October 02, 2003
SAY IT AIN'T SO:
Kuwait foils smuggling of chemicals, bio warheads from Iraq (AP, 10/02/2003)
Kuwaiti security authorities have foiled an attempt to smuggle $60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to an unnamed European country, a Kuwaiti newspaper said on Wednesday.
Throwing the so-called "48-hour Rule" to the wind is probably particularly imprudent when dealing with Arabic news sources. Besides, if this IS true, it will likely be dismissed as either a CIA plant or some other conspiracy. But one can still hope that it's more likely to prove true than a hoax.
Posted by John Resnick at October 2, 2003 04:27 PMI've seen this link elsewhere on many blogs. My chief comment:
The Hindustan Times?
If this story had any merit, I'd assume to at least see it on Fox News even if the others did not carry it. But if we're forced to look for ground breaking news coverage in the Hindustan Times, I think we can discount it.
Of course, I've been wrong before and maybe this is a scoop.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at October 2, 2003 06:09 PMBut Karl Rove is going to leak somewhere obscure, just to make sure he can't be traced.
Posted by: quequog at October 2, 2003 07:49 PMHonestly quequog, that's so incoherent you must be here from the DemocraticUnderground.
Posted by: Robert Modean at October 2, 2003 08:09 PMChris:
Agreed. That's why my cryptic disclaimer is included. But stranger things have happened in the past. And, frankly, the silence is eery. In the current environment, the naysayers should be having a field day refuting this - credibly or not.
Posted by: John Resnick at October 2, 2003 08:15 PMHoax danger sign: How does one know the price tag on chemical weapons?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 2, 2003 08:24 PMIf they caught them with a sting operation win which they offered to pay $60 million?
I'm pretty skeptical about this, but apparently the Kuwaitis have confirmed that *something* was captured. But they're being awfully cryptic about what it was. Is this a positive sign or a negative one?
Posted by: Timothy at October 2, 2003 10:47 PMJeff:
Maybe they just used the closing quotes for WMD futures on the Chicago Commodities Exchange.
Posted by: Peter B at October 3, 2003 06:46 AMOrrin:
I thought we were supposed to be over the WMD issue and understood it was irrelevant in terms of a justification for the war. Don't let the leftists catch you hoping on this one or you will be accused of their ultimate sin--hypocrisy.
Posted by: Peter B at October 3, 2003 07:00 AMPeter,
Orrin's judgement is probably better than mine when it comes to posting such a story. That's why he didn't.....and I did.
In any event, I still maintain the relevant question about WMD today is who has them NOW since their past existance isn't debatable and their assured destruction dubious at best. As such, my only hope in the veracity of a story about WMD being intercepted is for the sake of the innocents in the world - not for the Bush Administration's credibility.
The Left would argue the existance of yesterday's sunrise if they thought it would suit their agenda.
Posted by: John Resnick at October 3, 2003 10:37 AMSorry, John. Missed that. Well said.
Posted by: Peter B at October 3, 2003 12:39 PM