Friday, February 23, 2007

Weapons of Mass Deception...

... or "How To Turn 600 Pounds Into One Million pounds In Three Easy Steps".

In the interest of disclosure, this message is here because, like Stacey Campfield, Terry Frank has felt the need to make my latest response to her blather go away rather than face up to it. My response broke no rules. There was no profanity. I didn't call her an idiot in it--- Of course, I proved her to be an idiot, which is perhaps just as dreadful to a blogger whose existence seems to take place entirely in a vacuum of "attaboy" taps on the ass from a fawning group of sycophants who cling to her blather as dogma.

For now, we have the meat of her story. She defends her "discovery" of this massive, one million pound stockpile of nuclear materials this way:

While my numbers most likely include some that you have referenced, exclusive is my reporting of UF4–known as “green salt.”

600 pounds of uranium tetrafluoride, aka "green salt". Not anything you would want to sprinkle on your fries, mind you. It's not fissionable material in and of itself, but is used to convert uranium hexafluoride into either a uranium oxide or uranium metal. But saying it's a weapon of mass destruction is akin to saying the gas can you've got out in the shed is actually a car.

The problem is that one important piece is missing for this to have actually been a justification for the war in Iraq--- An effort to refine and enrich uranium. Uranium enrichment doesn't take place in an EZ Bake Oven. The Al-Qa'im plant that was used for that purpose was destroyed by coalition troops in 1991. Every discovery made at that plant dates back to the pre-1991 efforts. At one other plant, Ibn-Sina, we discovered a few kilograms of uranium-bearing waste, but it was the byproduct of phosphoric acid production.

And lest any right wing dogma-types start fretting over phosphoric acid--- It's a chemical compound that removes rust and is also found in soft drinks (Which is kind of a scary thought in and of itself. Which flavor of rust remover would you like with your fries?).

Even this is far afield. For as interesting as this edition of "better living through chemistry" has been, it still does nothing to justify the war. For none of this is the reason we were told we were going in (As I pointed out in a missive to the Frank blog that has disappeared down the memory hole).

Where are the 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin we were told of in the 2003 State of the Union? What of the 25,000 liters of anthrax referenced in the same speech?

How about the 10/7/02 speech in Cincinatti where the president used the phrase "9/11" or some variation on it in reference to Iraq a dozen times, then told us that Saddam had nuclear mujahedeen--- "Nukyaler holy warriors", as the president called them--- That were willing and waiting to go carry out nuclear attacks in the name of Saddam Hussein?

The American public was misled constantly during the buildup to this war. Misleading it again in a futile attempt to retroactively justify it is simply wrong on every level.

Unlike Madam Censor, I don't delete attempts to show me up on my own site. To the contrary, I invite it. People that have nothing to fear from the truth don't feel the need to suppress dissent.


autoegocrat said...

I never understood the fear conservatives have of contrary comments on their blogs. If I post something that sparks a battle in the comments, I usually think of that as a good thing.

Freedonian said...

Man, I'm with you. Maybe because I managed a debate site before I came here--- I just write expecting it. The closest to this that I've ever done is turn off anonymous commenting.