that's whatcha get from a network beholden to the crazy batshit warmongers!
Let's be clear. These were not 'chemical warheads.' In the Iraqi arsenal, a warhead is a warhead - an empty ordnance space strapped to a missile. What matters is the payload, be it explosive or chemical or nuclear. The item placed in the warhead denotes the designation. These warheads were stone-cold empty, so by definition they are not 'chemical warheads.'
William Rivers Pitt helps CNN with its facts.
originally posted by judlew
Comments
Thanks for this judlew.
I'm shocked, *shocked* that this story wasn't reported correctly.
But now that this has been reported one way, it will be repeated ad infinitum like this, juas as like the lie that Saddam "kicked out the weapons inspectors in 1998."
Posted by: zagg | January 17, 2003 3:59 PM
I hate to piss on a parade, but...
technically the quote is inaccurate.
Munitions come in many forms, and one of them is a chemical munitions deliverer. It can be empty, but experts know that chemical munitions are specifically designed to hold one thing.
It contains a detonator, a pressure-activated cap, and a chamber, split into specific parts (depending on the chemicals it is designed to hold), and a propulsion system, usually an ammonia based proppelant, or a hydrogen/gas mixture.
not all chemicals are chemicals until they are mixed and ignited on impact, so it would take a distinct form of chamber to hold a chemical munition.
if it wasn't a chemical munitions carrier, it would have other things in it, and it woulnd't be empty.
you can safely bet that the people know what they are talking about, and if it wasn't such a big deal, the find wouldn't have received that kind of rebuttal from the people it offended so much, namely, the Iraqis.
sorry for the bluster and bother.
zagg, you may call me a motherfucker or use yiddish now, at your will, to criticize me.
Posted by: badonkadonk | January 17, 2003 6:08 PM
i heard that the warheads found were similar to weapons imported by iraq in the late 1980s. duh. wonder if they kept the receipts. i'm sure we'd all enjoy the delicious post-modern irony of that one.
Posted by: gwen | January 17, 2003 6:44 PM
or how about this?
crazy batshit soldiers sue crazy batshit suppliers after getting crazybatshit sick during the crazy batshit war
nuts.
Posted by: badonkadonk | January 17, 2003 7:42 PM
Thanks badonkadonk-donk (had to add that in honor of Missy). I accept your clarification. Makes sense.
I do know, though, from having reported on the CNN news-gathering process, that the network will bend any fact to suit the Pentagon. Ask April Oliver, who broke the Tailwind scandal that CNN later retracted when the five-sided (or is it only four now?) house threatened to cross it off the party list.
Posted by: judlew | January 18, 2003 3:44 AM
i believe it's five again. they fixed it you know.
Posted by: badonkadonk | January 18, 2003 7:44 AM