Oh, those weapons of mass destruction
Large amounts of nuclear-related equipment, some of it contaminated, and a small number of missile engines have been smuggled out of Iraq for recycling in European scrap yards, according to the head of the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog and other U.N. diplomats.
Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, warned the U.N. Security Council in a letter that U.N. satellite photos have detected “the extensive removal of equipment and, in some instances, removal of entire buildings” from sites that had been subject to U.N. monitoring before the U.S.-led war against Iraq.
ElBaradei said an IAEA investigation “indicates that large quantities of scrap, some of it contaminated, have been transferred out of Iraq, from sites monitored by the IAEA.” He said that he has informed the United States about the discovery and is awaiting “clarification.”
April 15th, 2004 at 4:47 pm
I am a little confused by your title “Oh, those weapons of mass destruction”.. What exactly are you implying?
April 15th, 2004 at 5:29 pm
Something very, VERY strange has happened to the Post. First the Krauthammer column that Les blogged about, and now THIS?
Dude, where’s my liberal media?
April 15th, 2004 at 5:31 pm
What does this article have to do with the percieved liberal bias in the media?
April 15th, 2004 at 5:48 pm
You’re funny.
April 15th, 2004 at 6:02 pm
I’m asking a serious question. I don’t understand the relevance.
This article is talking about equipment that the IAEA knew about, that was “under seal”:
So, there’s no big mystery about what this stuff is. It’s not some smoking gun evidence of a weapons program, if that’s what you’re trying to make it out to be.
If anything, this is evidence that invading Iraq was a bad idea, because it is raising the risk of nuclear proliferation to terrorists, which is one of the many shaky reasons we invaded Iraq in the first place:
I mean, honestly. Do you guys actually read the articles you quote?
April 15th, 2004 at 6:05 pm
That’s why you’re here, Chris: to fight the lies and distortion that we put out.
April 15th, 2004 at 6:08 pm
My mother used to say, “If you don’t have anything useful to say, don’t say anything at all.” She was more pragmatic than most mothers.
April 15th, 2004 at 8:15 pm
Shouldn’t the title be: Oh, those weapons of mass destruction program related activities.
April 15th, 2004 at 8:15 pm
Chris, valid points. The manner in which the article is written (use of the term smuggle and no definitive answer as to whether the material found is the same material you refer to from the 1990s) leaves more questions than answers, i’m afraid.
And the implication of the possibility of sale to arms dealers is important too.
April 15th, 2004 at 11:19 pm
Thibodeaux:
That’s why you’re here, Chris: to fight the lies and distortion that we put out.
Take a pill, dude. You don’t have to be so condescending every time somebody disagrees with you, and sorry to say, that seems to be your M.O. much of the time. Somebody takes issue with a point (explicit or implied) that you’re making, and rather than addressing it, you respond with “you’re funny” or some such, as if to trivialize what your critic is saying.
Informed debate requires participation by both sides. Being standoffish when somebody dares to disagree with you does NOT achieve that goal.
I’m sorry if this wasn’t your intent, but intentionally or not, this is how you come across much of the time.
I know some people think I come across as arrogant much of the time (I’m working on this), but I always take the time to address criticisms of my argumentation, rather than marginalizing them with a trite remark. (I may, however, marginalize them with a trite remark in addition to addressing their points.) 🙂
April 16th, 2004 at 8:38 am
I love the fact that these liberals are attempting to come across as brotherly people and are trying to debate in an “informed manner.” Well, it’s better than them throwing paint on us because what we do and say is WRONG, or fighting the cops, like they do at most of their “protests.” No, really — it’s a vast improvement.
April 16th, 2004 at 8:44 am
In the first place, I’m not necessarily interested in “informed debate.” In the second place, I think you’re wrong: when somebody disagrees with me, that’s perfectly fine. If you’ll notice, XRLQ and I had a disagreement in my Supreme Court thread, and to tell you the truth, I think he pretty much convinced me he was right.
HOWEVER, there are a couple of guys, mainly you and Chris (so when I say “you” from here on out, it’s not necessarily singular YOU), who seem to think it’s your job to come around here and play though police with every post YOU disagree with. If that’s how you want to spend your time, that’s great.
Unfortunately, I don’t think you guys are interested in “informed debate,” because I don’t think you really have an open mind about these issues. I can argue and support any assertion I make, but why bother? Your minds are made up, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to play your little games.
Now, I don’t think you guys are bad people, and I don’t want to offend the readers of Uncle’s blog. I appreciate his giving me a chance to express my opinion here. You want to play gadfly? Great. I’m just not interested in playing along.
April 16th, 2004 at 8:51 am
HOWEVER, there are a couple of guys, mainly you and Chris (so when I say “you” from here on out, it’s not necessarily singular YOU), who seem to think it’s your job to come around here and play though police with every post YOU disagree with.
Well, that is what we do. And i do it over at their sites too. It’s all in good fun mostly. Debate is healthy.
April 16th, 2004 at 9:42 am
And that’s fine; I don’t have a problem with actual debate—if it IS debate. But I don’t want to waste my time constantly fencing with people who don’t really have open minds on an issue. Occasionally, maybe, especially if it IS in good fun.
To be fair to tgirsch, I have gotten the “good fun” vibe from him. Not so with Chris. Maybe I haven’t been around here long enough.
April 16th, 2004 at 10:43 am
A couple of things here:
First, it would be a mistake to assume I’m here just to “fight the lies and distortion”. I read this blog because I enjoy it, and I’d venture to say that Uncle and I agree on as much as we disagree. It’s certainly true that I agree with more of his posts than I disagree with — the war in Iraq and WMDs are obviously one thing we disagree on.
But, even if that were not true, it would hardly condemn anything I’m doing. You may not be interested in informed debate, but I think most people that have blogs are, and in any event when you have one with comments enabled, you’re obligated to field the responses to your posts (or at least tolerate them).
In fact, that’s precisely one of the things I like about Uncle is that he’ll engage you in some level of debate and even concede a point or two — something you won’t always find on some blogs, regardless of political persuasion.
I can see how you might think I’m here to stir up shit. It’s only natural, perhaps, to want to comment on something you disagree with. After all, when I read something I agree with, I don’t always have anything to add. So I probably do have a higher percentage of comments that are critical rather than lauditory.
As far as an open mind, I don’t really know what I’ve done to make you think I have a closed mind, other than disagreeing with you.
Not everything in this world and in the “blogosphere” boils down to partisan rancor. Mays’ comment is a great example of what happens when you can’t view anything outside the lens of partisanship — I’m no longer a person with ideas, I’m just one of “those liberals”.
Some of us really are just interested in the trade (and debate) of ideas. That’s what I’m here to do. Nothing more.
April 16th, 2004 at 11:04 am
Well, perhaps I was wrong. I’m not 100% convinced, but I must admit that, so far as I ahve seen, you always civil and polite.