The AP is reporting that "[c]omprehensive testing has confirmed the presence of the chemical weapon sarin" in the artillery shell found earlier this month. A number of readers of this site suggested that the media relegated this story to p. 10 (p. 14 in WaPo) because it was not yet confirmed through more comprehensive testing to be sarin, and therefore was somehow not newsworthy. If only it were confirmed, then the media would have paid attention. A quick review of the NY Times and WaPo this morning suggests otherwise.
Simply because the Conservative Elite claims that it is a "front page" story doesn’t mean that it is. Even as the sqwuaking, shrieking Conservatives have happily and blindly accepted this incident as evidence that large stockpiles of WMD’s simply must exist, the rest of the world knows better. A far more likely scenario is that the shell is a leftover relic from the 80s/90s, or that it was transported across the border from Iran or Syria (not like we’ve been doing a real good job of keeping that kind of thing from happening, folks). Even the lab that tested the gas has acknowledged that it likely predated the first Gulf War.
This is not a debate, just what I have researched thus far. The fact that it is Sarin, is not the issue... well in part it is. He declared somewhere between 600 and 700 tons of this stuff and the UN destroyed about a tenth of that in the early 90’s.
Nonetheless, its the shell that has most people interested. The manner of delivery and the specs of the shell were unknown to the UN and ISG in Husseins declaration of 12,000 pages just before the war.
Which raises some questions -
First, where is the rest of the Sarin?
Second, was the shell part of an undeclared development program?
Third, if not a development program, how many were armed and in production?
Fourth, if a development program, what was its nature and why was it undeclared?
Paul Oliu
The manner of delivery and the specs of the shell were unknown to the UN and ISG in Husseins declaration of 12,000 pages just before the war.
Which is evidence that it didn’t come from Iraq.
Hey Starbuck, so finding a sarin filled arty shell (that was used as a roadside bomb) in Iraq does NOT count as a WMD?
No, it’s not news to him if it happens in Iraq. Anywhere else (Tokyo), sure, it’s news.
And, of course, he trusts Saddam; since Saddam would never lie ("The manner of delivery and the specs of the shell were unknown to the UN and ISG in Husseins declaration of 12,000 pages just before the war.") means it can’t have come from Iraq ("Which is evidence that it didn’t come from Iraq.")
But to a non-troll, a poison gas attack ANYWHERE in the world should be front page news. In some ways, it’d be scarier if it didn’t come from Saddam’s arsenal (e.g. if terrorists are making it on their own)
So, as normal, the "elite" media is a joke.
You really want to hang your hat on this as proof of WMD?
Not necessarily. But one does not solely produce 5 gallons of Sarin for the sake of putting it in one artillary shell.
Paul
Hey Starbuck, so finding a sarin filled arty shell (that was used as a roadside bomb) in Iraq does NOT count as a WMD?
Honestly, do you people ever read before shooting your mouths off?
Not necessarily. But one does not solely produce 5 gallons of Sarin for the sake of putting it in one artillary shell. Paul
Who said anything about 5 gallons of sarin?
No, it’s not news to him if it happens in Iraq. Anywhere else (Tokyo), sure, it’s news. And, of course, he trusts Saddam; since Saddam would never lie ("The manner of delivery and the specs of the shell were unknown to the UN and ISG in Husseins declaration of 12,000 pages just before the war.") means it can’t have come from Iraq ("Which is evidence that it didn’t come from Iraq.") But to a non-troll, a poison gas attack ANYWHERE in the world should be front page news. In some ways, it’d be scarier if it didn’t come from Saddam’s arsenal (e.g. if terrorists are making it on their own) So, as normal, the "elite" media is a joke.
Oh Syphilis Victim Tony, its good to know that I can always count on you for my daily dose of humor, though I confess that it does make me feel a little guilty that it must always come at your expense.
Its good to see that you’ve borrowed a tactic from your Conservative brethren and gone from spouting half-truths to outright lies. Keep up the "good" work.
Correction, liters... damn metric system.
A conventional 155-mm shell could hold as much as two to five liters of sarin.
Paul Oliu
Starbuck
A small amt. of Sarin Gas does not constitue WMD????? Thought that was like being pregnant....either you are, or you are not! No middle of road on either subject.
Keep Save Guys... We THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU ARE DOING FOR OUR COUNTRY.YOU ARE ALL In our prayers.
Joe, it is not like being pregnant. Yes, Sarin gas is, in and of itself, a weapon of mass destruction. But it is not proof/evidence that it was part of Saddam’s WMD program. Starbuck, as crass as he is, is correct that it could have come from any one of a number of sources. I’ll be waiting until further investigation before passing judgement. Right now, I’m a little more preoccupied with seven would-be terrorists and the dirty bomb that may be sitting on our soil.
If you have flour, milk and eggs, Do you have the ingrediants to make a cake? Yes.
Although it WMD may have not been found persay assembled. The ingrediants have been found threwout Iraq. So yes, technically there are WMD in Iraq. Just not assembled and if we had not went in when we did, they would be asembled now and headed to your back yard. Wizen up!!!
Charissa, based on your flimsy (not to mention just plain WRONG) analysis, perhaps you ought to be the one to - as you put it - "wizen up."