Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Good time to remember, David Kelly's last conact before death: Judy Miller

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-04 04:06 PM
Original message
Good time to remember, David Kelly's last conact before death: Judy Miller
The guy who wrote this aricle doesn't really like the far left, but it was the first thing that came up when I googled, and the article contains all the relevant facts and the right dose of skepticism, plus some interesting comentary on Miller's career.

Probably worth a read, given recent developments.

I wonder if the (perhaps) lies in Miller's book, Germs was part of the plan to create a paper trail of lies to justify invading Iraq, and if some of the 100 million that US taxpayers gave to Challabi paid for this book.

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DF05.htm

Left-wing writer John Pilger claims the 'heroic' Kelly was 'the antithesis of those , who have shown themselves to be the agents of a dangerous, rampant foreign power' (2). If this is true, why does Kelly appear to have been a close acquaintance of Judith Miller of the New York Times - the most vitriolic pro-war journalist, whose shrill articles about Saddam and his WMD have recently become the subject of ridicule?
...

Germs: The Ultimate Weapon was written by Miller and two other NYT journalists, Stephen Engelberg and William Broad, and published in October 2001. It is a shrill, scaremongering book on the alleged proliferation of chemical and biological weapons into the hands of terrorist groups and 'rogue states' following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Among other threats to the free world, Miller and her co-authors refer to 'the poor man's hydrogen bomb, a biological or chemical weapon of mass destruction can be made in a laboratory and transported in a briefcase - yet it can silently devastate an entire population' (11).

...

Miller's seeming kinship with Kelly is reflected in the way that he is depicted as something of a hero in her book, as one of those who, after the first Gulf War, opened the West's eyes to the continuing threat allegedly posed by Iraq. The book claims that at times some US and UN officials were lax in their hunt for Iraqi weapons in the early 1990s, but that Kelly argued that he and the weapons inspectors should be allowed to 'broaden itinerary' and search warehouses and other suspicious buildings as well as known weapons factories.

...

Kelly and Miller would appear to have little in common. He was apparently the quiet Oxfordshire man who couldn't cope with the glare of publicity, she is the bolshy New York journalist who mixes with politicians and spies. And where he has been adopted as some kind of peacenik by anti-war activists, Miller is one of the anti-war lobby's top hate figures. The truth is that for all the dubious anti-war claims about Kelly wanting to raise questions about the war in Iraq, he and Miller appear to have had one thing in common: a belief that Iraq was a threat to the civilised world, and that it was up to the West to put Iraq back in its place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Leprechan29 Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-04 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. Poor Man's Bomb
"Germs: The Ultimate Weapon was written by Miller and two other NYT journalists, Stephen Engelberg and William Broad, and published in October 2001. It is a shrill, scaremongering book on the alleged proliferation of chemical and biological weapons into the hands of terrorist groups and 'rogue states' following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Among other threats to the free world, Miller and her co-authors refer to 'the poor man's hydrogen bomb, a biological or chemical weapon of mass destruction can be made in a laboratory and transported in a briefcase - yet it can silently devastate an entire population' (11)."

It may be possible to build a nuclear device if you got enough radioactive material (Half of the science students in the world who know some history could probably build one), but it would be almost impossible to fit it into a briefcase. So I think the writer is right on target with that assessment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oostevo Donating Member (293 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-04 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. No, they really couldn't
They could quite easily make one that spreads radiation all over, but it is extremely hard to prevent your nuclear material from fizzling out before there's enough of a chain reaction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leprechan29 Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-04 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I'll agree to disagree, but here's something else:
Today, the fear of a dirty bomb seems to be comparable with that of a biological or chemical attack, and I ask myself why? If such a bomb was detonated, the amount of exposure would be many times less than that of a chemical agent and vastly smaller than that of a biological one, not to mention, the affected area could be cordoned off much easier than the other types of attacks. I read a beautifully written op-ed piece on this about 6 months ago, and it struck a chord with me - A dirty bomb would be more effective for terrorizing people than for killing them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oostevo Donating Member (293 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-04 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Sorry,
I didn't mean to sound holier-than-thou. I've just been studying this stuff for so long I felt compelled to share a bit of information.

I agree with you on the dirty bombs, though. Radioactive material is normally quite heavy (alpha and beta radioactive particles, that is), and unless there is an enormous explosion to propel it into the prevailing winds, the dirty bomb will likely kill a few people and scare millions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
molly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-04 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. The book emphasized Clinton's obsession with WMD
it portrayed him as having terrorism as a TOP PRIORITY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC