The 500 munitions that were found throughout Iraq after the 2003 invasion really WERE dangerous and DO meet the criteria to be considered a WMD, contrary to the beliefs of liberals who still cling to the belief that “Bush lied!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! about WMD:

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center’s commander said here today.
“These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes … they do constitute weapons of mass destruction,” Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

“Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent,” he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person’s lungs.

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

While that’s reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. “We’re talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect,” he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It’s not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it’s still toxic.

“Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic,” he said. “Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal.”

This won’t matter in the eyes of liberals - they’ll still think Santorum and Hoekstra’s announcement about these WMD was ‘comical’ while at the same time continuing to proclaim at the top of their lungs that Bush “lied!!!!”

Hat tip: John B. Dwyer at The American Thinker

Prior:

• Hoekstra and Santorum to intelligence community: Declassify more WMD-related documents, and quit downplaying them
• Even more documents show Saddam targeted US interests
• Documents show more collaboration between AQ and Iraq
• Saddam’s Philippines terror connection
• Batch of pre-war Afghanistan and Iraq documents are released
• Prepare to learn more about Saddam’s WMD intentions
• House Permanent Select Committee to review Saddam recordings
• The Syria/Iraq WMD connection
• Saddam’s #2 air force official: WMDs were moved to Syria
• Confirmed: Iraq was a terrorist training center
• Pentagon briefing docs on Iraq/AQ connection from 2002
• Where did the WMDs go?
• Pre-war Iraq and Syria: closer than we thought
• AQ/SH connections: Must read
• More evidence of OBL/Hussein connections
• Iraq and Al Qaeda: More connections
• No terrorism in Iraq before the war?

If there were such a course, this guy would be the perfect candidate to teach it:

The University of Wisconsin-Madison announced Thursday that it would launch a review of an instructor who argues that the U.S. government orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks for its own benefit.

The instructor, Kevin Barrett, is co-founder of an organization called the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance, which claims the Bush administration planned the attacks to create a war between Muslims and Christians. He argues that members of the faiths must work together to overcome the belief that terrorists were to blame.

“The 9/11 lie was designed to sow hatred between the faiths,” Barrett has written on the organization’s Web site.

“Either we discuss the compelling evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, or there is precious little to talk about.”

Barrett, who did not return calls Thursday and an e-mail seeking comment, has taught a class on cultural folklore and is scheduled to teach an introductory class on Islam this fall in Madison. He has said he discusses his views on Sept. 11 in the classroom.

The article goes on to note other examples of moonbats in academia:

Other Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists in academia include Steven Jones, a physicist from Brigham Young University who argues that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled explosives, not just the impact of airplanes; James H. Fetzer, a retired philosophy professor from the University of Minnesota-Duluth who believes the U.S. military launched a missile into the Pentagon and shot down the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania; and David Ray Griffin, a retired professor from the Claremont School of Theology who sums up arguments for U.S. involvement in the attacks in two books, “The New Pearl Harbor” and “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.”

Barrett arranged for Griffin to speak at UW-Madison last year. Barrett also helped organize a conference in Chicago this month called “9/11: Revealing the Truth - Reclaiming Our Future.” In July, he and Fetzer are scheduled to speak about the Sept. 11 theories at a forum at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

“We’re catching on,” said Fetzer, who co-chairs the group 9/11 Scholars for Truth, which includes more than 50 members from academia, including Barrett. “Kevin Barrett has been instrumental on many fronts.”

[…]

Mir Babar Basir, a recent graduate of UW-Madison who served as president of the Muslim Students Association, said he knew Barrett and agreed with his take on the attacks. He said Griffin drew hundreds of supportive observers when he spoke at the university.

“This is not just Kevin Barrett’s idea,” Basir said. “It’s legitimate to think that the U.S. government was involved.”

“When David Ray Griffin spoke, it was packed,” Basir added. “Madison is fairly liberal. It’s not surprising that a lot of people agreed with him.”

Here’s the website for 9/11 Scholars for Truth.

