Well, some elements of the left side of the blogosphere is crowing this morning. It turns out that the chemical weapons discovered at the United Nations last week well... weren't.
Turns out they were merely cleaning chemicals.
So Larkin from the Blue Boobies wants to know if I'm going to print a retraction. The answer: no.
A retraction would mean that I was flat-out wrong when I wrote the story. Instead, I'm going to call this a "correction" or an "update."
Let's sum up what happened last week: in an office of a UN official (still unnamed) involved in the Iraq disarmament program, eight vials marked "phosgene" was discovered.
Now, what would be the reasonable, sensible, logical action to take? Let's start by going over some indisutable facts.
- The substance was marked "phosgene."
- The accompanying documentation said it was recovered from Iraq during the 1990s.
- Iraq had a long-established history of developing and using chemical weapons.
- The official whose office held the vials had been involved in the Iraqi disarmament program.
- People have a history of taking dangerous souvenirs. Every now and then there's another story of someone getting blown up by a grenade or shell that they brought home from war.
- The United Nations itself has a history of concealing evidence of wrongdoing by nations, especially when the concealing of that evidence will hurt the US or Israel -- witness the hiding of counterfeit US currency made by North Korea cited in my original article, or the stonewalling over the release of a videotape of terrorists dressed in UN garb kidnapping three Israeli soldiers.
So, with all that in mind, to treat the vials as anything but legitimate would have been foolish at best, and suicidal at worst.
When faced with a potential danger, the smartest thing to do is to do as the Air Force says and "honor the threat." Treat it as valid until proven otherwise. Cops, when confronted with someone oointing a gun at them, don't stop to see if it's a toy gun, a paintball gun, or unloaded. Every gun is treated as loaded and ready to fire. Firefighters don't call around when a fire alarm goes off and see if there really is a fire. And no one should look at something marked "poison gas" -- even if in liquid or powder form -- and just toss it in the trash without a second thought.
In the end, the stuff was harmless. Or, at least, nowhere near as dangerous as first feared. (Some cleaning chemicals are nasty.) Yay.
But anyone who argues that the initial reaction was overblown is a blithering idiot, a partisan hack, or both.
I suspect that if Mr. Larkin had found the vials himself, he would not have been anywhere near so dismissive. Rather, I have a hunch that he would be screaming that it was George W. Bush's fault for allowing it into the US in the first place (conveniently overlooking the diplomatic status of UN officials prohibits us from giving them the level of security scrutiny they so greatly deserve, as this proves).
We got lucky. We can call this one "practice," and it appears we passed this test. That makes us a little better prepared for a real threat.
Unless, of course, we listen to ninnies like Larkin.



Comments (24)
Let's sum up what ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by langtry | September 7, 2007 11:20 AM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
1. Posted by langtry | September 7, 2007 11:20 AM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 11:20
2. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 11:29 AM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
>So Larkin from the Blue Boobies wants to know if I'm going to print a retraction. The answer: no.
ha! If Larki printed a "retraction" everytime he said something wrong he'd have a 1:1 ratio... Dumbass.
2. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 11:29 AM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 11:29
3. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 11:33 AM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Then I read his post... doesn't even have the balls to call you and stand by his assertions... Sorta like that Kos kid, "They're idiots, trust me."
3. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 11:33 AM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 11:33
4. Posted by SCSIwuzzy | September 7, 2007 11:37 AM | Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
Given the UN's track record, I wouldn't be surprised if it rally was phosgene, and the current line is the attempted spin.
Wouldn't bet my life on it, but I would use my best Renault response if it came out in someones memoirs.
4. Posted by SCSIwuzzy | September 7, 2007 11:37 AM |
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 11:37
5. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 11:39 AM | Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
>Given the UN's track record, I wouldn't be surprised if it rally was phosgene, and the current line is the attempted spin.
You know... I had not thought of that but that is more plausible than the scenario Jay Tea outlines above.
5. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 11:39 AM |
Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 11:39
6. Posted by JLawson | September 7, 2007 12:00 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
6. Posted by JLawson | September 7, 2007 12:00 PM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 12:00
7. Posted by JLawson | September 7, 2007 12:04 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Dang! And that looked so good in preview, too...
7. Posted by JLawson | September 7, 2007 12:04 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 12:04
8. Posted by Jim Addison | September 7, 2007 12:08 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
The pea-brain doesn't even understand what a "retraction" is.
8. Posted by Jim Addison | September 7, 2007 12:08 PM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 12:08
9. Posted by Don | September 7, 2007 12:24 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Question: When are we going to get out of Democratic POTUS Harry S(scum) Truman's United Nations?
9. Posted by Don | September 7, 2007 12:24 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 12:24
10. Posted by Oyster | September 7, 2007 1:27 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
With all the gaseous emanations coming from Wizbangblue, I'm surprised *it* hasn't been labeled toxic.
10. Posted by Oyster | September 7, 2007 1:27 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 13:27
11. Posted by Larkin | September 7, 2007 2:26 PM | Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
Pretty darn funny Jay. Keep digging your hole on this one. You are so good at that.
Meanwhile, Lee has turned up this:
So some cleaning solvent was marked with a number led people to think it was phosgene. THAT's the whole story. The bottom line is you jumped the gun before all the facts were in despite the fact that initial reports on these kinds of incidents are often completely wrong.
