Saturday, April 30, 2005

Weapons inspector falsifies own WMD report! 
From the Associated Press:

CIA's Final Report: No WMD in Iraq

In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.

My take:

Bullshit. Charles Duelfer himself said that his team had uncovered "10 or 12 mustard and sarin rounds" last June.

They didn't just magically appear out of the earth. Did Duelfer accept a bribe or something? Was he lying then? Or is he lying now? What gives?

What's amazing is that the editors at the Washington Post aren't following the story close enough to remember that Duelfer had already 1.) falsified their headline and 2.) falsified the substance of his own report. If, that is, they managed to characterize the report accurately.

Splash, out


Page 1 of the Addenda is pretty clear about the onesies and twosies.

"ISG assesses that Iraq and Coalition Forces will continue to discover small numbers of degraded chemical weapons, which the former Regime mislaid or improperly destroyed prior to 1991. ISG believes the bulk of these weapons were likely abandoned, forgotten and lost during the Iran-Iraq war because
tens of thousands of CW munitions were forward deployed along frequently and rapidly shifting battlefronts."

But to answer your question, perhaps this passage is the one you need to understand:

"However, ISG believes that any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat to Coalition Forces because the agent and munitions are degraded and there are not enough extant weapons to cause mass casualties."

So, it can't be a weapon of mass destruction if it can't, you know, actually cause mass destruction.

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Meter

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!