Radioactive materials are not weapons.

Wilkes said "a huge range of different isotopes" were secured in the joint Energy Department and Defense Department operation. They had been used in Iraq for a range of medical and industrial purposes, such as testing oil wells and pipelines.

You should read the entire article before citing it as evidence, maybe.

The security situation in Iraq is such that we have to airlift dangerous materials out of the country. Wonderful!

No one said he didn't have nuclear material.

What we don't know is how much material WAS taken by insurgents, terrorists and baathists because Rummy failed to secure and guard the sites after the war.

Chris, the security in Iraq before our little excursion was a thousand times worse. That material needed to be lifted out years ago. That being said, yes, this was not a "ready to go weapon" which is the only thing that might possibly change people's minds who think Saddam was a nice guy who posed no threat.

CW: Radioactive materials are not weapons

No. But they can very easily be used as part of a dirty bomb.

No matter how the Left tries to spin it, this is a major development that enhances American national security, and big success for the Bush administration.

It's not how the left is spinning it though, the issue is how one "journalist", Bill Hobbs, bends, twists, spins, perverts the truth.

Even a dirty bomb, bad as it is, is not a WMD.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/c.biJRJ8OVF/b.6228/#1

"none of the materials were usable in a nuclear bomb" and that they were moved from Tuwaitha, a well-known nuclear facility in Iraq "largely shut down after the Persian Gulf war of 1991." That material moved was not weapons grade, but instead in the form "commonly used to provide radiation for cancer treatments, or for industrial X-rays" and "to sterilize medical equipment or kill bacteria in food."

Nothing short of massive stockpiles marked "WMD" in English and Arabic will ever suffice, Bill.

It's not about facts for these people. It's not about their ideas either, as they have none. It's about bashing a man they hate.

anon -- you're confusing "commentator" with "journalist." A political commentator is someone who is supposed to make opinions about an issue and use facts to justify it. A journalist is someone who is supposed to present facts in an objective fashion. Railing against liberal media spin is pointing out that journalists, in the pursuit of journalism, aren't doing their jobs.

As far as a "dirty bomb" not being a weapon of mass destruction, you are explicitly incorrect. The US Code, Title 5 defines WMD as "any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (B) a disease organism; or (C) radiation or radioactivity."

That description explicitly includes radiological weapons.

Finally, you appear to have linked an incorrect article. The link points to an article that again misinterprets what the Administration said about Iraq/terrorist links.

Sean, you indeed are a WMD yourself - a weapon of moron destruction.

So, it's not WMD, anon, how many people dead in one fell swoop for you to consider it WMD?

Either way, sucks if the wind is blowing your way when it goes off.

Is it me or am I seeing a pattern here, Americans are subconsciously developing a number of dead Americans other than themselves, of course, before we do anything?

http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/003036.html

"About Me

I'm a long-time Nashville journalist and I've written for Nashville Business Journal, The Tennessean, Business Nashville magazine, Nashville Life magazine, In Review, and Nashville City Paper. "

Sean,

Bill calls himself a journalist. And even if he were a "commentator" it doesn't give him permission to distort the facts or pervert the stories. Say, I'll read further in Bill's blog -- I bet I find him cussing out Roger Moore for his fact distortions, what do you think?

How many dead in one fell swoop from a dirty bomb Sandy?

You need to read up more on dirty bombs and what they can do. I'm serious here. They are truly nasty ugly weapons directed at civilians and they will cause a great deal of economic damage and maybe a few immediate deaths. Most of the economic damage comes from the long term cancers and the cleanup costs and the fear of visiting the area.

It's not how many dead from the dirty bomb WMD *I* need. There actually are real definitions of what is a WMD and what is not. Dirty bomb ain't. Sorry though, thanks for playing.

Is the dirty bomb a WMD? Not if WMD means inflicts heavy casualties. Two views presented here, one from the correct Brookings institute says no. The other from the heavily politicized Department of Homeland Security says yes, but agrees that it's not because of casualties.

No: Brookings Institute.
http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/levi20030526.htm

"Yes, but more because of its capacity to cause terror and disruption than its ability to inflict heavy casualties, experts say." -- (Politicized) Department of Homeland Security:
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/readyguide/dirtybomb.htm

Regarding "Dirty Bomb" as WMD:

According to the US government's legal definition, a radiological weapon (dirty bomb) is, indeed, a WMD. It's right there in law. Perhaps you, personally, have a different opinion. In regards, however, to having a debate on the political ramifications of removing from Iraq a couple tons of material with the potential of being made into a WMD, using the legal definition of the term would best serve our discussion.

According to US law, a dirty bomb is a WMD.

Regarding Bill as a journalist: There certainly are times when the same individual can engage in both journalism and commentary. From what I've seen of Bill's weblog, it should be largely considered commentary. The links he posts in his "portfolio" section link to columns he wrote professionally. These items are in the realm of subjective opinion pieces and certainly should be slanted towards his point of view.

However, you are correct. A columnist still has an obligation to the truth. That said, I've not seen anything where he's distorting the truth. The only place I see where you said he did was your ascertation that radiological weapons are not WMDs. However, you're clearly wrong on that issue. Again, the correct, legal definition is given in US Code, Title 5. It explicitly states that any device which intends to use toxic substances or radiation to harm or kill is a WMD. Exploding a conventional bomb wrapped with uranium in it is attempting to use its toxic and radioactive properties to harm and/or kill. Hence, it is legally a WMD.

Anon, being anon, how can I believe any of what you are saying. State your name

anon sounds like JadeGold by any other name....

I always thought Roger Moore made a pretty good James Bond, although Sean Connery was the best. Why is Bill "cussing" him out for his "fact distortions?" What did he distort in those Bond movies? Or was it some other movie? Why should I care what a second-tier actor does? (I don't care about any fact distortions by Tim Robbins or Susan Sarandon, for instance.) Bill, leave it alone. Let actors act. You stick to commentating (or journalisting, as the case may be).

"Even a dirty bomb, bad as it is, is not a WMD."

Excuse me?

How many deaths will be linked to it? How long will that area be shut down? Do you honestly think that spreading radioactive particles over a square mile in downtown Manhattan wouldn't be destructive?

But don't worry about facts, just keep moving those goalposts.