 1995. So, I would hope the US holds to this convention. Please note it does not ban incendiaries, but does limit their uses so that civilians are not likely to be hit by them. (I know the US tries hard to avoid civilian casualties anyway, so this should not be an issue, convention or no.)

As hard as I try, I can't understand how an event alleged by insurgents, or reported by the Muslim Daily News amounts to:
"To the contrary, there is recent, documented, and proven evidence of our troops using Mk 77 (illegal napalm bombs) and White Phosphorus in Iraq on numerous occasions".
I guess it all depends on what you believe. In this case, Samuel's beliefs are way off the mark.

Ok,I'll take the word of some obscure right wing publication over David Kay, the president's hand picked weapons inspector, and his successors. Because the president has no interest in claiming there were WMD -- only Regenery press will tell the truth.

It's sad, really, really sad. If only there was a 24 hour network dedicating to spouting republican talking points, we could get the word out

LJD, amazing isn't it - willing to believe the enemy but not willing to believe the tons of nuclear material!

There are so many things wrong with Samuel's logic on so many levels. It is nothing but frustrating repetition based on fiction that manages to frustrate those of us who use the factual record to form our opinions!

Perfect example, Samuel says:

"This is proven by the fact that the Bush Administration and Blair are very embarassed about their previous claims in which which they lied about to the American, British, and world public."

Or the extreme overuse of the word, "lied"
DKK

Sorry, I meant to question Samuel's assertion that someone's embarassment proves anything?

"Innocent till proven blushing," I guess!
DKK

Ahhh, we all have out pet peeves when it comes to word misuse. For example: 'loosing' vesus 'losing' as in lose, losing, lost. One means "To release" , the other means "Not a winner". See Kevin's missive on "Godwin Wins In Virginia - Kaine Benefits" below.....

LJD, LifeTrek, it's like I said yesterday:

Allegations BY the US are wrong until proven right -- and sometimes not even then.

Allegations AGAINST the US are right until proven wrong -- and sometimes even then.

Remember the Koran in the toilet tripe?

J.

And my second pet peeve is 'Clicking the RIGHT FREEKING !#@$%# COMMENT LINK!!!' !#@$%^ drat. Sorry, this was supposed to go with the "The sounds of silliness" post. Another reason NOT to read blogs until I have had my third cup of coffee....

Here is the one thing I can't get past. If this information is true, why isn't the Bush Admin jumping on it and getting the word out? What possible reason to they have to remain silent on this info? The only reason I can come up with is that they don't think this info is true.

The fact that I haven't heard a peep out of them about this makes me very skeptical.

Those who want to shut up the anti-war crowd, and crowded it is indeed becoming with a growing chorus of Republicans and veterans, are going to have to be presented with more visible signs of victory than the anarchy or near anarchy that exists in Iraq . As Bush says "Americans want a clear agenda." Don't bame those who are dissidents or who are raising doubts or in Jay's phrase 'whining' Americans were never promised a messy or unwinnable war. They were promised a "mission accomplished "cakewalk.
Stephen M. Walt academic dean at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government writes "In a democracy, a commander in chief who wants to go to war is responsible for building and maintaining public support for sending our sons and daughters into harm’s way. President Bush sold the war brilliantly before the fighting started, but his sales pitch could not survive the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the embarrassing revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib, the bungled occupation, the mounting list of dead and wounded, and the rising economic toll. Most of all, this rationale highlights the conspicuous lack of a plausible theory of victory now. We are not losing because our troops lack public support. The war lacks support because we are losing." from the Blame Game

It's a miracle you dated a woman.

Heck, it's a miracle you dated.

Remind me when I have time to find Steve Crickmore so I can beat his ass down.

Corey:

I have been wondering the same thing, and it makes me skeptical as well. I can't imagine that the Admin would sit silent on this information when it has the potential to stop the "Bush Lied" crowd in their tracks.

anyone have any thoughts on this?

They were promised a "mission accomplished "cakewalk.

Crick, you are a @#$!ing liar.

Very good book! I just finished it myself.

I have my own conspiracy theory about why Bush isn't responding: Scott McClellan is a Democratic plant! As far as I can tell, nothing that has been communicated to the press was done correctly; Bush probably has just given up on trying.

Can't someone murder Steve?

Kevin and Corey,

I suspect that the White House is reticent to make any claims on this topic after having been burned so many times either by Joe Wilsonesque maneuvers or by a blatant refusal by the Left and the MSM to accept what can't be discredited.

I have my own conspiracy theory about why Bush isn't responding: Scott McClellan is a Democratic plant! As far as I can tell, nothing that has been communicated to the press was done correctly; Bush probably has just given up on trying.

I suspect that the White House is reticent to make any claims on this topic after having been burned so many times either by Joe Wilsonesque maneuvers or by a blatant refusal by the Left and the MSM to accept what can't be discredited.

You guys are funny.

"We are not losing because our troops lack public support. The war lacks support because we are losing."

