WMD FOUND

Now that the proper documents have been declassified and we know we found chemical weapons what does the left say?

Is Bush still a liar?
Are You still against the War?
What does this change?
Why does this not seem to make a difference to you?

I will tell you this it should make a difference. The oft repeated lie by the left of no weapons of mass destruction is bogus. I would assume some of the senators on the left new but could not say. I must say thanks for keeping quiet it was for national security.

Now those who could not support the war due to the "great lie" now that it is not, are you going to change.

I say be honest you hate Bush no matter what! Get over it.

Now I must give credit to where credit is due. I got this information from Hugh Hewitt and an interview from Rick Santorum.

Posted by Randall Jeremiah at June 21, 2006 8:17 PM
Comments
Comment #160187

Oh ya there are more then that but that is all that has been declassified at this time. this is also only for chemical weapons we do not know at this time how many other forms of WMD may have been found but not yet declassified.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 21, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #160191

Way to go Bush! You spent 300 billion dollars of our kids’ money so we could find weapons we already knew they had back in the 1980’s. How did we know? They were USING them!!

Now call me fiscally conservative, but if I had just ordered almost 3000 Americans to die, I wouldn’t be bragging about this discovery as if it justifies everything. It tells us what every textbook already could: that they had and used mustard and sarin nerve agents over 25 years ago.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 21, 2006 8:59 PM
Comment #160193

“Now that the proper documents have been declassified and we know we found chemical weapons what does the left say?”

They’re degraded pre-gulf war shells. I’m sure Fox is already telling everyone — that was really the whole point of this exercise. Fool the people again — and it’ll probably work.
Santorum was picked to break this news because he’s been doing poorly in the polls for his state. That’s all I have to say.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 21, 2006 9:01 PM
Comment #160195

“Proper Documents”… what the frell does that mean? Don’t tell me they found pieces of paper TALKING about WMD!!!

Where are the WMD themselves?

Posted by: Aldous at June 21, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #160196

I did not know it mattered when it was made but that Bush said he had them. We know there are more. Yes it is true they are degraded so what. It will still kill. It will still burn the skin off of anyone coming into contact with it. Why does it matter that we knew they had them prior to the first war. Did you want old cans of serin gas in the hands of a madman or in the hands of terrorist.

I am sure that is one of the big things the insurgents have been really looking for.

Come on get real. The war was not all about WMD but that was a big part of it. It was about freeing people who could not free themselves.

So now we freed the Iraqi people and we found WMD so where is the great lie you folks keep talking about?

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 21, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #160198

Aldous

We found them in weapon caches and we now have them. I understand there are actually more out there that we found and currently have in our possession.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 21, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #160199

Randall

Good work. Michelle Malkin is all over this too. Unfortunately, by tomorrow night, the left will be “ya butting” all over the place. I can hear it now..”Those were pre-1991 WMDs..they don’t count.

What counts, according to the information that I have read this evening, is that the are still useable, and that people on the black market in Iraq may be trying to buy them.

If this is true, and at this point it looks that it is, then the president is vindicated.

This week will be a very interesting week indeed.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 21, 2006 9:12 PM
Comment #160200

Degraded weapons are just as deadly should a terrorist get hold of them, and that’s the point.

Hussein said he destroyed all WMD, which we know was a lie.

500 shells were found; Hussein used 15 to kill 5,000 Iraqi Kurds.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 21, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #160204

Darfur would be about freeing people who could not free themselves. Somolia would be about freeing people who could not free themselves. Rwanda would be about freeing people who could not free themselves. North Korea would be about freeing people who could not free themselves. Iran would be about freeing people who could not free themselves. Syria would be about freeing people who could not free themselves. ETC. ETC.

That’s just rhetoric. No more.

He told us about them trying to buy uranium from Africa. He told us that they had a direct link to Osama. They even told us he financed terror and allowed them to train in Iraq.

Those were the arguments EVERYONE, especially most pro-war people were using and believing.

Why does this have to be constantly re-visited? Emotional thinking clouds the facts, and the rhetoric of “freeing people who could not free themselves” was just fluff. We use it every time.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 21, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #160206

The American people didn’t go to war in order to find 25 year old shells of mustard gas and sarin in a degraded condition. They were told we were going because of “mushroom clouds” from a reconstituted nuclear program that used “uranium from Africa”.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 21, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #160209

Kevin

I love when the left accuses the right of emotional thinking, since that’s all the left uses.

Posted by: Keith at June 21, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #160212

Please, please, please pull your head out of the Right Wing Echo Chamber (tm) once in while. This is tiresome. If you are genuinely so easily fooled by right wing propaganda, why are you even trying to have a discussion on a blog like this?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 21, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #160214

Kevin:
“Why does this have to be constantly re-visited?”

Because they’re petrified the American people might vote in droves for Democrats because of how horribly they’ve messed things up with this war and how much money they’ve spent. I view what they’re doing as a real act of desperation — but like I said, if the media plays again rolls over like they have with everything else the administration has done, it might work once again.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 21, 2006 9:33 PM
Comment #160216

That should read: plays along again and rolls over like they have with everything else…

Posted by: Adrienne at June 21, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #160221

Get me correctly, I love the fact we found those containers. No one dug them up yet, and that says something about the frenzy in which they must have been buried. Maybe Saddam Insane killed everyone who knew and then forgot. Who knows?

Here’s what I know. The UN inspectors were looking for this stuff and knew it existed. Just as did the American public (well, the ones who read anyway). We didn’t know where it was.

I’m mostly upset about the costs of this war in Iraq…lives and money. Not ours by the way, don’t forget that…or maybe its easier for people that way.

So I say two conclusions can be drawn from the news.

First: great job securing the gas

Second: hindsight being what it is, this still isn’t enough to justify the costs. We could have let the international community do it, and I believe we could have gotten them to act on any good intelligence. We should have put focus on getting good information. Instead Bush and company kicked in the door and started shooting. Sorry…too soon?

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 21, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #160228

Holy crap!

Posted by: womanmarine at June 21, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #160230

Kevin23,

“I believe we could have gotten them to act on any good intelligence.”

Intelligence agencies throughout the world drew the same conclusion that America did: Saddam had WMD.

The UN did not act, nor would it when China, Russia, and France were the ones assisting Saddam.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 21, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #160233

“So now we freed the Iraqi people and we found WMD so where is the great lie you folks keep talking about?” - Randall

WMD? Get real. You think Bush, Cheney, and Co. sold this war on 500 shells of depleted chemical agents? They were talking mushroom clouds, anthrax, nuclear programs that were not in existence. Are you really asking with a straight face where the great lies were?

As for freeing the Iraqi people and helping jump start arab democracy in the middle east. I kept telling myself this must be the real reason. Perhaps I’m not as big a cynic as I should be but I thought, surely Wolfowitz and others were advocating for going into Iraq the day after Sept 11 because they genuinely believed (all along) that the USA should use its overwhelming military to change the world while it could (however misguided)or squander the greatest power on earth. But then, they screwed up so ridiculously I can’t even think that with a straight face anymore. How could someone who wanted to build a democracy do all the things they did wrong starting with so little planning about securing the damn place? It doesn’t add up.

