Jack's Blog

Recall the Deulfer Report, issued by the White House? Here's Charles Deulfer himself on the issue, during a recent radio interview. Maybe he's a commie, liberal, America hater. I don't know, but for some reason *HE* doesn't think they constitute true weapons of mass destruction.

Read on:

NEAL CONAN (host): The report says hundreds of WMDs were found in Iraq. Does this change any of the findings in your report?

DEULFER: No, the report -- the findings of the report were basically to describe the relationship of the regime with weapons of mass destruction generally. You know, at two different times, Saddam elected to have and then not to have weapons of mass destruction. We found, when we were investigating, some residual chemical munitions. And we said in the report that such chemical munitions would probably still be found. But the ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they **do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard.**

CONAN: Mm-hmm. So these -- were these the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration said that it was going into Iraq to find before the war?

DEULFER: **No, these do not indicate an ongoing weapons of mass destruction program as had been thought to exist before the war.** These are leftover rounds, which Iraq probably did not even know that it had. Certainly, the leadership was unaware of their existence, because they made very clear that they had gotten rid of their programs as a prelude to getting out of sanctions.

DEULFER: Sarin agent decays, you know, at a certain rate, as does mustard agent. What we found, both as U.N. and later when I was with the Iraq Survey Group, is that some of these rounds would have highly degraded agent, but it is still dangerous. You know, it can be a local hazard. If an insurgent got it and wanted to create a local hazard, it could be exploded. When I was running the ISG -- the Iraq Survey Group -- we had a couple of them that had been turned in to these IEDs, the improvised explosive devices. But they are local hazards. **They are not a major, you know, weapon of mass destruction.**

Yeah, well, you can be all cute and sarcastic if you want, Gosh, but you're not addressing the simple fact that the MSM is doing the same sort of spinning that Rick Santorum is.

I can understand why people (sad as they are) like Rick Santorum and Jane Harman want to spin this issue to their benefit. It is, after all, their job. What disgusts me, is that the MSM takes the exact same role as Harman in all of this. They're not putting out the "real story" they're putting out the Democrats' story.

What's the real story? The real story is that we have found over 500 gas shells, all in a degraded state, since the 2003 invasion began. These are WMDs. They're not evidence of a concerted effort to produce WMDs, but they are WMDs.

The headline says it all.

U.S. didn’t find WMDs, despite claims - Comments are response to claims by GOP senators

Really? No. Wrong. Lie. How about this:

Degraded WMDs not evidence of development program - Comments clarify claims by GOP senators.

Better. But no pop! No bite! It won't sell papers to the ABB crowd as fast.

We ought to consider the old shells in their context. Bush's primary rationale for invading Iraq was the allegation that Saddam was actively developing WMD and had stockpiles.

Are these old shells 'weapons of mass destruction', or are they not, and to what extent do they support the rationale for invading Iraq?

DEULFER: "It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they **do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard.**"

...were these the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration said that it was going into Iraq to find before the war?

DEULFER: **No, these do not indicate an ongoing weapons of mass destruction program as had been thought to exist before the war.**

DEULFER: "they are local hazards. They are not a major, you know, weapon of mass destruction."

So... the meat of the story seems to be that some are inflating the findings to justify the invasion and grab attention for their political ambitions, against the conclusions of our own Iraq Survey Group. The headline you quoted above suggests the same thing.

Not fair and balanced enough, I take it?

"Bush's primary rationale for invading Iraq was the allegation that Saddam was actively developing WMD and had stockpiles."

This is a rhetorically loaded statement. Bush never provided a "primary rationale." There was no form he filled out with a "primary rationale" field. This is you applying 20/20 hindsight to the situation, looking for the context that works most favorably for your prejudiced conclusions.

The fact is Bush presented numerous justifications. As these related to WMDs, the goal was to enforce Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions. Whether he had active programs or not, he consistently refused to prove he had disarmed in an acceptable fashion.

Ultimately, I think Bush believed Saddam had active programs. Much of the intelligence community did. They were wrong. But the existance of active programs wasn't the minimum basis for invasion. Saddam's consistent refusal to respect UN resolutions was. In short, it doesn't matter if he has WMDs or not. What mattered is that he refused to provide transparency and proof that he had disarmed.

"So... the meat of the story seems to be that some are inflating the findings to justify the invasion and grab attention for their political ambitions, against the conclusions of our own Iraq Survey Group."

