« Perspective | Main | Michael Moore's Greatest Fallacy »

vindicated?*

I'm waiting for some other confirmation on this besides UPI, but if this pans out, it is HUGE.
Iraqi security reportedly discovered three missiles carrying nuclear heads concealed in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad, official sources said Wednesday. The official daily al-Sabah quoted the sources as saying the missiles were discovered in trenches near the city of Tikrit, the hometown of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "The three missiles were discovered by chance when the Iraqi security forces captured former Baath party official Khoder al-Douri who revealed during interrogation the location of the missiles saying they carried nuclear heads," the sources said. They pointed out that the missiles were actually discovered in the trenches lying under six meters of concrete and designed in a way to unable sophisticated sensors from discovering nuclear radiation.
Put that together with this (New report to back up WMD claims) and things surely start to look different. Update: Reuters reports that Iraq's Interior Ministry calls the report "stupid." Update 2: As Allah says, things might be looking bleak for Josh Marshall. Update 3: Make no mistake that I [do not * see comments for editing reasons] view this only as an oppurtunity for gloating. If this report is indeed true, that means there are probably other nukes buried about the country and I'd hate to see them get in the wrong hands. Frankly, I'd feel a bit more comfortable if it wasn't true.
* I cannot get that damn song out of my head today.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference vindicated?*:

» Nuclear Missiles Found in Iraq? from Outside The Beltway
Michele Catalano cites several reports that they have. Several false alarms have been sounded previously, of course, so this could turn out to be another. UPI - Nuclear arms reportedly found in Iraq Iraqi security reportedly discovered three mis... [Read More]

» Nukes Found in Iraq? from The Belfry Blogger
UPI reports: Nuclear arms reportedly found in Iraq "Iraqi security reportedly discovered three missiles carrying nuclear heads concealed in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad, official sources said Wednesday. The official daily al-Sabah quoted the ... [Read More]

» Nukes Found in Iraq? from The Belfry Blogger
UPI reports: Nuclear arms reportedly found in Iraq "Iraqi security reportedly discovered three missiles carrying nuclear heads concealed in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad, official sources said Wednesday. The official daily al-Sabah quoted the ... [Read More]

» Report: Nukes Found in Iraq from Backcountry Conservative
UPI: Iraqi security reportedly discovered three missiles carrying nuclear heads concealed in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad, official sources said Wednesday. The official daily al-Sabah quoted the sources as saying the missiles were discovered ... [Read More]

» What WMD? from Fresh Bed Goodness
[Read More]

» What WMD? from Fresh Bed Goodness
[Read More]

» Forget the Warheads, Tell Me About the Missiles from Game the World
While everyone is dicussing the idea of the nuclear warheads, I would most certainly like more information about the missiles. Assuming that they do exist, what are their range and precision capabilities? [Read More]

» WMDs in Iraq from Dean's World

Ace notes that we've found a total of 35 mustard and sarin gas shells in Iraq. Not counting a few other prohibited items we've found.

Via Via [Read More]

Comments

Suspicious of the "N" word, but 18 feet of concrete?

Who the hell uses 18 feet of concrete unless they're really, really trying to hide something.

Jimmy Hoffa probably didn't rate 18 feet of concrete...

That's all well and good,but isn't the timimg of this find a bit...suspicious?(dripping wet with sarcasm dontcha know)

I am faint, faint, at the thought of how much gloating shall be done if it turns out to be true.

I have to lie down.

Someone get Allah a cold compress and a virgin, stat.

I think Lindsey Lohan will do in a pinch.

Yes, the Jew Lohan will do quite nicely, thank you.

Operation: Nuclear Fucking Gloat is currently on standby.

Maybe someone stuffed the missiles down his pants.

That reminds me...I still miss Baghdad Bob

If this is true, the "Bush lied" thing is going straight down the tubes. I guess the libs are about to learn why you shouldn't pee in the Millenium Falcon.

wow, and just in time too. give me a break.

Oh,shank,its the "timing" and not the facts that matter?you give me gas,

Whoa... I'm actually wishing Saddam had nukes. Set phasers to Maximum Gloat, but keep the safety on.

But - Hans Blix missed these? What? 10 years and now found 'just in time'. Inconceivable!