Either they are incredibly incompetent or just plain liars, you choose.

Posted by: Chris2x at June 21, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #160235

The inspectors were on the ground in Iraq driving around in circles not knowing where to look.

If we could have told them where to go, imagine the cost savings.

This administration really needs to stop leading the bull by the horns. But I’m not afraid to admit it when they finally have good news. It is good. But they are still innept overall.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 21, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #160236

Can anybody say pandering? its that time. Congress is the place and its all old news.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 21, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #160237

As I said on the previous part of this thread: These are pre-gulf war Chemical weapons which had degraded from the high-level toxicity that made them effective weapons. These were not the weapons that were supposed to have been made and stockpiled since the Gulf War, these are just the forgotten relics of the Iran-Iraq war.

There’s a reason why this information wasn’t released sooner. It would have been throroughly shot down and exposed for what it is. They’re hoping they can get an artificial kick off of this and throw Democrats off their stride.

This is how the Republican Noise Machine works: What they tell you is not as important as what they don’t tell you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 21, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #160241

Stephen,

Sarin gas does not expire, though mustard gas does.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 21, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #160245

Kevin,
“Way to go Bush! You spent 300 billion dollars of our kids’ money so we could find weapons we already knew they had back in the 1980’s.”

Ah ha! These “pre-Gulf War” weapons were the same weapons that Saddam said he didn’t have. He was supposed to disclose these weapons, via the cease fire agreement, and he didn’t; in fact, this finding proved he (Saddam not Bush) “LIED” about them. Oh my goodness, “SADDAM LIED KIDS DIED”, that has a nice ring to it; the libs ought to try that one, for a change.


These weapons definitely blow the whole “it is believed Clinton destroyed those weapons, via bombings in 1998, so that’s why all those Democrats were caught with their quotes of Iraqs’ WMD’s in the late 90’s” bullcrap out of the water. Keep in mind, the bloggers that made those comments don’t have the guts to stand up to those remarks now and I don’t have the time (nor the panache right now) to go back and copy and paste their quotes (they’re damn lucky, too!).

Busted, libbies. Flat out!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 21, 2006 10:14 PM
Comment #160246

I’m not sure how Saddam lying is new news to anyone. We ALL knew that.

We went looking for undeclared weapons. After we failed to find any, we should have covertly gathered good intelligence and came back when we knew something specific. That would have been prudent.

Instead all we got was paranoid claims, half of which had already been discredited by intelligence officials. But now we found a nut, so it was ALL worth it? No, it was still a blunder from the get-go. If the new Republican moddo is going to be “it’s better to be lucky than good” then lets hope to god they lose the house and senate.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 21, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #160248

Actually, Sarin in its unitary form is quite short lived, only lasting a matter of weeks or months. Binaries last longer, but that might be an issue of years rather than weeks.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 21, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #160252

Rahdigly-
If Bush had only said that Saddam still had stockpiles of weapons somewhere around, you might be free and clear, But Bush Was arguing three things: Current stockpiles, An ongoing CBW production capability, and terrorists around waiting to snap the weapons up. Moreover, Bush combined this with claims of a working Nuclear Weapons program to justify a PRE-EMPTIVE WAR.

That last detail has been highlighted because it is essential to make a distinction between a violation which poses little threat to us, and one which has significant bearing on our calculations there, if for no other reason than it’s our only legal justification for going to war in first place.

These shells were not a real threat to us. They were buried stockpiles of shells from a war long over, not even typically marked to tell them apart from conventional shells.

These do no represent or vindicate the kinds of claims that were made to justify this war. They don’t even really represent the kinds of stockpiles we dealt with in the inspection regimes just after the Gulf War. These represent no justification for America to go to war without being attacked first.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 21, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #160253

Curious, what is significantly degraded - mustard gas that you could use on a hotdog? If there were a there there the Bush Regime would have declassified imediately - and you know it.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 21, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #160262

Chemical weapons are often unstable, if for no other reason than they tend to be very reactive. It doesn’t better if its impure, and Iraq’s munitions could have terrible quality control. The end products of such reactions would not be very healthy to consume (Mustard gets its name from the mustard seed smell), but they wouldn’t be the deadly substance advertised.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 21, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #160267

If they are useless then lets give them to the DNC to use as party poppers in 08. After all they are outdated, useless and insignificant 80’s equipment.

Oh by the way, just so ya know kevin23, if it is 80’s stuff, why was it not destroyed. I read somewhere all his weapons programs were destroyed and all his bulletts made blanks. I even believe that it was the ship without a rudder DNC that yaked it in their yaking points.

After all to listen to the Democrats it seems he just missed sainthood by nose.

Posted by: lm at June 21, 2006 11:17 PM
Comment #160268

“We went looking for undeclared weapons. After we failed to find any, we should have covertly gathered good intelligence and came back when we knew something specific.”

So, we found weapons that Saddam said he didn’t have; does that come close to “undeclared weapons”?!


As for the “good intelligence” comment, the democrats said he had the weapons in 1998 and 1999; then again in 2002 and yet, the libs on this blog said that “Clinton presumbly destroyed those weapons in the 1998 bombings”. Those are facts.


One thing is for sure, we have “good” intelligence gathering now that we’re in Iraq.


And, if this mustard gas is so non threatining (“mustard gas that you could use on a hotdog”), are you going to prove that this summer when you put those weapons (that they found) on your nathans or ballpark?!! Hmmm…

Posted by: rahdigly at June 21, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #160271

This is very pathetic, you folks who supported the war are looking for any vindication you can get. If there was anything of any significance the Bush Admin would have made it public long ago. It needs the PR. But they didn’t..why? Becasue it is nothing of significance.

Lets look at at Saddams Weapons program;

The US knew and/or assumed he had WMD’s becasue we sold them to him. He used them in the 1980’s and the US (Reagan, Rumsfeld and Bush) was silent about it. We rasied no objection until 15 years later when it suits our purpose, we decide to highlight his use of WMD’s as pretex for war.

Now we know according to fox news that the WMD’s found pre-date 1991 and does not indicate an active weapons program during the 1990’s. In addition, Not one Iraqi was a 9/11 hijacker and not one Iraqi is at Guantanamo Bay. The 9/11 comission says Iraq has no ties to Al-Qaeda.

Unprovoked we attack a sovern nation against the UN and international law. Many thousands innocent Iraqi’s are dead. (far more than the number of innocent Americans killed on 9/11)

But somehow you pro-Iraq war crowd feel vindicated becasue of we found outdated WMD’s. So please tell me, How are we (USA) the good guys in all of this?

Posted by: Stefano at June 21, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #160273

Dr Politico, Hussein did not deny having WMD. His statements were carefully crafted to leave room for believing he did still have them and was capable of inflicting tremendous harm on an American invasion force. That was part of the abject insanity of Saddam Hussein, who probably never was educated in the concept of the self-fulfilling prophesy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 21, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #160274

I wonder why, with such an amazing stockpile of such weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam did not use them on the invading American troops?
Pandering to the chicken hawks is all this is about.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 21, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #160277

“if it is 80’s stuff, why was it not destroyed”

What does it matter at this point? And who cares? Nobody doubted he’d buried stuff in the desert. What, where, how much? These are questions we should have been asking all along.