No. They're not inflating anything. They're presenting a simple fact to the public which is helpful to their position. Over 500 gas shells have been found. That's a fact. As I've said from the start, it's not a bombshell story that turns Bush into a visionary genius. It's just a detail which is overlooked. Bush said this guy can't be trusted. Turns out, he's got hundreds of chemical shells laying around that he didn't appear to even have track of. Whether by deception or by incompetence, Saddam couldn't be trusted.

"Not fair and balanced enough, I take it?"

Always the Jon Stewart hacky quips with you. Stop trying to be funny. Regurgitating other people's bad jokes isn't clever. It's tiresome.

I've made it clear, from my first post on the subject, that I'm aware how trivial these shells are in the big picture. The reason I find the story so significant, though, is how the MSM responds to it. They've never minded blowing up stories that are trivial in the big picture when they negatively impact the Bush administration. The Cheney hunting accident is one example.

I'm not denying that there's partisanship at work here. Clearly Santorum has partisan gains in mind. So does Jane Harman. So do I. You CLEARLY do. But the MSM isn't supposed to. Bias and "side choosing" is pretty much the greatest failing a purveyor of news can engage in.

The language surrounding this story, the way it's being covered, is some blatant side choosing by the MSM. It's not that this story needs to be blared from the rooftops, like it's that big. It's just as I've said several times before: the MSM is very level-headed and cautious with news that hurts Democrats. With news that hurts Republicans they're in a mindless race to get it out there.

I'm NOT saying, "we found WMDs, Bush was right, case closed." I'm sure you'll continue to operate as if I was, though.

What I AM saying, is that it's curious how little interest the MSM has in letting Americans know that we've found over 500 gas shells with irritant and nerve agents.

"Saddam never had WMDs" has been allowed to become a mantra in America. The fact is, he did have WMDs, he did use them to kill tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people. How is that possible without the willing assistance of the MSM?

The "mantra" is more like Saddam didn't have the WMD stockpiles he was accused of having to justify the invasion. That was the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group. Do you dispute that?

You're focusing on about 500 degraded shells from the early 1990s. That isn't the "hundreds of tons" of chem/bio stockpiles, nor is it the "reconstituted nuclear weapons [program]" that the Bush administration was using to drum up support for the invasion.

"Stop trying to be funny. Regurgitating other people's bad jokes isn't clever. It's tiresome."

Aww, are we feewing cwanky? Maybe we need to take a wittle nap.

"Do you dispute that?"

I don't dispute the conclusions I've seen attributed to the Duelfer report. I think that the "WMD" acronym has become politically loaded, and thus is coated in idiot partisan smegma. On the other hand, I don't think it's Duelfer's fault that this has happened, nor is he responsible for editing himself to use words in whatever ridiculous framework partisans have created. He feels that the shells don't constitute a grave or "massive" threat and he said so. He's trying to be clear that there were intelligence failures. You have programmed your idiot little head to think Bush is solely responsible for those failures, probably on purpose, but, as we already know, you're an idiot.

In any case, "WMDs" are generally defined as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Sarin gas, degraded or not, is a chemical nerve agent, and thus a WMD. Duelfer would certainly recognize this. Technically speaking, we DID find WMDs in Iraq. This is small comfort, given the general intelligence failures, but it's a reminder of what sort of nation we're dealing with.

Yet again, you're acting like I don't know what the 500 shells represent, or like I think Duelfer is a lying partisan. Your projecting your own one-dimensional thinking on me, because you can't percieve any variables beyond that single axis.

"Do you dispute that?"

I do dispute the mantra. Your mantra is far too many words long, which in and of itself disqualifies it as a mantra. It's gotten that long because it's full of qualifiers which you have only added to respond to recent news events. I'm sure you'll tighten it up over the next few weeks, and never once notice that you've shifted your standards for victory. You'll probably accuse Bush of shifting his standards, just to keep up your leftist quota for unconscious projection.

See, if I'd asked you what the mantra was a month ago, I'm sure you'd say it was "where are the WMDs?"

So Santorum says "well, here's 500 shells filled with chemical agents."

And so you change it to "no, no, where are the WMDs that Colin Powell mentioned that time he held up a vial of Anthrax, remember that, cause that's what we meant all along, duh!"

"Aww, are we feewing cwanky? Maybe we need to take a wittle nap. "

No, not feeling cranky. Feeling sorta gross and embarassed.

