Psycho F*ckHead Michael Ledeen, At It AgainFrom the craptacular NRO Corner (ewwy).
RE: AL QAEDA & WMDS IN IRAQ [Michael Ledeen]Let's pretend we read the Corner like a bunch of innocent suckers yearning to bomb freely. What did we learn? Al-Qaeda used chemical weapons in Iraq. Their origins or make-up? No word on that. Now, when most people think of chemical weapons, they don't think of a vat of cleaning fluid with a bomb in it. Ledeen suggests that Al-Qaeda in America will do the same to us! He said "many buildings were booby-trapped with ... 'dirty chemical bombs'" He says the soldiers choked. Per usual, we find only the most tangential connection to reality. 1. Salt is a chemical, as are all household cleaners. 2. A "dirty bomb" is the most primitive type of explosive. 3. It was obviously not from Saddam's era, as the chemicals were mostly harmless. 4. There is no report of choking. 5. It was only one building. Leave it to bloodthirsty haters to pump up the hysteria! Let's look at what the Colonel actually said rather than these f*ckwits.
ANDY: It seems AQ actually did deploy chemical weapons in Tal Afar. According to a long briefing from the commander in that region (sorry, I don’t have it in front of me, but Bill Roggio posted a link to it), many buildings were booby-trapped with what he described as "dirty chemical bombs," that is, explosives wrapped in chemicals…and he said that there were cases where Iraqi and American soldiers entered buildings and started choking.
I expect that when AQ launches its next attack on the United States, they will use similar devices. Those are the most likely dirty bombs, don’t you think? Posted at 02:42 PM
In one of these buildings the enemy had big barrels of chemicals that had explosives implanted in the chemicals, wires running around, and the whole house was rigged for demolition.If it was VX, or Sarin, or anything very toxic, they certainly wouldn't have demolished the building "without a hazard to the people." What was it? Conveniently, the Colonel doesn't say. Was it terrorists or insurgents? It isn't entirely clear. Other buildings were rigged for destruction, but only in one did some fairly harmless chemicals get involved. How do we know they were harmless, because the Colonel says they were. Were the manuals found near the bomb, is there any real connection at all between the two? He doesn't say. Now try reading Michael Ledeen's war-mongering f*ckheaded claptrap of insane hatred and evil again. He should be drummed the f*ck out of the public square as an irresponsible hack and a threat to the safety of the United States. Or, at least, make me his editor!
We stopped all of our operations. We were actually pursuing a particular enemy, but this was more important. We evacuated the civilians from the area and then we demolished that building without a hazard to the people.
We found some manuals that describe how they could make sort of these kind of chemical dirty bombs and so forth.