Scary stuff.

Other stories related to moonbat antics in the educational system can be found here:

• University of Colorado committee: Ward Churchill has got to go
• Reporter allegedly assaulted at taxpayer funded charter separatist school
• Act like a juvenile at your commencement, get lionized at HuffPo
• Nah, they’re not trying to indoctrinate kids about sexual orientation, are they?
• Ruling expected today in California exit exam case - court rules in favor of students
• UK university and college lecturers union attempt a boycott of Israeli universities and professors
• Military recruiters targeted - again
• ROTC buildings vandalized at two NC colleges
• Intolerant liberal professors news
• UC Santa Cruz: violently anti-military
• Cindy Sheehan to speak at a high school in San Francisco
• Cartoon controversies from across the border (re: The University of Saskatchewan)
• Congressional Medal of Honor recipient not the ’sort of person UW wanted to produce’
• NAACP chairman makes GOP/Nazis comparison (Fayetteville State University)
• Turning their backs on the truth (Georgetown University law school)
• Helping third-graders become anti-war (Frank Allis Elementary School - Wisconsin)
• Ward Churchill confronted (University of Colorado)
• Another censoring of Christmas (Jackson County School System - Georgia)
• Anti-war crowd fights military recruiters in schools (Washington)
• L.A. school district assists students in attending anti-Bush rally
• Former NCSU visiting prof calls for extermination of white people
• Racist logo? (McKinney, TX school district)
• Confronting racism through ‘workshops’ (Guilford County Schools - NC)
• The demise of the homecoming queen as we know them
• Feds investigate ‘hate speech’ incident at UNC-Chapel Hill

For those who are only casual followers of politics, or for those who aren’t quite sure what BDS actually means, this is it in a nutshell:

FDR okayed the internment of 120,000 Japanese American citizens (over half were children), with the Supremes’ blessings (essentially) - one of the most shameful acts by a US gov’t in American history - and in retrospect he is looked upon lovingly and admiringly by today’s left as one of the greatest presidents of all time. Here are some examples of what happened in those internment camps. Some Japanese Ameircans died for lack of medical care. Some were shot for “resisting orders.” That happened here. On US soil. Under FDR’s watch. But this guy was and is great. Never would have been any legit speculation that he wanted to be a “dictator.”

President Bush, OTOH, has 500 or so detainees locked up in Gitmo Bay -detainees who fly the flag for no country, has one American citizen (Jose Padilla) locked up as an enemy combatant here in the states, no allegations of ‘abuse’ at Gitmo have been substantiated, and all of a sudden this country is going to hell in a handbasket, “laws be damned,” Bush is the the next coming of Hitler, has a Stalin-esque control over the media at Gitmo, yada yada yada.

That’s the short version of BDS: thinking fondly of the man** who authorized internment camps for Japanese American citizens versus thinking the main who detains 500 suspected terrorists who fly the flag for no one is the 21st century Hitler.

**Not meant to imply that FDR was an ineffective WWII CIC.

Update: Here’s another prime instance of BDS gone madder. (Hat tip: ST reader Severian)

Prior:

• FDR and domestic surveillance
• NYT: NSA scandal is worse than WWII Japanese internment camps
• “If 1941 Were 2005″

Could Bush and Rumsfeld be tried for war crimes as a result of the USSC ruling on Hamden? This liberal articulates the hope that most of the Bush-hating wing of the Democratic party can’t express so eloquently:

THE SUPREME Court on Thursday dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke, declaring in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention.

But the real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court’s holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda — a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act.

The provisions of the Geneva Convention were intended to protect noncombatants — including prisoners — in times of armed conflict. But as the administration has repeatedly noted, most of these protections apply only to conflicts between states. Because Al Qaeda is not a state, the administration argued that the Geneva Convention didn’t apply to the war on terror. These assertions gave the administration’s arguments about the legal framework for fighting terrorism a through-the-looking-glass quality. On the one hand, the administration argued that the struggle against terrorism was a war, subject only to the law of war, not U.S. criminal or constitutional law. On the other hand, the administration said the Geneva Convention didn’t apply to the war with Al Qaeda, which put the war on terror in an anything-goes legal limbo.

