Rusted Sky

I was in the car listening to Paul Harvey about 18 months ago when he announced that Polish coalition troops had just found 200 chemical weapon shells sunk into a shallow swamp.

When I got home I searched high and low on the internet, TV and the newspaper for several days and found nothing else on the subject.

How strange.

Again, a few reasons come to mind as to why there's not been more emphasis.

First - the media is cooperating with the administration, because they both realize that IF massive caches of WMDs are found, those will serve as Jihadi magnets leading to all-out attacks on any location identified as WMD storehouses.

Likelyhood? Low. The media wouldn't cooperate with this administration if it meant giving up a good story. Or a story that could be spun in an embarassing way.

Second - the media is diligently ignoring the stories, since to admit there WERE WMDs found would be seen as justification of the whole Iraq invasion, since the 'absence' of WMDs has been seen as a complete negative as far as justification goes.

Likelyhood? Moderate to high - the media WOULD, as has been shown, cut off its nose to spite its face.

Third - there HAVE been WMDs found, and the government's taking the heat for NOT finding them, due in part to Reason 1. This is giving them time to clean them up before the locations become jihadi magnets.

Hell if I know what the real reasons are - those are just speculations.

But as far as I'm concerned, having WMDs is like being pregnant. It's a VERY binary state - either he did have them, in contravention of UN resolutions... or he didn't. Finding one shell confirms it. Finding 700... well, it still means he had WMDs. However, that doesn't fit the media's templates. At this point, look for any WMD finds to be ignored.

J.

Way back when I ran the numbers on Iraq, amongst other things. Came up with average, conservative, death tolls for everyone Saddam sent out to die for him or killed directly. And looked at the CAUF and paragraph 2 was telling: "Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;"

Saddam was not only to get rid of weapons but the programs to develop them. He was supposed to have ZERO left. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. He did not come clean and paid the price for *that*. Finding any WMDs is confirmation that he is a scoundrel of the worst sort... a first class scoundrel would openly own up to such things.

And Sarin, as noted in one of the chemical books I looked at, increases its shelf-life in hot climates. It degrades in humid climates. Many hot, dry places to store weapons in Iraq... so limited toxicity is not really a valid citation as there are still mustard gas and other shells found in France from WWI that are deadly. Washington DC incorporated an old Army testing range into it... they tested stuff from the Civil War up to 1916 there. Nasty surprise to find a poison gas shell poking up out of the soil near the driveway....

Saddam was supposed to, as you point out, have NOTHING left and be completely open on his programs.

Failed on #1, and failed on #2. You either have WMDs, or you don't. Very simple, very binary, it's like being a little bit pregnant - either you are or you aren't.

So when they try floating out the idea that they're old, or they don't count somehow, you've just got to shake your head. Because it's simple.

0 sarin shells = No WMDs.
>0 sarin shells = WMDs.

The UN called for -0- WMDs. Sadly, this shows once again that the UN may mean well, but the sanctions, orders, and paperwork they produce are only useful if people are willing to abide by them instead of use them as toilet paper.

J.