This hilarious, satire-rich web site chock full of full political mockery is in no way associated with the Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, Tony Snow, Oliver North, Geraldo Rivera, John Gibson, FOX & Friends, Greta von Susteren, or any other part of the idiotic Fox News Channel. All material herein is intended as parody. Similarities in format or "personnel" are satirical. If you're looking for a case of the Big Hammer, sue away, you conservative wing nut. I could use the material.
Repeating an already discredited claim by the BBC and Italy's RAI News, on tonight's Countdown Keith equated the substance white phosphorus to a chemical weapon.
Last year American troops used white phosphorus munitions in Fallujah, and proof of this event has recently surfaced. To use WP in the manner these men did is illegal, and so naturally, being a newsman, Keith discussed it tonight on his program.
But he kept calling white phosphorus a "chemical weapon." White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon.
I can understand if you're not familiar with the difference between an incendiary weapon and a chemical weapon. But Olbermann is normally on top of what he reports. Besides, calling WP a chemical weapon is so eight-days ago.
For those of you who didn't catch it, BBC caused a mini-fiasco last week when they altered their headline for the white phosphorus revelation from "US used chemical arms in Iraq" to "US used incendiary arms in Iraq." I saw the story - watched them alter the headline, and thought, "well, the right wing may get pissed off, but this isn't some Big Brother issue, or the BBC getting caught in a lie." The BBC made a mistake and, after doing a little more research on the topic, they fixed their mistake (something the right wing has forgotten how to do).
Good on the BBC for finding and fixing their mistake. Bad on Keith for ignoring it a week later.
But Olbermann isn't the only one: despite apparently knowing better, The Huffington Post's Bob Cesca attempts to dodge the distinction by front-loading his erroneous classification of WP as a "chemical weapon" with the following caveat:
"And yes -- it is a chemical weapon when used offensively against people."
Apparently logic isn't one of Cesca's stronger suits.
One chemical in incendiary devices is white phosphorus. One chemical in fragmentary devices is tritonal. The chemicals in a can of canned peaches are... whatever constitutes peaches. But the point is all of these items contain chemicals; are they all potential chemical weapons?
(Incidentally, forget peaches - let's go the other way with Cesca's inane reasoning. By his logic, a nuclear arm becomes a "chemical weapon" when it's used against people.)
What distinguishes a chemical weapon from others is pretty straightforward: when the toxic effects of a weapon are more harmful than its physical effects, it is considered a chemical weapon. And what WP does to the body is decidedly physical.
Don't get me wrong - using WP against civilians is always wrong, period. There's a story here that all human rights advocates should push: the DoD fucked up, and we all know it.
But we on the left are above resorting to the type of ignorant "logic" so often embraced by the right. Ignoring the facts in order to hype up the story a notch or two is the same sort of uninformed stuff you'd expect from Bill "Dildo" O'Reilly or Sean "Shemp" Hannity.
Keith, to present as news our misuse of white phosphorus as use of "chemical weapons" not only insults your audience, it reeks of desperation. Yet, for those of us on the left of the political spectrum, these are not desperate times.
I feel like a child who just learned Santa Claus is not real; I've seen you for the human being you are - and not the superhero I once imagined. Oh, you're in no danger of topping my "worst person in the world" list, Mr. Olbermann. But the sense of absolute respect I had for your intellect prior to tonight is forever gone.
