I have the greatest respect for Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and deputy NSA John Brennan. I am sure they are good Americans and hard workers. But when they start to dissemble on WMD issues, well, it really pisses me off. This is from Monday's press conference at the Washington Conference Center.
MR. BRENNAN: Good afternoon, everyone. The threat of nuclear terrorism is real, it is serious, it is growing, and it constitutes one of the greatest threats to our national security and, indeed, to global security.
If you have to tell people "the threat is real," then in most cases, it's not and you're just trying too hard to convince people that a non-existent future threat that you perceive as serious is really, really worth the great deal of time (and money) to address. As I've stated before, nuclear terrorism as the "greatest threat" ?? Utter horseshit. Absolutely no empirical evidence that anyone in DOD or DHS is putting any effort or serious funds against "the greatest threat to our national security."
Over the past two decades there has been indisputable evidence that dozens of terrorist groups have actively sought some type of weapon of mass effect. Relative to other such potential weapons -- which include biological, chemical, radiological -- the consequences and impact of a nuclear attack would be the most devastating as well as the most lasting.
More horseshit. It may be that "dozens of terrorist groups" have sought "weapons of mass effect," but more to the point, they've looked at industrial chemicals and some biological toxins in small quantities. And isn't that interesting where he doesn't use the term WMD? Rather, he deliberately uses the term WME, which can mean so many things. But the important thing to focus on is that while terrorist groups may have sought out "WME" - and I really, really debate the number of "dozens" - how many have been successful? Only one within the last two decades.
Thus, the ability to obtain a nuclear weapon and to use it is the ultimate and most prized goal of terrorist groups. Al Qaeda is especially notable for its longstanding interest in acquiring weapons-useable nuclear material and the requisite expertise that would allow it to develop a yield producing improvised nuclear device.
Al Qaeda has been engaged in the effort to acquire a nuclear weapon for over 15 years, and its interest remains strong today. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups know that if they are able to acquire highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium and turn it into a weapon, they would have the ability not only to threaten our security and world order in an unprecedented manner, but also to kill and injure many thousands of innocent men, women and children, which is al Qaeda’s sole agenda.
Disturbingly, international organized criminal syndicates and criminal gangs are keenly aware of the strong interest of terrorist groups to acquire fissile material, which has prompted these criminals to pursue nuclear materials for their own personal gain.
Again, mounds of wet, smelly horseshit. Can any professional analyst working for the White House in any administration seriously back up that "al Qaeda's sole agenda" is to kill and injure thousands of noncombatants? They aren't, to my understanding, a nihlist or apocalyptic group. Really unnecessary rhetoric. And I would think that the "ultimate and most prized goal of terrorist groups" is not to get a nuke, but rather more immediate political and financial goals. I don't remember who observed this, but I recall someone saying that it's a mighty big problem when serious analysts don't distinguish between "terrorist groups" and "insurgents" and "criminal organizations." They aren't all the same, they don't necessarily work together, and they have much more realistic goals.
As Brian Jenkins has noted, "Al-Qaeda appears to have figured out that fomenting nuclear terror does not require possession of nuclear weapons." That's because our government officials allow it.
And then there's Roger Gibbs doing a fast duck on the Yucca Mountain issue.
Q Thank you, Robert. There’s the material from Chile, and now Ukraine, which you said could potentially come to the United States. Is the President concerned, are you concerned, that the United States might have to make itself kind of a storage facility, a global storage facility for these materials? And if so, don’t you have another Yucca Mountain with international implications here?
MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip, the goal of this summit and the reason the President is so concerned about it is our genuine concern about the security environment in which this material is held. We don’t worry about the security environment with which that material is held in this country, whether that’s in different places around the country. The President sees, as John mentioned, the threat of this type of material falling into the hands of somebody who wants to use it for their evil designs as the number one security threat that we face as a world.
So I think this is just the type of announcement that we would like to see. I traveled with the then-senator Obama to Ukraine in 2005 with Senator Lugar. We visited a facility that -- basically the equivalent of the Ukraine’s CDC. We walked into a room and out of a refrigerator somebody who worked there took out a series of test tubes that were anthrax.
Suffice to say, I think the level at which we believe that type of material ought to be secured -- in 2005 that standard was not being met at the facility we went to. We provide through -- on nuclear issues through the Nunn-Lugar program and in other programs the type of funding necessary to help many of these countries secure this material. We have assisted Ukraine in a number of those projects, whether it be biological, chemical, or in this case nuclear.
Translated - "I have no intention of directly addressing your question, other than to say that we're not concerned about the security of nuclear waste in America, because we all know that violent terrorists don't work within the United States and Harry Reid needs to be re-elected in Nevada. So I'm going to divert your attention with this story about the state of biological security in Ukraine five years ago, which has shit-all to do with your question."
Just absurd. Again, what's the difference between liberal and conservative hawks discussing WMD issues? No, I don't know either. To be clear, I do believe that the US government needs an implementable plan to respond to the threat of terrorist organizations seeking CBRN materials. But I don't believe in exaggerating the threat, and I think it's better addressed under the general strategy of countering terrorism than making it a special interest topic.
Comments