Why don't you just write a post saying that you'd like to burn the UN to the ground? Wouldn't that be more to the point? Please do. I'm sure that will help you with the swing voter groups that you're doing so well with.
11. Posted by Larkin | September 7, 2007 2:26 PM |
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 14:26
12. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 2:42 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
>The bottom line is you jumped the gun before all the facts were in despite the fact that initial reports on these kinds of incidents are often completely wrong.
Lakin, I've been a nice little boy and given you guys a chance to play in your own sandbox, don't piss me off.....
Jay didn't jump the gun you moron, he was commenting on what was in the news.... now apologize both to Jay and to Common Sense, you've insulted them both.
12. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 2:42 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 14:42
13. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 2:49 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
September 2nd, Larkin the Asshole writes...
Two days later....
Where's the retraction asshole?
Jay quoted news sources, YOU are the asshole who jumped to completely unsubstantiated conclusions...
I ask again, where's the retraction asshole?
13. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 2:49 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 14:49
14. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 2:55 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
BTW- Look at my time stamps... It took me exactly 7 minutes, you review you recent posts, find one that was obviously flawed, google the right answer AND make a nice pretty post destroying one of your insane ramblings.
7 minutes.
You're not smart enough to play this game child.
Lord knows what I could find if I put any time into it.
14. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 2:55 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 14:55
15. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 2:58 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
And BTW, if you had gone to google news and googled Cholera Outbreak you have found it is all over the middle east this summer...
Over 200 people have died in India alone... How is George Bush responsible for that?
15. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 2:58 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 14:58
16. Posted by U.P. Man | September 7, 2007 4:44 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Larkin and Lee, a matched pair in burnt out light bulbs. So afraid of light shining on their darkness they label all who disagree with them troll and ban them.
Larkin, if the original story stated that phosgene was found in the UN building that is enough to comment on.
16. Posted by U.P. Man | September 7, 2007 4:44 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 16:44
17. Posted by Oyster | September 7, 2007 5:57 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Okay, now I'm laughing, Paul. Larkin needed that. Instead, he spent his time over there yucking it up with Lee while they pat each other on the back.
Since these "vials" were discovered in the offices of those who were involved in the disarmament of Iraq, it's quite possible that they brought these vials back thinking themselves that they contained phosgene and there was no "clerical" error.
17. Posted by Oyster | September 7, 2007 5:57 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 17:57
18. Posted by Jay Tea | September 7, 2007 6:02 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Larkin, if I was so wrong, why did you wait a week before challenging me? Why didn't you speak up earlier?
I'll tell you why. Because I posted on the best information available, and it wasn't until new facts emerged -- a week later -- that you felt comfortable challenging me.
That's your modus operandi, Larkin. Wait until postings are OBE'd (Overtaken By Events), then snark at the now-outdated piece and point all the details that have been proven mistaken.
That's called "hindsight," Larkin. It's kind of like reading the last pages of a mystery to see who the killer is, then mocking those who don't cheat when they talk about the book and speculate about the ending.
I can see why you spend so much time committing hindsight, Larkin. When one has one's head as far up one's ass as you do, looking backwards comes naturally.
And thanks, Paul. Your role as our in-house asshole is secure, and I'm relieved you only use your powers for good.
J.
18. Posted by Jay Tea | September 7, 2007 6:02 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 18:02
19. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 6:11 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
>they pat each other on the back.
ahem... you're a little north.
>And thanks, Paul. Your role as our in-house asshole is secure, and I'm relieved you only use your powers for good.
any time.
19. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 6:11 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 18:11
20. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 6:17 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
BTW Larkin, you're banned from commenting on any of my posts until you print a retraction.
20. Posted by Paul | September 7, 2007 6:17 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 18:17
21. Posted by spurwing plover | September 7, 2007 6:59 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The UN breaks our laws tramples our liberties and sneers in our face its time to boot them out they have become unwelcome house guests
21. Posted by spurwing plover | September 7, 2007 6:59 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 18:59
22. Posted by ke_future | September 7, 2007 8:29 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
i've wondered for some time if larkin is not, in fact, an Iranian dis-information specialist. if you look at the history of his posts, it would certainly explain a lot
22. Posted by ke_future | September 7, 2007 8:29 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 20:29
23. Posted by SPQR | September 7, 2007 9:22 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
ke_future, Occam's Razor suggests something less exotic, like being an asshat.
23. Posted by SPQR | September 7, 2007 9:22 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 7, 2007 21:22
24. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 12:31 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Larkin:
Meanwhile, Lee has turned up this:
The only thing Lee is capable of turning up are rational people's noses as they come within 10 miles of the tripe he writes.
And I feel so diiiirty! I've joined Larkin in getting banned.
Of course I was banned for speaking something remotely close to the truth and pointing out his use of a "dirty word" that others have been banned for.
Larkin....may I suggest you borrow that chinese made scooter fellow blueeee Hoonson has?
Maybe if you take a similar tumble as he did you might drive a bit of common sense into your concrete skull.
But I won't hold out hope.
24. Posted by marc | September 8, 2007 12:31 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 8, 2007 00:31