And has anyone addressed my point yet? This war is WAY TOO COSTLY???

I guess people are too busy “winning” to comprehend what hame they are playing.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 21, 2006 11:30 PM
Comment #160278

I have two sixpacks of Amstel from the early nineties in the back of my garage, well I guess it still classifies as beer.

Well good thing they found something, Saddam looked at that info and said “oh thaaaat’s where I put those I been lookin’ everywhere”.

ATTENTION REPUBLICANS!—here’s your chance! Now CAN YOU PROVE that there were the propulsion systems to get those over-aged cans of Raid over here into the US?????????? THAT IS WHAT THE CLAIM WAS—let me say it again—THAT IS WHAT THE CLAIM WAS, that they could fire them into the United States!!!!—Your go!

Posted by: Novenge at June 21, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #160281

Stephen,

“Binaries last longer, but that might be an issue of years rather than weeks.”

That’s a strange claim to make. According to the link you provided, the benefit of binaries is that shelf-life becomes irrelevant.

According to Senator Santorum:

“The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal,” Santorum read from the [intelligence] document.

I’ll take the words of America’s intelligence departments over Wikipedia.

Still, we’re getting way ahead of ourselves. As I wrote, WMD were found. They would be dangerous in the hands of terrorists. I’ll wait for official information rather than speculate further. I recommend you do the same before arguing that these weapons were harmless.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 21, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #160282

Let’s do the big test. Take the top 500 liberals in the country and give them each one cylinder to store in their cellar, den, garage or the room of their choice. At election time we will check on those cylinders and see what the status is.

Posted by: tomh at June 21, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #160283

Note to Randall, Sean Hannity has been wrong so many times that he is more likely to spontaneously combust than ever be right about anything.

Posted by: gergle at June 21, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #160285

It seems like only fox news has found wwmd’s in Iraq.I pity there scared and hysterical fans.

Posted by: OZ at June 21, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #160284

Randall to answer your questions:
Yes W is still a liar. Well unless these gases are the mushroom clouds we heard so much about but seen so little of.
Yep, still thinking the war was a bad idea. It had nothing to do with terrorism. I think W and the traitors that follow him just want to bankrupt this Country.
This crap is more of the same from the far right. Nothing changes same crap different day.
This issue makes little difference because it is insignicent when compared to Nuclear warheads that we were told we would find. Just more pandering to hide the real issues surrounding the reason we went to war.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 21, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #160286

I don’t beleive for one moment that U.S. troops located these outdated weapons without some intelligence from inside Iraq. Namely civilians who were somehow convinced that the weapons were all we were after, and that we would leave once they were in our possession. Hell, isn’t that what everyone was lead to beleive?

Is it surprising that they were found? No. We suspected they were there.

Is it surprising that it wasn’t confirmed? No. If it had been we’d probably been asked to leave.

If we’ve found all of the weapons, then insurgents have no tangible upper hand and non-insurgents outnumber insurgents by about 200 to 1, and there is no reason to stay. Even if we have found all of them, it most probably will be presented that we haven’t, which will lend credence to continued U.S. presence.

Posted by: DOC at June 21, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #160289

Now all the lefties will argue about the quality of the weapons. But there is a definite bottom line.

Saddam had WMD. He lied about it. There may be more.

We can argue about how bad it is, but you do have to give up the Bush lied rhetoric.

This also shows the problem with intel. There is a lot of uncertainty.

But we all know lefty has long since given up on truth. No matter what, lefty has the script written.

We taunt you a fifth time. I do enjoy this. I get to do it about once every two weeks.

Stefano

We DID NOT sell WMD to Saddam and contibuted only 0.47 of his total arsenal. FYI - that is less than places like Czechoslovakia or Brazil. It is statistically about zero. Please do not continue to spread that disinformation about your country. It is wrong factually and wrong to do. You can continue to hate Bush & Reagan w/o telling lies about the U.S.

I know you saw a picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam and that convinced you that the U.S. created Saddam. If you check archives you can find lots of pictures of people with Saddam. THe history is complicated and I do not have time to explain it to you. Suffice to say that the weapons we faced in the Gulf War were Soviet or French. You may recall that.

Posted by: Jack at June 21, 2006 11:45 PM
Comment #160291

Isn’t Mustard Gas is a World War I weapon? Maybe they’ll find a cache of hand grenades with wooden sticks on them too. Hitler supposedly had a raspy voice because of a Mustard Gas attack burning his vocal chords. This is really high tech modern stuff here.

Prove to me they had the propulsion systems to vault it into the US as Bush and Cheney claimed and I promise I’ll shut up.

Posted by: Novenge at June 21, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #160293

Stephen,
“Actually, Sarin in its unitary form is quite short lived, only lasting a matter of weeks or months. Binaries last longer, but that might be an issue of years rather than weeks.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 21, 2006 10:36 PM


Of course, you left out the “Biological Effects” section of that link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin#Shelf_life

Let’s take a look and what it says:


Sarin is an extremely potent organophosphate compound that disrupts the nervous system by inhibiting the cholinesterase enzyme by forming a covalent bond with the site of the enzyme where acetylcholine normally undergoes hydrolysis. This allows acetylcholine to build up and continue to act so that any nerve impulses are, in effect, continually transmitted…As the victim continues to lose control of bodily functions, he vomits, defecates and urinates. This phase is followed by twitching and jerking. Ultimately, the victim becomes comatose and suffocates in a series of convulsive spasms
Sarin is a highly volatile liquid.
Inhalation and absorption through the skin pose a great threat. Even vapour concentrations immediately penetrate the skin. People who absorb a nonlethal dose but do not receive immediate appropriate medical treatment may suffer permanent neurological damage…Even at very low concentrations, sarin can be fatal.Death may follow in one minute after direct ingestion of about 0.01 milligram per kilogram of body weight if antidotes, typically atropine and pralidoxime, are not quickly administered. Atropine, an acetylcholine inhibitor, is given to treat the physiological symptoms of poisoning.”

Oh Stephen, it sucks when you keep reading a source (that you cited) and it says that’s it’s deadly. Now, if these weapons, that were found (500 to be exact) were used in 9/11, or worse it got into the hands of terrorists, how catastrophic that would be! It’s WMD’s and, in the hands of the enemy (which is “actually” not Bush, by the way), would be extremely fatal to us “infidels”.

Posted by: rahdigly at June 21, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #160294

Novenge

This is a discussion we have had before. These chemical weapons are dangerous because they are easy to make. Any bad guy with money and the will to do so can make them if he defies the international community. That is also the reason why it is so stupid to believe that the U.S. supplied these things to Saddam. There is no need.

Chemical weapons are not very dangerous against organized military. We learned how to adapt by 1918. They are a potent weapon against civilian targets and as a terror weapon. That is why they are so odious. They are essentially only a murder weapon. To repeat, they are dangerous because they are easy to make by someone who has money, controls a country and has the will to use them. Not many people fit all these categories. Saddam did.