You know when they have the crazy people on the American Idol tryouts, and even though it's a taped show, and happend a thousand miles away, you're still sitting their in your house crawling out of your skin with embarassment for that poor idiot as she shrieks like a cat in heat?

That's how I feel when you make jokes.

If your goal is to cause me unpleasant sensations, then you're succeeding. If your goal is to be funny, or to demonstrate a superior intellect via sense of humor, than you're failing in a near criminal fashion.

Simon Cowell may be a dick, but is he wrong when he tells the shrieking woman that she's an awful singer, and that she should stop for her own sake? No. He's right. I may not be polite, but please understand that I'm telling you, for your own good, you're not funny. If people have ever laughed at your jokes, I promise, it's out of pity.

Come on, Jack, it's so easy to get you bent out of shape. I'd rather have a substantive chat, but instead I end up having to wade through insults and mouth foam.

If we were sitting down, talking about this stuff over a beer, we'd start with some small point of substance and then quickly veer into, "you're an idiot, projecting talking points, your jokes aren't funny, and by the way: you're an idiot!"

Of course it would be my fault, because I'm "an idiot." There'd be no changing your mind on that point, because, apparently, as with the all the other points, your mind is made up.

Closed, like a steel trap.

"Come on, Jack, it's so easy to get you bent out of shape."

I'm not bent out of shape. I'm sure I've explained this to you before... Eventually I realize you're not capable of hearing what is being said to you, so then I just start making fun of you.

If we were sitting down over a beer, and you started getting all lefty with me, I'd try to politely steer you away from it. I wouldn't be mean to you, because that would lead to somebody's ass getting kicked, and no matter whose it was, it wouldn't help anybody in the long run.

It's really not a matter of my "mind being made up" or "closed" or any of the other leftist buzzwords that they use to explain why they're morally virtuous. At any given time, my opinion might be swayed. The simple fact is that you're not the person to do it. You're perpetually responding to things I'm not saying, or failing to grasp what's going on. You insist in dwelling in the morass of partisan talking points, which is crap no matter what team you're on.

How can somebody change my mind, when they don't even know what I think?

So this post will be uncluttered by any attempts at humor or snark.

The weapons under discussion are from around 1991, degraded, and while dangerous, they are not of the magnitude that would justify an invasion of another country.

There was never an argument that this type of stockpile -- shells circa 1991, in quantities of this order of magnitude -- was a pressing threat to the security of the United States.

To the contrary:

Bush officials repeatedly asserted that Iraq possessed substantially greater quantities of chem/bio weapons, and was on the verge of producing nuclear weapons, and was quite likely to pass such weapons to terrorists, and that this was a genuine threat to our nation's security.

So my point is this: These weapons represent a threat which is categorically and substantially different from the WMD being portrayed by the Bush administration in their drive to build support for the war.

Thus, using the discovery of these pre-Gulf War weapons -- ie, "see, we KNEW Saddam had WMD!" -- is absurd, and grasping at straws.

That's one of the reasons why these Senators is being criticized. (Sure, opportunism is part of it, too.)

As has been stated elsewhere, the ISG reported in 2004 that degraded chemical munitions had already been found in Iraq, and that they were *not* proof of an existing chemical weapons stockpile or of a renewed Iraqi chemical weapons program. (Not to mention a nuke program.)

If we had proof of THAT, then yes, it would be a huge story, because that is one of the primary reasons this country went to war, ostensibly.

Yeah, you're an idiot. You don't hear what I say, you can only repeat your arguments and look for me praising your genius.

Remember the time I had to explain statistics to you fifteen times before you finally realized I was right, and then pretended it was all cause you were sleepy? Remember? That's called precedent. So far the precedent is that you're an idiot, and would rather repeat yourself than actually listen. Let's assme that's what's happening again, particularly because it is. It's now time for you to listen. I'll go back and repeat so you can listen this time.

From my very first post on this subject: "Now, please liberal web surfers, don't mistake what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that these 500 chemical shells are a new story, are a bombshell discovery that has saved thousands of lives. It's just some stupid chemical shells the Iraqis hid and forgot about."

I then repeated this sentiment about five times since, trying to get your stupid ass to parse it. You refuse to. You just keep spouting off the same talking points about "imminent threats" that you've been fed by Dem blogs.