Well, if your only source of news is what you see on TV, then I suppose you might come to that conclusion.

On the other hand, if you actually bother to find out what's really going on, you'll know the truth. The Iraqi police and army are rapidly taking over the security of their country and 15 out of 18 provinces have peace and security for the first time in about 50 years.

As someone else pointed out... the allies lost more troops on D-day than in basically the whole Iraq war so far. If the US public was this squeamish back then, and as unwilling to finish what is started, we would have seen a retreat from Normandy...

Please don't lump me in with Crickmore. Just another one of those folks who paints Bush as either diabolically evil (which implies in my mind a heightened level of intelligence) or a bumbling fool - whatever image suits their current criticism. But I too feel the same way a couple of others feel on this thread. The uranium is a pretty big deal. I am not sure why this has remained a relative secret if it is true.

Why has every instance of WMD been downplayed at every turn, so that even the facts don't seem quite real. Especially when trumpeting it would make me feel so much better? I don't know, but perhaps President Bush already explained:

Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.

a4g -- I'm afraid that's wishful thinking. Remember at the beginning of the war, when people would loudly trump every unconfirmed report of WMDs? Back then they didn't feel a need to keep silent; there's no reason for them to do it now.

Secret? At the time of the mission, in a way, but published by the BBC is "secret?" Only in that it has not been headlined (or reported at all) by most news outlets.

I do not understand why it gets no mention by the Administration. Very little does, even if widely known.

For example, one of the things shown to the UN was passed over even during the presentation, and I've never seen it mentioned since. A picture of a new rocket-engine test bed was shown at the UN, contrasted with the existing one. The existing one had been used to develop the engine[s] used in Iraq's just-a-bit-more-powerful-than-allowed missile. A new one is understandable, and even being a bit larger: but the picture clearly showed the new test stand was not just twice the size of the old one, but over four times as large. Why? The question was not even asked, it was just showing that the regime was still developing new rockets - not a particularly damaging revelation, without the question of size.

Repeated finds of "pre-cursor" supplies get bare mention. Why would a small (under 800 men) installation - not a regional supply depot, just a small outpost - need a hundred fifty-five gallon drums of "insecticide"? Why would those drums be buried?

Oh Jay, I think you've finally lost it... There's a word on the web page you linked to that should have set off alarm bells: "Regnery" -- they are to respectable publishing what the "Left Behind" series is to serious literature. You might as well post a headline from the National Enquirer. I think a better source for your scholarship on the WMD "we found in Iraq" (snicker...sputter... sorry, suppressing that now...) would be the INSPECTOR WE SENT THERE TO LOOK, namely, David Kay. From your very own Medal of Freedom winner, George Tenet: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2004/tenet_georgetownspeech_02052004.html (cliff notes: no weapons). From Kay himself: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/ (cliff notes: no weapons). I could go on...

Your author's accounts of killer weed and bug pesticides aside, if we had found those kinds of stockpiles, WHAT WOULD BE THE POSSIBLE MOTIVE OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO CONCEAL IT? On the contrary, they'd have that information plastered all over Fox News and tattooed to Wolf Blitzer's forehead. If it were true.

It isn't. Your neocon brethren were wrong on WMD, in that Iraq had none.

Deal with it.

Love the blog, though :)

As stated above:

If this information is true, why isn't the Bush Admin jumping on it and getting the word out?
I gotta say, Bush is my guy, and as much as I want to believe, I need to see more proof from a few more sources.

I don't know why Bush (or McClellan or whomever) should bother to mention it. These aren't *secrets* after all. The information is public as far as I know, released in reports, etc., or even in (small) news articles.

If the people filtering our information do not count these finds as WMD or proof that Saddam was up to something, then who here honestly thinks that Bush claiming we found WMD's and evidence of them is going to make any difference?

The only thing that's going to happen is that the possible ways to define the finds as something else will be highlighted. It's all about balance, after all. If Bush declares that *these* chemicals stored in weapons bunkers next to missiles designed to deliver chemical weapons are proof of *anything* he's going to get called a liar, because although the chemicals are similar to WMD chemicals, they could also be used as pesticides. So there. Bush lied again.

I think he's smart to stay out of it. The finds are reported (and dismissed) without him being involved. People who don't conform to the Bush Lied religion have no doubt that Saddam was a Very Bad Man. The people who do hold Bush Lied as the central element of their understanding of Life and the Universe, will redefine the finds to that they somehow "don't count"... they will, and they do. *Bush* holding a press conference isn't going to change that.

Under the terms of Iraq's surrender in 1991, they had to convincingly prove that they had none. Ergo, they violated those terms and the invasion was justified.

Prove that you don't rape small children, Jay Tea. Ergo, you're a rapist pedophile, and should be arrested.

Rhetoric aside, the nuclear materials were under IAEA seal, and remained under seal, even though the facilities were unsecured by the invading US forces (unlike, say, the Oil Ministry); and the gas shells were almost certainly looted from documented pre-1991 dumps (also left unsecured). Now STFU.