Posted by: Jack at June 21, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #160295

AND also Aren’t thse armaments left over from the Iran Iraq war???? THEY ARE AREN’T THEY? YES THEY ARE oooh Fox is reeeeeaally on to something—they were in a war in the eighties—WOWIE what a breakthrough.

Posted by: Novenge at June 22, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #160296

So Jack - If intelligence was uncertain, how was Bush so absolutely certain that Saddam was lying? And how can anyone feel vindicated in the fact that Bush’s “Silly guess” turned out to be true? Do you actually suggest that he may have God-like powers of omnipresence? Everyone in the world knew that they could have them. Bush had the sales ledger. Intelligence only cast a shadow on whether or not they still existed or not, and if so, where they might be.

It seems too small a victory to suggest that your political adversaries grovel in your presence.

Posted by: DOC at June 22, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #160297

Jack they did not have the ICBM propulsion systems to get them into the US, such as was the fear.

Posted by: Novenge at June 22, 2006 12:05 AM
Comment #160300

Novenge

The US was not the primary target. Israel was, is and always will be. They would rather destroy Israel than anybody else on earth. That is what they live for, the destruction of Israel. It will never happen.

Posted by: tomh at June 22, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #160301

Ah…its refreshing days like this that make me proud to sit up and smell the burnt odor o’ napalm and liberals with their pants on fire. Whine all you want, Saddam really was interested in getting yellow cake uranium from Nigeria.Never mind the bs report made by that lying slob and his not quite a spy wife (who did not send him on that “fact finding” trip). That was political backstabbing from our friends deep in the Cia, ones made a little uncomfortable by Porter Gauss. And he *Saddam* did have a nuclear program, french made, of course…but it was only for peaceful power purposes. (Just like the one next door in Iran, also french and russian made, Thanx guys)
Lets not forget all that french made military radio and other equipment our boys kept finding.

No one, not even the dumbest leftie thought for a moment that he would shoot a missle full of junk at us…that would leave radar tracks pointing right back at him, and he’d get nuked. Novenge thinks he’s pretty cute, but the best memory against a democrat or a leftie is a good memory and a strong right hook. (as opposed to the effete left jab or eye scratch)
No, the point has always been the use of third party intermediaries in his asymetrical warfare against the US.
“Terrorists” such as the agents used by Libya on the Lockerby bombing are much more deniable than something with the islamic equivalent of “UP Yours America!” painted on the side of it. Actual nut jobs willing to die, eliminating their connection back to you are even better, especially since ol bushie still has yet to do a damned thing about the largely undefended borders. Wake up Bush! its not just about %$?!!! illegals, its about everyones safety!
(Are you happy now, liberals, even conservatives can get pissy with Bush)

Saddam was very cozy with Al queda and other terrorist types, happily giving medical treatment at his best hospitals, providing safe harbor for animals like Abu Nidal and the late, unlamented Abu Zackerwhatshisdeadfacis LONG before the so called slow motion “Rush” to war. There is plenty of evidence showing his cozying up to palestinin nutjobs whenever they killed a jew or an american, and that alone should have cost him and his rotten sons their lives. But none of that matters to you guys, does it?
Liberals don’t mind when Americans die in their failed military adventures, they only care when it looks like we might win…and increase our standing in the world.
Only an idiot would believe for a second that you gain respect in a rough and tough world by being the biggest pussy on the block. You get…and keep respect, by kicking ass, which our military does very well. Oh…and the world knows that when the chips are down from some natural disiaster, Americans will come save their sorry asses once again.
If liberals are successful in “knocking us down to size” who will be the savior of drowning people in Fiji after some tsunami? The blue helmeted child rapists in Africa? China? France? Russia? I wouldn’t bet on it.
America is the best, and I can say that having been around the world courtesy of the USN. Don’t like it? Thats too bad…for you.
The rest of us will go back to enjoying the delicious smell of burning liberal pants.

Posted by: HardHatHarry at June 22, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #160302

The aversive psychology from the right is just so blatant.How do you contain your embarrassment.

Posted by: OZ at June 22, 2006 12:19 AM
Comment #160303

Noevenge,
“AND also Aren’t thse armaments left over from the Iran Iraq war???? THEY ARE AREN’T THEY? YES THEY ARE oooh Fox is reeeeeaally on to something—they were in a war in the eighties—WOWIE what a breakthrough.”


The point is that Saddam lied (once again) about these weapons and, in the hands of the wrong people (Saddam or Al Qaeda), they are a “threat” to their enemies (you know, infidels like Americans and Jews).

It also debunks the critics that say that “if we let the weapons inspectors have more time, we wouldn’t have to go to war”; even though Saddam told the weapons inspectors (in 2003) that he didn’t have these kind of weapons (from the 80’s).


Yet, keep blaming Bush, conservatives and (of course) Fox news. That’s it, you’re on to something now. Nice…

Posted by: rahdigly at June 22, 2006 12:19 AM
Comment #160304

Oh and while we are all at, let us not forget for a moment that the real threat, the elephant in the room, is China. And guess what, they really do have nukes that can hit us. Bill Clintion made sure of that with his satellite technology deal. If China wasn’t looking over its shoulder at the newly strengthened Russian bear, we would probably have had it out with them over Taiwan by now.

Posted by: HardHatHarry at June 22, 2006 12:26 AM
Comment #160305

Okay Rah,

Lets backtrack to the 90’s we knew Saddam was lying as was the case continually, continually made by Scott Ritter of Unscom. So saddam is a lir but we went to war for a little more than left over cannisters of Mustard Gas and Serin or whatever. WE are if anything looking for VX or something with real potential and in truth I think there may be more myself but this isn’t the big cache if there is one. So hence I won’t concede to let Bush be given this brownie point—I need more evidence before I let him off the hook. Yes Saddam was damn near a psycho if not a monster inside and out but we did invade on a claim.

Another sidepoint is that right next door you have Pakistan with a damn-near department store of you name it—they have it, that is one coup away from a monomaniacal anti-western Islamic theocracy. Nothing said from the Bush administration—interesting to say the least.

Posted by: Novenge at June 22, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #160307

Tom H,

Right from the horses mouth, Israel correct! but what was the reason Bush and Cheney said we were going to war in Iraq (which I just think should have waited until we had the job done in Afghanistan), they said something about mushroom clouds was it? and that we had to act right that minute with no waiting. With exception ofcourse to giving Saddam ten months of preparation.

There may be more but this isn’t the biggie.

Posted by: Novenge at June 22, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #160308

Novenge is right that Pakistan bears careful watching.
Once again, the adminstration doesn’t telegraph its moves so that the liberal press can sabotage its actions: we are involved on almost every level I can think of with Pakistan. We are also VERY involved with India and its less than well known about anti-ballistic missle system, some of which involves energy weapon technology. It should come as no surprise that the Bushies have nothing to say about all this, they are closed mouthed because the enemies at home are more dangerous to them and America in general than even the worst depradations of a terrorist.