This novel theory served as the administration’s legal cover for a wide range of questionable tactics, ranging from the Guantanamo military tribunals to administration efforts to hold even U.S. citizens indefinitely without counsel, charge or trial.

Perhaps most troubling, it allowed the administration to claim that detained terrorism suspects could be subjected to interrogation techniques that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under international law, such as “waterboarding,” placing prisoners in painful physical positions, sexual humiliation and extreme sleep deprivation.

In the meantime, the NYTimes celebrates.

Update: Sweetness and Light provides a refresher on Ronald Reagaon’s opinions regarding the Geneva Conventions as it relates to terrorists. Make sure to read the whole thing.

Prior:

• Another disturbing thought for today
• Supremes overrule President on Gitmo
• Our Gitmo policy is right: Part 2
• How do we know our Gitmo policy is right?
• Gitmo soldiers answer criticisms
• Yes, words DO have meaning
• “Innocent” British former detainees from Gitmo aren’t so innocent afterall
• The Durbin philosophy
• Dems just keep stepping in it - Durbin’s comments on GItmo

Here ya go …

Superior Court Judge James Warren ruled yesterday against Propostion H:

– An initiative that San Francisco voters approved last November banning residents from owning handguns violated state law, a Superior Court judge ruled today.

Proposition H, which won a 58 percent majority, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who needed the guns for professional purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution of all guns and ammunition in San Francisco.

The National Rifle Association sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers the day after the measure passed. The NRA argued that Prop. H overstepped local government authority and intruded into an area regulated by the state. The city agreed to delay enforcement of the measure while the suit was pending.

In today’s ruling, Judge James Warren said California law, which authorizes police agencies to issue handgun permits, implicitly prohibits a city or county from banning handgun possession by law-abiding adults.

That law “demonstrates the Legislature’s intent to occupy, on a statewide basis, the field of residential and commercial handgun possession to the exclusion of local government entities,” Warren wrote in a 30-page decision.

If the city were allowed to ban handguns within its borders, he said, nearby counties could be flooded by handguns no longer allowed in San Francisco. Such a possibility illustrates the need for gun ownership to be regulated on a state level, Warren said.

[…]

Warren also overturned Prop. H’s prohibition on sales of other types of guns and ammunition, saying it was tied to the handgun ban and could not be salvaged as a separate measure.

Prior:

• Riceroni - The San Francisco Retreat

Taking a quick look around the conservative blogosphere and as well as the punditsphere, there isn’t a lot of optimism being expressed in light of today’s Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Aside from the obvious worries about the consequences of the USSC decision (what it will mean for CIA interrogation tactics, how the administration will go about prosecuting detainees in th war on terror), I just thought of this a few moments ago:

OBL was the mastermind behind the 9-11 attacks on our country - Hamdan was his driver and bodyguard.

Our country, via the USSC, just ruled in favor of OBL’s bodyguard over our government.

This might have been an obvious thought from the moment this news broke to some of you, but it wasn’t to me until just now when I had a chance to take a breather from the work load and assess what happened today.

In Gitmo, and places not so easily visible to the human eye, Al Qaeda terrorists are smiling.

And because this ruling was a “rebuke” for the Bush administration, there are others smiling: liberals and the MSM. Not because of their supposed staunch advocacy for “human rights” but because it equates to a setback for Bush.

This ruling makes no sense to me, especially in light of Congress’ passage of the Detainee Treatment Act (Ann Althouse talks about that here).

SCOTUSblog blogs about what this decision means.

Depressing.

Thur PM Update: Nancy Pelosi praises the ruling and in effect says that she agrees that suspected terrorists (who just happen to not fly the flag of any country) should be afforded the same protections under the US Constitution as you and I have:

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today following the United States Supreme Court decision that trying Guantanamo detainees before military commissions violates U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions:

“Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law.

“The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today’s decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration’s detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism.”

