Saturday, December 10, 2005

Eric The Mink Says Gun Powder = Chemical Assault By US

Ahhhh, Eric the Mink has a new Op-Ed piece up and its one of his worst which is saying a lot:

The Mink

What is the mink upset about? Well the American military firing "white phosphorus", to illuminate the enemy, to mask American troop movement, and to provide psychological impact. Like me I'm sure your asking what's the problem with that? Well nothing if you want the US to win in Iraq. It's gun powder not chemical weapons.

However if you want the US to lose and hate Bush and the US military like the Mink, then you have issues with the use of gun powder during a war. The Mink talks up the horrible use of white phosphorus:

Indeed. White phosphorus, as described in the incendiary weapons section of the authoritative Web site, ignites spontaneously on contact with air. That chemical reaction generates an intense heat and "painful chemical injuries." Once particles get into a person's skin, they rapidly penetrate and dissolve fatty tissues; hence the melting effect. "These weapons are particularly nasty," according to the Web site, "because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears."

The Mink goes on in his insane rant and tries to accuse the US military of using chemical weapons in Iraq with the framing of his article, no he really does here:

Is white phosphorus a chemical weapon? Depends on your interpretation of "toxic properties" as defined in the international Chemical Weapons Convention. But didn't the U.S. call it a chemical weapon when we heard Saddam used it on the Kurds in 1991? So what? Is it an incendiary weapon? Not if it's used for smoke and illumination. But the U.S. used it as an incendiary. Did we? The Pentagon finally admitted it did in Fallujah. And Protocol III on incendiary weapons of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits its use in a "concentration of civilians." The U.S. never ratified Protocol III.

This dithering over definitions is sick and demeaning. Does the United States really need to mount a defense based
on sleazy parsing of words, phrases and technicalities?

How sad the Mink is. Well actually sad, lame and desperate I'd say...........................A defeatist of the first order who is so far out of touch with the American Mainstream that he could be Howard Dean's replacement if Krugman turns the job down...............................................

Does the Mink really get paid to write this schizophrenic crap?


I went and checked out the Mink's source for White Phosphorus (WP) @ globalsecurity

Here is what they said on the same site that unbelievably the Mink used as a source, well used selectively:

White Phosphorus (WP), known as Willy Pete, is used for signaling, screening, and incendiary purposes. White Phosphorus can be used to destroy the enemy's equipment or to limit his vision. It is used against vehicles, petroleum, oils and lubricants (POL) and ammunition storage areas, and enemy observers ( Op-Ed by me: sounds like exactly what we used it for huh?). WP can be used as an aid in target location and navigation. It is usually dispersed by explosive munitions. It can be fired with fuze time to obtain an airburst. White phosphorus was used most often during World War II in military formulations for smoke screens, marker shells, incendiaries, hand grenades, smoke markers, colored flares, and tracer bullets.

The site gets right to the point that the Mink misrepresented terribly in his article that presented false and agenda driven news:

White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects.

Folks, the Mink appears to be lying to you and publishing articles that are false by intent based on his own source and what he quoted from the source and what he did not quote. The Mink should go if you have an interest in real journalism and factual based Op-Ed reporting. The Post number to call if you have an opinion on this journalistic miscarriage is (314) 340-8000.