Posted by: HardHatHarry at June 22, 2006 12:43 AM
Comment #160309

And let us not forget that Scott Ritter, convicted child molester, had lots of negative stuff to say about Saddam until recently. Makes you wonder what kind of blackmail…or bribe that Saddam or Dems used to make him shut up.
Interesting that he has completly gotten out of the spotlight these days.

Posted by: HardHatHarry at June 22, 2006 12:47 AM
Comment #160310


The Bush administration kept the discovery of these chemical weapons classified until now because they wanted the American people and the rest of the World to believe that the administration had lied about WMD’s to get us into the war.

The shells have made in the U.S.A. stamped on them. One even has presented to Sadam by your friend Rummy.

Most of us can make something out of nothing when we want to.

Posted by: jlw at June 22, 2006 12:49 AM
Comment #160311

HHH - Damn! About 12 uninteligent counterpoints, and then you come out with something I can’t dispute. Perhaps the Chinese will forgive our anti-social behavior since Nixon.

Posted by: DOC at June 22, 2006 12:49 AM
Comment #160312

Hard Hat Harry,

Saddam reportedly executed Abu Abas, one of the worst Palestinian terrorist, the mastermind behind the Achile Lauro and perhaps several airline highjackings.

Posted by: Novenge at June 22, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #160313

Novenge

Many reasons were given to take out Saddam. An imminent attack on Israel, of course, is always a good reason for an interdictive strike. I suppose the threat of WMDs is another one. How about something financial? Interruption of oil? Saddam posturing to join OPEC? How about Saddam ignoring countless UN resolutions?

What do you need? When you start practically every statement with the same litany (typically starting with “Bush and Cheney…”) I get the feeling that you are just using talking points, and not really thinking about all the facts at hand.

Posted by: Bruce at June 22, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #160315

The DoD reminds people that these munitions likely would not have worked if deployed and were not necessarily the WMD that intel agencies reported. However, they also acknowledged that Saddam’s retention of his Gulf War munitions shows his deception to the UN and the cease-fire powers.

Defense Department debunks Santorum/FOX News claim that we found WMD in Iraq

Iraq Survey Group Final Report

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 22, 2006 1:03 AM
Comment #160318

Okay the facs are this Bruce, this was claimed to be involved somehow with 9-11. It was claimed that we could be attacked by Saddam. It was claimed that they had massive stockpiles of WMD. It was claimed that this was the next stop on the war on terror for these reasons.

And as far as Bush being close-lipped for security reasons and that the liberal press will be treasonous or something is a crock. Granted there is a bit of it but my contention is and has been that these guys are not all that on the ball to begin with. Did you hear the ideas of how we were supposedly going to pay off this war??—with Iraqi Oil revenues. Gee when is that going to start? These are not the brightest nor the best but ideologues that I have no choice but to rest some semblance of faith in.

I can’t say Bush has been vindicated on this one.

Posted by: Novenge at June 22, 2006 1:11 AM
Comment #160319

Facts, not opinion…

According to President Putin, Saddam was impressed by 9/11, and offered to assist in similar style attacks…
Recent declassified audio tapes, have Saddam speaking to his generals of future attacks on America, that cannot be traced back to Iraq…
Saddam repeatedly violated UN cease fire accord which ended the first gulf war…
IF Saddam used WMDs in the past, on his own coutrymen, then at the very least he possessed the knowledge and capability to reconstitute those programs once he felt it was safe to do so, and could pass this onto Al-Quadea..
As for Bush’s reference to Iraq attempting to purchase Uranium from Bigeria, he preferenced it to British intelligence whom still stand by that assertion…
Terrorists do not want a free democratic region in the middle east because it would interfere with their agenda, so they have decided to make Afghanistan and Iraq their battleground… if they were not engaging our trained and brave military in those countries, does anybody seriously believe they wouldn’t be plotting against us, and we would be engaged on American soil?
Does anybody really believe that Bin Laden and his terrorist network only intended to strike us once on 9/11 and then leave us alone?
Is anybody on this blog briefed by our intelligence agencies, or cleared for classified intel? The declassfied document Santorum referenced is only a partial document, there have been other weapons found, and NO FOX didn’t trumpet these findings, they explained that the Bush administration hasn’t released this intel, because even though the weapons discovered can be used as WMDS, the BUSH administration didn’t believe this finding validated their earlier assertions.
I challenge anybody on the right or left, too review speeches by Clinton / Gore and top democrats, before Bush ever campaigned for president, they all issued statements stating categorically that Saddam had WMDS and would if given the oppotunity would use them against us.
Before Bush ran for president, every intelligence agency in the world came to the same conclusion that Saddam possessed WMDS.
Those who still protest the war, demoralize our soldiers, validate our enemies opinion of us, and often repeat their rhetoric to recruit other terrorists.
Saddam paid the famalies of suicide bombers 5,000.00 and more.
Those who rally against the war, must believe that the world would be better with Saddam / Zarquari left alone, and that a frighten Bin Laden shouldn’t be on the run.
The best and fastest way to bring the troops home is too support a complete and total victory.
After 2 of our brave men were tortured and brutally murdered, even the most vocal opponent of the war, should be outraged.
I am sadaned that so many Americans can be so vocal when it comes to how we treat our POWS, but, have no such outrage at Americans being viciously murdered.
I know soldiers in the war, these brace men and women are reenlisting in record numbers, volunteering to return to harms way, because they believe they are involved in a conflict that can make a difference not only in the middle east but here at home.
Let’s not forget that a few times Clinton had a chance to give the kill order on Bin Ladan, but for political reasons he chose not too, if he had, perhaps the Twin Towers might still be standing.
Clinton was guided by pollsters, Bush governs by conviction, he says there isn’t a day he doesn’t think about 9/11 nor a day he doesn’t pray for the troops and their famalies.
IF you support the troops, you will not engage in rhetoric which gives the enemy comfort and criticizes a noble goal.
And let’s not forget, that the oil for food scandal in the UN was the main reason the UN did not act against Iraq.
If the UN had acted in the manner of which it was intended, the invasion would not have been necessary.
Saddam was embolden by his ties to the UN, and felt confident his allies would block any resolution, and Uday told his brother they didn’t have anything to worry about, to which his brother replied, “I’m not to sure, we’re not dealing with Clinton anymore,”
His words were more prophetic than perhaps even he realized.
The weapons which Santorum refrred, proves that Saddam did not abide with UN rules nor was truthful with inspectors.
Nor let us forget that he expelled inspectors from his country, if he had nothing to hide, then why antagonize the west ?
War is regrettable, but history has proven that often it is necessary, it’s ironic that even President Lincoln faced much of the same criticism, he too wanted to free an oppressed people.
Truman also was criticized even after Pearl Harbor, had Lincoln and truman cow towed to his critics then how different might the world be today?
And if Bush allows middle east thugs and liberal socialists both here and abroad, to run us out of Iraq, then how will the world look tomorrow.
I cannot say with any degree of certainty what we should or should have not done, and neither can any of you, because none us on this or any other blog has all the facts…
If history teaches us nothing else, it’s that as times changes often does perception and realization.
It’s a known fact that the Bush administration has foiled many terrorists attacks, so it stands too reason there are many more that we will never know about…
I have voted for both democrat and republican for president, whether I agree with their policy or not, I love my country enough, that when our commander in chief sends out the troops, I support them, and root for total victory..
There was a time when rallying around the flag was in vogue…And those who believe FOX is right wing biased and CNN isn’t left wing bias, lives in the land of OZ..
As Jay Leno once said, liberals were upset because the right had Rush Limbaugh and Fox news, to which Leno, asked what about ???? ABC

Posted by: Bo at June 22, 2006 1:14 AM
Comment #160320

These don’t sound like the same WMDs the administration talked about pre-war.

CHENEY:

Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.—-We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 22, 2006 1:17 AM
Comment #160321

Or these:

On October 7, 2002, George W. Bush, said… “The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 22, 2006 1:21 AM
Comment #160322

Jay Jay,

And the DoD said that these were not the WMD that the US went to war for—nice save!

Posted by: Novenge at June 22, 2006 1:22 AM
Comment #160323


They made a flawed attempt to save Rick’s butt. We can’t blame them for that, it’s politics.

Posted by: jlw at June 22, 2006 1:22 AM
Comment #160324


Just a question for our resident experts….

Are these weapons that they have found part of the same weapons that were listed in the FIFTY THOUSAND PAGE fairy tale the Iraqi’s gave us as PROOF that EVRYTHING had been destroyed, just prior to the invasion?….

Appreciate your input….

BTW…Can there be a single American who isn’t rejoicing that we have over 500 weapons that will never be obtained by the terrorist element and brought to American soil?…That is after all a large part of why we’re in Iraq…Isn’t it?

Posted by: Status Whoa at June 22, 2006 1:24 AM
Comment #160326


That DOD spokesperson who contradicted Santorum should be locked up for aiding and abetting the enemy.

Posted by: jlw at June 22, 2006 1:28 AM
Comment #160327

(continued) ABC, NBC,CBS, N.Y. Times, LA TIMES, CNN, NPR, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc…
Liberals can understand anybody except those who disagree with them.. they love gays but hate christians..they resort to mean spirited name calling, (if you are against any liberal issue, there is a label awaiting you, and slander rather than debate the issue in any meaningful way…
Conservatives could survive without liberals but liberals could not survive without conservatives, because liberal programs are funded primarily by capitalist taxpayers…
I defy all liberals who read this to discuss politics without name calling, or slander, to discuss your viewpoint in an intelligent and reasonable manner…
The late Patrick Monahayn of NY once was asked what was the major difference between Reagon and Clinton, to which he replied, a handshake with Reagan was an iron clad contract, and even a contract with Clinton wasn’t a guarantee, and he believed President Bush was a man of honor, interity.
He was widely chastised for his remark, and he brudgedly campaigned for Hillary Clinton to replace him..

Posted by: bo at June 22, 2006 1:29 AM
Comment #160328

Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approx. 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

Why didn’t Bush make mention of this at this October 7, 2004 press conference?

BUSH: The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.
Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 22, 2006 1:36 AM
Comment #160329

Status Whoa:

How did you feel when the 500 TONS of high-explosives were stolen from unsecured Iraqi Ammo Dumps after the fall of Iraq?

I assume you are rejoicing that all those explosives are being used for IEDs in Iraq instead of the American Soil? Good thing we got GIs there for convenient targets, eh?

Posted by: Aldous at June 22, 2006 1:37 AM
Comment #160333

Bo, Pearl Harbor was FDR.

ABC is not liberal, Koppel isn’t a liberal he just isn’t ranting, so I guess that makes him a liberal?

I think the focus of radical Islamic attrocities, being that is what they are radical Islamist, is because no one is talking about the real problem and the dems on this site would differ immensely on it. Which is Islam is really an evil primative violent religion masquerading as a lamb of the valley. Both Shiia and Suni are dark, stupid and heinously capable of massive violence and they will kill their own countrymen to make any point that crosses their uneducated minds. There is too much PC but if we are to go after all this and not lay reallistic claim that the real problem is inside the mosque, we don’t see the truth.

Muslims live to kill jews, the same way some dogs are bred to chase game and the social aspects are not changing. But we as a nation cannot for some reason just call a spade a spade and say Islam is violent and primative or we are racists. The Wahabist schools are still running, terrorist monies are still flowing and my president is off on a bender not dealing with either.

Posted by: Novenge at June 22, 2006 1:40 AM
Comment #160334

bo,

Liberals can understand anybody except those who disagree with them.. they love gays but hate christians

I love Gays and Christians.

they resort to mean spirited name calling, (if you are against any liberal issue, there is a label awaiting you, and slander rather than debate the issue in any meaningful way…

Who has resorted to this? You obviously haven’t listened to Rush, Ann, O’Reilly, etc..

Conservatives could survive without liberals but liberals could not survive without conservatives, because liberal programs are funded primarily by capitalist taxpayers…

I don’t understand this claim. I pay 25% of my wages in taxes, and I am not a capitalist.

I defy all liberals who read this to discuss politics without name calling, or slander, to discuss your viewpoint in an intelligent and reasonable manner…

And I defy you to discuss the topic actually being discussed. I believe it has something to do with WMDs. I am very proud of the intelligent and reasonableness of the arguments made by my liberal counterparts here.

I’m not sure what those comments about Reagan and Clinton have to do with this discussion.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 22, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #160339

DOC

Bush made his estimate based on intelligence. These decisions are always made in a climate of uncertainty.

I do not understand your sales ledger comment. I am sure there is some erroneous implication there. You know that the U.S. did not sell chemical weapons to Saddam and supplied 0.47% of his total arsenal even when you are very broad in defintion of weapons.

Jlw

The made in the USA crack is a complete lie. Those who believe it show both their hatred of the United States and their ignorance of chemical weapons, and perhaps their gullibility. I take it from your tone that you are trying to be ironic, funny. Please do not do that. There are plenty of people who really are dumb enough to believe it when they hear it repeated.

All

The discovery of WMD just indicates the uncertainty we were working with before the war. The fact is even AFTER all this, we still are uncertain. The Bush lied scenario assumes the President had something approaching perfect knowledge and then lied about it. The real scenario is more like this.

The President is charged with making our country safe. Before 9/11 we thought we had a lot of leeway in making decisions. After 9/11, we saw there was less margin for error. Whenever you set decision criteria you take into account the quality of your information and the consequences of being wrong. We clearly UNDERESTIMATED Saddam’s program in 1990 and we seriously underestimated the progress Pakistan was making before they came up with the bomb. Our decision makers knew that the consequences of underestimating Iraq were very serious, so they set the decision criteria with that in mind. It makes perfect sense.

After something has happened, it is usually easy to see errors. Hindsight is usually 20/20. But in this case we see how hard it was even AFTER. It becomes impossible to maintain that Bush made dishonest decisions based on the information he had in 2002 when even in 2006 we are STILL uncertain.

Reasonable people and those who have experience making real life decisions will understand this. Others, blinded by hatred or w/o significant experience being a boss, will not. And nobody will be able to explain it to them at their current level of understanding.

Posted by: Jack at June 22, 2006 2:07 AM
Comment #160343

QUOTE: “How did you feel when the 500 TONS of high-explosives were stolen from unsecured Iraqi Ammo Dumps after the fall of Iraq?

I assume you are rejoicing that all those explosives are being used for IEDs in Iraq instead of the American Soil? Good thing we got GIs there for convenient targets, eh?


WOW….I’d try to agrue the logic of your post Aldous, however it plum escapes me……

I tell ya what I’m rejoicing about….After listening to the hyperventilating left that THERE WERE NO WMDs…..I don’t think I’ll be hearin that anymore….

Now that IS “rejoicable”….

Posted by: Status Whoa at June 22, 2006 2:17 AM
Comment #160346

“Islam is violent and primative”

“Muslims live to kill jews”

Doesn’t anyone in America read history anymore?
How can anyone advocate this type of worldview?

Well, luckily for some we are in America. I can’t believe there is no recognition of the fact that whole civilizations and cultures were routinely wiped out and destroyed in the name of Christianity.

It is easy to point the finger at the most obvious thing. I’m surprised I’ve yet to hear about the theory: “the browner you are the more of a terrorist you are.” Just as fruity.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 2:19 AM
Comment #160348

I mispoke Truman came into office in 1945, my mistake, and I meant to say FDR, I profoundly apologize for my my mistake, luckliy I had a liberal around to correct me, as if that changed the point I was making, that liberals have have always opposed war, regardless of the reasons, when things were a mess in Iraq, it was reason to leave, when the people of Iraq voted it was reason to leave, new government formed, let’s leave, when Zarqwari was killed let’s leave (his whole mission in life was to run out of Iraq, so when we kill him, let’s honor him by doing what he wanted, leave,…okay so I agree it was FDR and he was actively opposed to his position on WWII,
The reference to Reagan/Clinton. Bush, is that the liberals routinely refer to Bush A a liar, BUT EVEN A LIFELONG LIBERAL LIKE Monihayn believed him to be a man of faith and honest, about WMDS, even though long before he came into office this was popular worldwide opinion, Clinton, GOre, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, etc…all the top democrats asserted the same conclusion, Saddam had WMMDS and was a threat, Gore called him one of the biggest threats in the world, it’s all public record, so instead of correcting me, why not go back do some research and correct those friends of yours, that your so proud of.
If you’re not a captilist, are you admitting liberals are socialists, who has more faith in government than the people..? And I said “primarily” and even you have to admit, those with their hands out depending on welfare, etc… are not vcontributing to society, but depending on others who do…
Tell me one time Rush Limbaugh has resorted to
mean spirited name calling?? Even Ann Coulter when she resorts to lambasting somebody has a valid point, while I commend you for a rational reply, I defy you to count how many times conservatives on this blog or any other, resort to slander and name calling, versus your liberal friends.
And obviously you have never really watched O’Reilly, he doesn’t name call, he debates the issues and only uses facts, I know some former liberals who were life long democrats, hated republicans, but after watching O’Reilly, for awhile now for the first time vote and support Republcians..
FYI O’Reilly, chastises people on both sides who resort to name calling and slander and has called Ann Coulter on it face to face on his show, even told her such tactics demeans the debates…
Every topic, if considered properly, I previously discussed has to do with the debate over WMDS…And I did not know that you decided what was valid or not valid points…
As for my reference to liberals love gays and hates Christians by and large who does groups like ACLU support and who do they oppose???
One last question, do you believe we should cut and run, or do you believe we should do everything in our power to achieve victory and give democracy a chance in the middle east???
If the soldiers on the front line support the noble mission, and we have an all volunteer army, unlike the draft in Vietnam then why is it so bad to support them and rally around the flag because one of the best weapons in the war on terror is a united front that can demoralize the enemy?
I apoligize for diaobeying your rules, and speaking about other relevant issues, and remember this top democrats saw the same intel Bush did and voted for force…unlike Bush, they’re more interested in defeating Republicans than our enemies abroad and domestically…

Posted by: bo at June 22, 2006 2:29 AM
Comment #160349

The main argument coming from Democrats is that these weapons are from the pre-Gulf War period. The Defense Department has yet to officially verify this claim.

Nevertheless, Saddam Hussein had assured the world that ALL WMD had been destroyed; that was a lie.

500 WMD shells were found today; it required only 15 shells for Hussein to wipe out 5,000 Iraqi Kurds.

The argument that these weapons are old and therefore degraded means nothing. If these weapons fell into the hands of terrorists, they would have been just as deadly as they were when they were first developed.


General Tom Mcinerney is reporting on Fox Hannity and Colmes right now that that the administration has been keeping this low profile to avoid exposing 3 of the 5 members of the UN Security council; Russia, China, and France. McInerney says these weapons will be traced to these countries, and asserts it is well known that Russia helped Saddam move most of his WMD stockpiles out of Iraq before the war.

Posted by: PARTISANTIMES.ORG at June 22, 2006 2:30 AM
Comment #160350

Status

Unfortunately, you have not heard the end of it. Lefty will continue the story w/o much of a pause. Look at this thread. They deny this and some even bring up the U.S. armed Saddam story. Truth makes a difference and now many will tone down this part of the arguments, but those who believe that the election was stolen in 2004, that we made Saddam etc will still believe that Bush lied. They cannot give it up since it is so much part of their world view.

If you want to see how this works, look at the archives of this blog. Take a look at the lefty predictions re Iraqi elections etc. Then watch them pass over their mistakes w/o taking a breath. Their capacity to ignore facts is impressive.

Posted by: Jack at June 22, 2006 2:34 AM
Comment #160352

“The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.”

Cause you know Charles Duelfer and David Kay are traitors who love Saddam.

Posted by: Aldous at June 22, 2006 2:59 AM
Comment #160353

Jack:

The only thing anyone will see looking at the archives are Reds claiming Saddam did 9/11, that deficits are a good thing and that the Iraq War will pay for itself.

Posted by: Aldous at June 22, 2006 3:02 AM
Comment #160354

I very rarely post to a blog but I can now say I told you so. So I will.

I am in no way a Bush supporter and would consider my self a little left of middle left. I love the art of politics more than a debate over one’s interpretation of the facts.

The last time I posted to a blog, it was to make the statement that the Left better be weary of the “where are the WMD’s, Bush lied” line of debate. It will bite us in the butt in the end.

Here is what we know:

1. The entire world believed they were there, including those against to military invasion

2. We knew he had used them in the past.

3. We believed that we had destroyed some of them during the Clinton era.

4. We gave him quite a bit of time to do something with them before we went in.

5. We know that the Russians were in Iraq 6 weeks before the invasion moving something around.

6. We know something went over the border into Syria in a convoy of trucks.

7. Saddam loved to hide things (including himself) underground.

8. Iraq is approximately the size of California.


Posted by: Environmentaliberal at June 22, 2006 3:14 AM
Comment #160355

We also know that if your local news reported for 6 months that a certain house in your community had a stockpile of illegal drugs, by the time the police broke in, they would probably be gone.

Now you guys can argue back and forth as you already have about wether the weapons are old or new, potent or not, and all the little nit-picking things both sides will argue the next few days.