That ought to be a great campaign slogan come fall: “Vote for us! We’ll work hard to protect the ‘rights’ of suspected terrorists!”

Hat tip: Kim Priestap at Wizbang

Fri AM Update: Diana Irey, the Republican running against Rep. Jack Murtha, had this to say in response to Pelosi’s comments:

“I welcome Ms. Pelosi to the Irey Campaign Team, and hereby deputize her as a Colonel in the Irey Army – because in releasing that statement, she rebukes Jack Murtha for his reckless condemnation of U.S. Marines at Haditha and his unilateral decision to deprive them of THEIR rights of due process.

“Jack Murtha declared on May 17 that our Marines had ‘killed innocent civilians in cold blood’ – before the first Marine was charged, before the first court-martial was convened, before the first soldier was convicted. When he did that, he deprived our own soldiers of the very rights to due process that Nancy Pelosi extols.

“It’s an odd world, indeed, when Democrat leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha care more about making sure that people trying to kill us have rights to due process under the American legal system than they care about making sure that those very same rights apply to those courageous men and women sitting in the sands of Iraq, doing their best to defend us.

“I knew our campaign against Jack Murtha was making progress, but even I didn’t expect to have the top Democrat in the House joining our team so soon.”

LOL! I love it.

Hat tip: Flopping Aces

Via MSNBC:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in creating military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, which said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and the Geneva Convention.

The case, one of the most significant involving presidential war powers cases since World War II, was brought by Guantanamo prisoner Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who was a driver for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

The vote was split 5-3, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court’s liberal members in ruling against the Bush administration. Chief Justice John Roberts, named to the court last September by Bush, was sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Hamdan.

Thursday’s ruling overturned that decision.

Read more via SCOTUSblog and stay tuned to Allah for updates.

Andy McCarthy got it right, unfortunately.

Al Qaeda terrorists now have ‘protections’ via the Geneva Conventions thanks to the US Supreme Court.

PM Update I: Here’s video of President Bush’s response to the ruling.

PM Update II: Here are the justices’ opinions (Hat tip: Bak)

PM Update III: Mark Levin’s comments on today’s ruling:

Congress and the Court are systematically stripping the presidency of war-making powers. Congress demands that the president get court approval beforeing intercepting enemy communications (we call that intelligence gathering) and the Court demands that the president get statutory support from Congress before he can use military tribunals to try terrorists.

And yet, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court have any explicit constitutional authority to make these decisions. Congress can cut-off funding for the war or any aspect of it, which it has not; and the judiciary’s only role in these matters is to defer to the president, who has explicit and broad authority under the Constitution as the commander-in-chief.

Today, the Court has taken a giant new step in its usurpation of explicit presidential authority. The battle against terrorism is being fought as much in our courtrooms as on the field in Iraq and other places — where the likes of the ACLU and activist judges will set policy in contravention of the Constitution.

Congress and the courts are conferring rights and privileges on terrorists. They are conferring constitutonal protections on the enemy. They are granting the enemy jurisdiction in our civiliam courts. They are extending the Geneva Conventions to an enemy that is specifically excluded from those protections.

Read the whole thing.

See also: Malkin, Patterico, Orin Kerr, Riehl World View, Stop The ACLU

Prior:

• Our Gitmo policy is right: Part 2
• How do we know our Gitmo policy is right?
• Gitmo soldiers answer criticisms
• Yes, words DO have meaning
• “Innocent” British former detainees from Gitmo aren’t so innocent afterall
• The Durbin philosophy
• Dems just keep stepping in it - Durbin’s comments on GItmo

Why can’t it be Friday?

Thurs AM Update and Bump: Got a very busy day lined up ahead of me so I won’t be able to do much, if any, blogging until later this evening. In the meantime, make sure to check out Memeorandum to see what the hot issues of the day are and use this thread to discuss ‘em

Catch ya’ll later.

… big time. Allah has details and updates. It’s not pretty.

Prior:

• Palestinian terrorists feel the pressure from Israel