Would one of those going off over Isreal make it better since it wouldn't have been found 'just in time'.

No matter what happens, no matter when it happens, the left will spin it into a giant conspiracy theory.

Personally I hope this does pan out and it will pretty much insure a Republican clean sweep in November, and that will follow through on House and Senate elections in the next few years too.

If true then the Democrats have screwed the pooch. The impending implosion will be ugly.

obviously if this is true it'll mean the end of the Democrats in the fall. but my sense is it's not.

by the way, when i read this, i turned pale (i think). three nukes just hanging out somewhere? that's not gloat time, that's also maximum "oh shit" time.

i'd rather know Iraq didn't have nukes than they had them.

although if they did have them and didn't use them, it means nuclear deterrence still works with nations.

my sense is this report will turn out not to be true. i think Saddam would've used them on Israel if he had them.

I am taking Tae-Bo classes to get in shape for all the gloating I will do should 1/17th of the UPI report prove remotely true.

I suspect Ill need to do some ab work as well.

That said, "the Nukes, we have nukes" report is total crap and we all know it. If it were true, we'd have an interruption of out regular scheduled programming, if you know what I mean.

Yay!! I am so happy, we might have maybe found WMD's that will allow us to gloat right in the face of the left. And, to think, it only cost a couple hundred billion, thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, and nearly 1,000 American soldiers.

But, hey, getting the ability to gloat is worth it.

three nuclear missiles that weren't used by a madman who was bent on destroying the United States, a country that invaded and overthrew his government. I mean, I'm not a meglomanical dictator so I can't pretend to jump in Saddam's head, but if there was ever a time to use them I'm guessing that would be it...

I will have to make sure to send an email to this idiot MP if this proves out to be accurate.

So when do they start saying the Zionists planted them?

ChrisS,

You CANNOT seriously be that dumb. You CANNOT seriously think that Saddam Hussein wouldn't know the repercussions of using nuclear weapons against the US.

Iraq would be a smoldering glass- covered parking lot now. And world support would be on our side because he nuked us first.

This is the same reason he wouldn't have used chemical weapons (if he, indeed, had any). Nuclear and chemical/biological weapons are all WMD and US policy for retaliation when attacked with WMD is nuclear retaliation.

Apparently a direct denial by the Iraqi government (who, like the US adminstration, has a slight incentive to finding WMD's) isn't enough, eh Andrew?

mbruce, I have to ask here: what would you consider non-suspicious timing? I mean, it seems when anything happens, somebody questions the timing of the event. Uday and Qusay killed? Hmmmm, that's suspicious timing. Saddam captured? Wow, suspicious timing. Joe Wilson exposed? What? So close to the Democratic convention? Berger stealing classified intelligence? Boy, consider the timing! Jeez, man, what the fuck? It's almost as if, should Kerry win the election, and then come December we capture OBL, people would be, like, "whoa, isn't that suspicious timing?!"

In other words, suspicious timing my ass. Enough with the suspicious timing already.

And I still think the nuke story, as of yet, sounds kind of bogus.

Ryan thinks a story sounds bogus? Hmmmm, that's suspicious timing, isn't it?

You CANNOT seriously be that dumb. You CANNOT seriously think that Saddam Hussein wouldn't know the repercussions of using nuclear weapons against the US.

So, he wouldn't use nuclear weapons (or any other WMD) against the US?

So WTF are we doing in Iraq?

Lindsey Lohan, virgin...

Bwah,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,!!!

Y'know, there's something I don't get. During the buildup to the Iraq war, I repeatedly heard from the anti-war side that Saddam didn't have any WMDs, but even if he had them he wouldn't be crazy and suicidal enough to use them, so there was no justification for invasion.

Now, when there's the possibility (though it's probably a false report) that Iraq had nukes, we hear the spin from the anti-war side of "Well, if he had them he would have used them, because he was crazy."

This is getting ridiculous.

Oh, and ChrisS, during WW2 Hitler had chemical weapons, and he never used them. Even homicidal dictators can have limits they won't cross, strange as it may seem.

So WTF are we doing in Iraq?

ChrisS,

Read this.

FWIW, the one-quoted-word from the Interior Ministry calling the report "stupid" isn't necessarily the same thing as calling it "untrue," as longtime students of Washington "non-denial denials" can attest. The response is not necessarily inconsistent with some sort of "we're still investigating, double-checking, and/or getting all our ducks in a row before we confirm this report" action.

I still strongly suspect the story is false (or at least incomplete, or something), but not 100% convinced.

Are you suggesting that Lindsay Lohan isn't "dewy fresh," Matt? Because those are fighting words.

by the way, when i read this, i turned pale (i think). three nukes just hanging out somewhere? that's not gloat time, that's also maximum "oh shit" time.

Especially since the estimates about Iraq's WMD program stated they were pursuing nuclear weapons, but hadn't completed any.

For some reason, I'm hoping that this is a false alarm.

Sarcasm is a powerful tool. In this thread it's being used to illustrate the utter stupidity of this 'news' report.

However, most of you folks will continue to believe what you want to believe. This report will soon become the stuff of legend, tossed out on threads in a mass of innuendo as "never debunked" & "highly interesting".

I'm just saying it's kind of stupid to invade a country over WMD that didn't exist. But, Big Brother, the argument put forth by many of those who did support the war was that Saddam had vast stockpiles at his disposal and was crazy enough to use them or give them to his non-existant terrorist friends so we had to invade immediately.

Argument by anecdote is fun, ain't it?

Argument from ignorance is even moreso, evidently.

when I said 'just in time' i was not referring to the elections. I was referring to how obscenely after-the-fact this discovery is.

we invaded the goddamn country and he never used them. If he wasn't going to use them then, when was he going to use them? And after two years of fighting, when we finally find this measley aresenal, all we you can say is how happy you are that the right gets to gloat? That's pathetic, enjoy your political circle jerk.

ChrisS: No-one in the administration claimed that we should invade Iraq because they already had nuclear weapons. The justification was that Saddam Hussein was continuing to seek WMD, and was fostering underground programs to do so. The inspections and no-fly-zone regime was drawing to an end, and once he was out from under our thumb, he would have resumed operations.

As far as I can tell, what's come out of the 9/11 commission to date supports the President on this matter. Whether Saddam had function nuclear weapons or not is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. What's important is that he was actively seeking them, and that he couldn't be contained much longer.

Stop moving the goalposts.

Argument from ignorance is even moreso, evidently.

Care to show where the ignorance is, or just stand by your snark?

You can't argue that Saddam wasn't rational and would use nuclear weapons against the United States, therefore we had to invade preemptively because deterrance wouldn't work; and then argue that this report could very well be true because Saddam would likely hide nuclear weapons in the desert and not use them because he was a rational, irrational, homicidal dictator in fear of a nuclear counter-attack. See the contradiction?

Allah, I think the phrase you're looking for is "do-me fresh".

Stop moving the goalposts.
Wrong.

I'm pointing out the inherent contradiction of war-supporters swallowing this report that there many be nuclear missiles hidden in the desert, and not used, by a guy who was supposedly not in fear of nuclear counterstrikes.

If A) he couldn't be contained by nuclear deterrence and we had to invade preemptively, then B) why would he have hidden missiles in the desert?

The article should fail a pretty basic logical analysis, if you're starting from the belief that he couldn't be contained - as I'm sure most of you hold.

Me? I think the report is a total fabrication. But I didn't believe that Saddam had much in the way of weapons after 1998 anyway.

Allah, I think the phrase you're looking for is "do-me fresh".

Indeed.

Anyone remember that report about sarin warheads found by Polish troops? It was only three weeks ago.

For the next breaking news, we can use "Anyone remember the nuclear warheads found in the concrete trench?"

For my part, I'm upset that "Operation: Shake Some Drugs Out of the Cop's Pantleg to Implicate the Perp" never got underway.

I'm just saying it's kind of stupid to invade a country over WMD that didn't exist.

Hey, you know what they say about hindsight, Chris. It's 20/20.

First, I'm not convinced they "didn't exist." Saddam had USED them in the past, one of the few modern dictators to have done so. The inspections after the Gulf War were a constant struggle between the inspectors and Saddam's government. And then, in case you have forgotten, Saddam kicked the inspectors out for four years. Do you honestly believe he wasn't developing anything during that time? He could have had the UN sanctions lifted had he cooperated fully, but he never did. I call that suspicious. Hmm... motive for development, means to do so, opportunity. That's pretty suspicious to me.

Second, please remember that virtually EVERYONE believed he had them. The UN believed it (resolution 1441 passed unanimously). The republicans believed it. the democrats believed it (I can provide numerous quotes, if you'd like). You say they "didn't exist," but you are operating with knowledge that no one had during the buildup to war, namely that only limited WMDs and means of production have been found.

Your argument is similar to saying that crack pipes have been found, traces of crack cocaine have been found, equipment for making crack cocaine has been found, but since no crack itself has been found there was no reason for the police to be suspicious.

But, Big Brother, the argument put forth by many of those who did support the war was that Saddam had vast stockpiles at his disposal and was crazy enough to use them or give them to his non-existant terrorist friends so we had to invade immediately.

"Non-existant terrorist friends?!?"

Are you kidding me? Please tell me you're joking, because if you are so uninformed that you think Saddam had no ties to terrorist groups there's really no point in continuing this.

Argument by anecdote is fun, ain't it?

Maybe for you.

Chris, I'm going to post part of den Beste's "Strategic Overview," which I linked to above, because it doesn't appear you actually read it.

The WMDs issue is only PART of the reason we went into Iraq. It was never the whole issue.

From http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

-----------------------------
-Why Iraq?

--Already a problem

The existing sanctions process against Iraq (including patrols over the "no fly" zones) was a failure and was unsustainable. One way or another the status quo was going to end soon. Lifting the sanctions and ceasing to enforce the "no fly" zones without removing Saddam from power was too risky.

Saddam represented a substantial long-term threat. He had demonstrated utter ruthlessness and viciousness in two external wars and uncountable internal repressions. He showed no sign of abandoning his ambition to develop nuclear weapons irrespective of how long it might take or how much it might cost or what political sacrifice might be required.

Saddam had been providing immense support for terrorist groups, both monetarily and in other ways. There were known terrorist training bases in Iraq and he had been providing money and arms. It appears that little of that support went to al Qaeda. Most of it went to various Palestinian groups such as Hizbollah.

Saddam had placed a bounty on Israelis by stating that he'd pay a lot of money to the families of any successful suicide bomber, no matter what group the bomber came from.

Saddam had developed and used chemical weapons against Iranian troops and on Iraqi civilians. Left to himself there was a non-trivial chance of his giving such weapons to terrorists. After the war in 1991 and 12 years of Anglo-American enforcement of sanctions, Saddam had a grudge against the US, and the chance of him surreptitiously aiding terrorist attacks against us out of spite was too great to ignore. It's a matter of record that he attempted to have the senior George Bush assassinated. (George Bush Sr. had been President during the 1991 Gulf War.)

--Military feasibility

The leaders of Kuwait feared Saddam and owed us a big favor from 1991, so Kuwait could be used as a base from which to launch an invasion of Iraq.

NATO ally Turkey shared a northern border with Iraq and it was expected that a second invasion force could be massed there. (As it turned out, this didn't happen.)

Iraqi terrain between Baghdad and the Kuwaiti border was well suited for mass armored assault.

Because of ongoing low-level combat in enforcement of the southern "no fly" zone, it was possible to do most of the essential air preparation slowly over a period of months before combat began.

Though the Iraqi military was large and had a reputation with the "Arab Street", in fact it was deeply crippled and likely to be much less formidable than many expected.

--Political feasibility

A casus belli existed that could be leveraged to justify conquest in certain international fora.

This related to Saddam's failure to abide by the truce terms signed in the aftermath of the war in 1991, particularly in cooperating with international inspections to eliminate Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and development programs.

Saddam's possession or intent to acquire such weapons represented an indirect and long term threat, but was not in actuality the primary justification for the war.

There had been substantial support by American voters since 1991 for military operations to remove Saddam from power. There was far less support for invasion of Iran and no support at all for conquest of any other nation in the region.

--Strategic suitability

Iraq is centrally located with borders on Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. It has major ports through which supplies and troops can move. Thus if we occupied Iraq, it would be ideal as a potential base of military operations against any of those other nations later, should that become necessary.

The governments in the region know it. Having American troops on their borders, or even the threat to move troops there, was guaranteed to get their attention.

If the military victory over Iraqi forces was overwhelming, that would make the threat even more impressive. The military forces of the other nations in the region were even less formidable than that of Saddam's Iraq.

This would make diplomatic threats against them far more effective and inspire much more cooperation from them than had been forthcoming to that point.

--Potential for Reform

Among the major nations of the region, Iraq before Saddam had been relatively mercantile, relatively secular, and had originally had a relatively well-educated and cosmopolitan population.

Iraq had a history of democratic government, albeit not very successfully.

The Kurds had already established a government similar to what we needed to create.

Iraq's oil wealth could be used to offset much of the cost of rebuilding after the war, as well as making the nation economically viable and prosperous and helping to finance diversification of its economy.

--Symbolism and propaganda value

Saddam had become a hero to the "Arab Street". He was thought of as a strong Arab leader who was standing up to the West. Though Iraq's military had been decisively defeated in 1991, Saddam survived politically and this actually enhanced his reputation. He hadn't won against us, but at least he'd tried, which was better than anyone else seemed to be doing. The "Arab Street" was proud of him for making the attempt. (This involved a lot of revisionism, such as ignoring Saddam's earlier invasion of Kuwait, or the participation of large Arab military forces in the coalition army which fought against Iraq.)

Iraq's military had the reputation of being the largest, best armed and most dangerous of any in the region. If it could be decisively crushed it would be psychologically devastating.

Baghdad historically was one of the great capitals of classic Arab civilization. Having it fall to outsiders would be symbolically important.

--Other factors

We owed the southern Shiites a moral debt for not supporting their attempted revolution in 1991, and for our failure to make any attempt to prevent the retaliatory slaughter inflicted on them by Saddam afterwards. (I consider this the most important and most shameful lapse by the US since the end of the Cold War.)

The Kurds had prospered under the umbrella of the northern "no fly" zone. If the sanctions against Iraq had ended and we had stopped enforcing the northern "no fly" zone, the Kurds would then have been crushed, in a repeat of the 1991 slaughter inflicted on the southern Shiites.

Without invasion, reform in Iraq was impossible. The sanctions had failed, and after the debacle of the 1991 Shiite uprising, there was no further possibility of revolution. Removal of Saddam and beginnings of reform in Iraq could only be imposed from outside by military force. Thus invasion of Iraq would have been necessary eventually even if it wasn't the first target.

ChrisS,
I don't have the time or inclination to give you an education in deterrence theory, but you can probably use your gigantic leftoid brain to look it up if you were so inclined.

But for a kindergarten-level example, imagine some alternate future where Saddam is still in power some 5-10 years down the road, and starts pressuring Kuwait or Saudi Arabia to submit to him.

We say "stop that." Saddam says "If you interfere, I'll use my nuclear weapons to destroy several of your cities."

We say "But afterwards, you'll be destroyed utterly! Iraq will be one big sheet of glass!"

Saddam says "Eh, your call. Didn't think you guys really liked the Kuwaitis all that much, but if you're OK with losing New York, Washington, and Miami to defend them... let's see what happens."

The scenario where Saddam doesn't have nuclear weapons is a lot easier to solve, isn't it?

"most of you folks will continue to believe what you want to believe."

The utter irony of this statement gave me a good laugh.

" I think the report is a total fabrication. But I didn't believe that Saddam had much in the way of weapons after 1998 anyway."

"I'm just saying it's kind of stupid to invade a country over WMD that didn't exist. "

Man sometimes its so damn easy. Did he have stuff or not, Chris?

God lord could it be Bush-Hitler was right?

"The scenario where Saddam doesn't have nuclear weapons is a lot easier to solve, isn't it?"

Wish we had followed that in dealing with N.Korea or Iraq.

Breaking News: UNMOVIC has found Michael Moore's head up his own ass.

Sappers are working to defuse the device.

"Sappers are working to defuse the device."

Too dangerous. Evacuate a fifty-block radius and let the sucker blow after issuing a ten-state alert for falling blubber.

Re: Michael Moore

To be serious for a moment, isn't it a shame how nature placed Michael Moore's ass directly under his nose?

The reason we went into Iraq with regard to WMD was to keep the WMD out of the hands of terrorists.

See, Saddam has a state. If he nukes us, we nuke him. He knows that, we know that, the UN knows that.

Terrorists have no state. There's no easy answer for where to respond when there's a terrorist attack, let alone an attack with WMD.

If Saddam were to sell them to Hamas, or al Qaeda, or terrorist organization, he'd get 2 benefits: America in chaos and the millions (possibly, billions) from the sale of the WMD. So, yeah, it might be in his interest to have WMD (or the capability to create them without having stockpiles) but not use them.

From the outset of this war, and I speak of the war that began on 9/11/01, the President made it very clear who we would be fighting. The Democrats may think this is a matter that can be handled in a court of law, but the proper usage of an ounce of brains shows that to be ridiculous.

The reality of the matter is that we are not fighting a war on terrorism. No, we are fighting a guerilla war. When we bomb a guerilla headquarters in Iraq - or anyplace else, for that matter - the media immediately states how many civilians were reported to be killed. Guerillas do not wear uniforms!

Fighting this type of war will take years. Unfortunately for most Americans, a goodly number of us have the attention span of a gnat - not that I mean to cast any aspersions upon the gnats of this fine land.

Kerry wants to take the whole matter to the UN. Great idea! We all recall the wonderful job that organization did in Rwanda. While we are at it, where is the news coverage of the ongoing UN investigation of its in-house crooks who made millions of off Iraqi money?

We have all heard the old Arab saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." In other words, I don't have to like you to use you. I think it is fairly safe to say, neither Saddam nor Osama thinks to highly of us. Is it much of a stretch of the imagination to think that they might work in concert against us?

Hello. My name is Earl and I'm great, big, stinking idiot who has nothing of value to add to any conversation except third grade insults. I'm no longer welcome here.

Wow, Shank, what a stunning retort. No matter when news the gives the Moonbats a kick in the 'nads comes out, they cry about "suspicious timing" because it might distract people from...the Bush-bashing talking point do jour. When WOULDN'T the raving left claim it was a suspicion time for bad news (from their POV) to come out?

Your opinion is duly noted, "earl."

Funny: If this story pans out, which I give a very low chance, the left will just call it another Bush lie (because he always maintained they didn't have nukes yet!) Would we have gone to war if he'd have told the country the truth about Iraq being a nuclear power?! Noooo! :)

PS: someone ban earl already (not for this in particular, but for his repugnant comment from the Perspective post).

Laurence,

Nice attempt to change the topic. If you want to see conservatives with their collective heads up their asses on topic just look upthread at all the gloating about the 3 nukes that has turned out to be a "stupid" story. OOUUUCCCCHHHHH!!!!

Earl's as good as gone.

UPDATE!!!!

Oh shit!!! Laurence bit hard on this story too, stating:

The truth is coming out... Bush didn't lie?

Maybe we should send Sean Penn over there to set the things off, just to prove it's real. Michael Moore should film them from five or six feet away, and then Ted Rall can draw a cartoon about it.

And don't think your disingenuous inclusion of a question mark saves you. If you weren't biting hard, your second statement makes no sense.

Did you actually read the thread, Macswain? Most "conservatives" have expressed skepticism, and most of those who mention gloating use a little word called "if."

Now get your head out of Michael Moore's ass and pay attention.

Macswain just assumes the other side operates under the same principles he does - it's called "projection," folks.

Actually I believe the "if" game is often disingenuously and prematurely played by both sides (e.g. the Left with "if" Allawi executed six prisoners) and here by the right. And I gave you a specific example of how I think it is disingenuous.

Sorry you all had to cancel your nuclear gloat countdowns (& that's tongue-in-cheek for the literalists).

As to the think bunkers, they're called bomb shelters and I don't know how anyone could be surprised by the discovery of any of these when they were talked about in detail during the war. Does the phrase "Bunker Buster" ring a bell? Wind Rider?

Since the story got debunked within six hours of it's first appearance (in the Washington Moonie, ferchrissakes), can I gloat at you? Besides, how messed up is it for anybody to wish for more nulcear weapons?

You talking to me, Don? I never said anything about gloating.

Um, Michele? Might want to timestamp your updates. Update 3 mentions gloating, but I'm not certain exactly when you made that update. I'm sure some idjit is going to try to jump on it to get that thrilling rush of victory or something.

Eh, that was totally a typo. It should be obvious from the rest of the sentence that I meant NOT an opportunity for gloating.