From the very start, my commentary has been directed at the MSM, and their coverage of this story. The media have aggressively downplayed this story, brought out people to pooh pooh its importance, run quotes questioning the integrity of the politicians talking about it, etc.

I'm NOT SAYING that's an inappropriate response.

What I'm saying is that the media have an oddly coincidental pattern to when they're restrained, and when they just start shrieking insanely.

When Dick Cheney accidentally shoots a guy, reporters are asking if he'll step down, if he's going to be charged with any crimes, etc. etc. It's front page news for three days.

When some of our guys are exposed to chemical weapons in Iraq, it's barely noted.

When Santorum comes up and tries to emphasize the story, it's aggressively knocked down.

If the places were reversed, and Democrats somehow benefitted from the WMD discovery, I fucking PROMISE YOU that the MSM would be screaming about it still, and asking leading questions about how awful Republicans are as a result. "Will any Republicans be censured for falsely accusing President Kerry of using poor intelligence? Possibly jailed?"

You keep trying to "get me to realize" that these 500 gas shells aren't the big WMD find that was assumed before the invasion. I realized that long before you started jabbering at me. I have never contested it. It is, consequently, exceedingly ridiculous that you keep trying to point it out.

Let me help you get on track, lest you repeat yourself AGAIN.

How do you explain the fact that when Dick Cheney has a minor hunting accident, the MSM is all over it, front page news, asking in press conferences if he was drunk, and if he would be going to jail?

Now, how do you explain that the same MSM was very calm and controlled about WMDs discovered in Iraq, even used on our troops, and downplayed and dismissed the issue?

Finally, just to put a calibration on the previous two questions, in your opinion is the mainstream media friendlier to the Democratic or Republican party?

Any US VP shooting a guy in the face is gonna be a heydey for the news media. It's sensationalistic.

As to this current "WMD" story, it looks to me as if some elements of the media are properly knocking both the substance of the findings and the thrust of the political opportunists' behavior (as you have noted), whereas other elements of the media are hyping this as a "big story" that proves there "were, indeed!" these major WMDs (eg, Drudge, Fox, Limbaugh).

And as to my opinion on the mainstream media's friendliness to Dem versus Repub party... I'd say they're unfriendly to whomever is necessary to either a) sell eyeballs to advertisers, or b) maintain access to their high-level sources, or c) please their big shareholders and parent companies.

If you lean liberal, you can easily find overwhelming evidence of a conservative slant to the MSM.

If you lean conservative, you can easily find overwhelming evidence of a liberal slant to the MSM.

"Any US VP shooting a guy in the face is gonna be a heydey for the news media. It's sensationalistic."

Right, I agree. It's obvious that the MSM likes a sensational story. I think they'd go after a Dem for a similar thing, but I also wouldn't be too surprised if they didn't. The key point though, what I consider the real kicker, is the whole "was Cheney drunk, will he be arrested," part. Like, clearly it's a story that the MSM will get excited over. But the assumption/accusation that he was drunk? Do you think they'd ever go there with a Democrat?

"(eg, Drudge, Fox, Limbaugh)."

While I can't really fault you for labeling Limbaugh as MSM, I don't think he really is (or Druge either). They're media, they're mainstream, but they're not newsmedia. They're basically entertainment. So, I don't this really works as you're framing it. After all Drudge and Limbaugh don't even claim to be unbiased sources, they're proudly partisan. They're basically pundits.

For all it's viewers, FOX is really more of a mainstream foil to other news outlets. I agree that they're generally partisan, but I think their existance proves the partisanship of the other mainstream news outlets. If CBS, the NYT, the Washington Post weren't so clearly in the Democrat camp, there wouldn't be a market for a counter.

Basically my view of things is that the great majority of the mainstream news media is biased in favor of Democrat viewpoints, while claiming objectivity. FOX is the same thing but slanted Republican. It's endlessly ironic to me to watch people go "fair and balanced? BS!" Like, see how FOX looks to you? That's how everything else looks to the 51% of the nation that voted for Bush.

I don't think your relativistic take on media is entirely accurate. I think that if you're systematic enough about it, you can examine the stories covered by the MSM, and determine who their reporting favors most. I think that would allow you to formulate a picture of who they're helping and who they're hurting. I think if you did that, you'd find a consistent and obvious trend of left-center spin.

Here's another way to look at it: What percentage of the staff at, say, the NYT do you think vote Democrat?