But here is my point:

This is just the beginning and we are now in a trap. The argument that there were NO WMD is now invalid. It doesnt matter how old or how potent. They will find more! I don’t like it! I want the Republicans to go down in smoke! But mark my words: They will find more!

Politically: The Reagan Democrats are those who mainly follow headlines. They dont have much discussion. They dont follow the facts very deep. All they will see is that the Dems called him a liar for a long time and now they were wrong.

If more and more weapons show up, (and I could totally be wrong but I believe they will), it will make the Bush is a liar strategy suicide for the Democratic party.

Posted by: Environmentaliberal at June 22, 2006 3:16 AM
Comment #160359

Okay Bo here’s the response in itemized form,

Yes you had a liberal to inform you, does it effect the point?—I don’t know. See the main point is this we do not trust Bush, we do not trust theman and that is what this comes down to he plays politics with everything. We aren’t Americans for asking questions of this thing—we are treated like a pariah and then he asks why we don’t stand behind his policies. Reason: You have given us no reason to trust you and that you have not laid out convincing reasons or more to the point convincing strategies that will ensure that this is not a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars. He could not explain why we were doing this at the same time that we had just gotten into Afghanistan—and the list goes on. No reason is provided as to why we should trust Bush with any strategizing.

Moynihan/Reagan is an interesting point that I’ve never heard before. I was not especially fond of Clinton or Reagan particularly for different reasons. So I can’t bear comment other than to say that it is probably true perhaps.

I’m proud of Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi and Reid? Huh? I liked B.Clinton when he came in but upon seeing his complete unresponsiveness to issues and then NAFTA—not so proud.

Now as for the Democratic tent it’s scattered, I want full and reallistic reprisal for 9-11 all I saw were political games and then Iraq and the argument was so phony it warranted my complete distrust of this administration. Then the phoniness panned out to be phony.

I am not a socialist, my personal political bent is more libertarian left but I still do not like Bush and hate petty political games and sniggling for brownie points even more. And Bo as much corporate welfare as Bush has put out there really the welfare you are talking about is actually, and this is true only less than 2% of the entire welfare system. The lion’s share is corporate and also goes to companies who are government contractors. Corporate welfare and subsidization is a scam pure and simple.

Okay we called bush “a liar”, Republicans called Bush everything under the sun and then some. O’reilly twists facts to serve his own position, it’s quite transparent upon further review so we call him out too. AND Coulter does call people names endlessly as that is how she makes her living.

I’m sure if you look at the cases involving the AXCLU there are probably a few cases of the ACLU defending the rights to a person’s personal rights to their religious beliefs. I’m not so fond personally of the gay issues myself being a bit conservative there as it especially pertains to gays raising kids. I am against gay marriage but see the rights of civil union as quite viable. And I don’t hate Christians I hate hearing Christians talk that insano Tim LaHaye crap. I hate being beaten over the head by Jerry Falwell. I think fundamentalist Christians are only slightly brighter than goldfish or for that matter country music stars. I think Christian fundamentalist churches at Nascar rallies are whacko. I don’t think Jesus would like to mindlessly watch cars go around in circles. I think that Christ’s message is taken away from depth and meaning by such petty things. I prefer a noble sublime jesus they prefer a jesus with bloodsoaked robes and a sword killing non-Christians teaching them a lesson for not letting LaHaye and Fallwell rule the entire country. I feel theocracy is dangerous the same way it is in Iran.

Your final question: They should achieve victory but stop listening to the crackpot ideas that the Bush Administration is pulling out of it’s butt. They are using this war to generate wedges and ones that politicize and segrate anyone from having an invested interests in what is going on and Bush is obviously a bullshitter (yes another name). WE are not a nation at war, we are 10% of our nation at war with a bunch of sheople standing around expected to graze listlessly and ask no questions.

Posted by: Novenge at June 22, 2006 3:56 AM
Comment #160360

Sorry mistake I said “Bush” in the top of third paragraph from bottom , I meant Clinton—oops.

Posted by: Novenge at June 22, 2006 4:00 AM
Comment #160361

These old shells did they happen to say which was the country of origin. See file photes of Rummsfeld shaking hands with Sadam after arms deal to suport him in his war with Iran. This was done while he wsa @ the Pentagon during Regan Admin.

Posted by: Earl at June 22, 2006 4:33 AM
Comment #160365

Hi,
Earl above is right! This old chemical warfare ammo stuff has been buried since the US sent chemical weapons to Saddam Hussien during Iraq’s war with Iran back in the early and mid eithties!

Posted by: John at June 22, 2006 5:10 AM
Comment #160373

Randall Jeremiah,

We know there are more. Yes it is true they are degraded so what. It will still kill. It will still burn the skin off of anyone coming into contact with it.

Tell me again how such shells could have come into contact with US citizen. Saddam Hussein didn’t ever have ICBMs.

Why does it matter that we knew they had them prior to the first war. Did you want old cans of serin gas in the hands of a madman or in the hands of terrorist.

I rather like old cans of serin gas being in the hands of a dictator we have for years under magnify than in a totally unsecure land ridden of terrorists since US invaded it.

To be totally honest, I’m for destroying all chemical weapons on Earth, but we all know we can’t always do as we want in real world.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 22, 2006 5:58 AM
Comment #160385

Umm, If this was significant, why in the world would this info have been secret until declassified when the administration had been pining for such a discovery. Can someone from the celebration party answer that? I didn’t think so.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 22, 2006 8:00 AM
Comment #160392

Anti-war arguments will be thusly:

They were old shells from past wars, so they don’t count.

They didn’t find all that much, so they don’t count.

Bill Clinton destroyed the really bad stuff during Operation Desert Fox, so they don’t count.

They were planted by evil Republicans, so they don’t count.

They werent the right kind of WMD, so they don’t count.

They couldn’t hit America with them, so they don’t count.

These are all specious arguments, because they change the focus of the argument. The argument has been that there were NO WMDS. If it is now proven that there are in fact WMDs, then that argument goes out the window.

I’m not willing yet to say that these are the real thing, that they constitute enough of a threat to justify war, or that they were usable or not.

But to simply declare that they don’t matter is just politicking from the anti-war left. They did it re Zarqawi. Before Zarqawi died, they thought he was important. After he died, he was a nobody.

I believe Saddam’s real goal was to undo the sanctions. At that point, he’d have been out of containment, and weapons such as sarin gas would have been more dangerous. We know that his missile program exceeded what the UN allowed—its not a far reach to suggest that without sanctions, he could have exceeded the flight path in a great way.

Its too soon to say what the import of this information is. But if true, it puts a dent in the no WMD argument.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 22, 2006 8:14 AM
Comment #160396


I just wondered….

Having only experienced the basic Chem/Bio training when I was in the military, I have no real knowledge of WMDs…Could one of our resident expert tell me if an “old” WMD kills you LESS dead than a new one?

Thanks in Advance….

Posted by: Status Whoa at June 22, 2006 8:38 AM
Comment #160406

“Umm, If this was significant, why in the world would this info have been secret until declassified when the administration had been pining for such a discovery.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 22, 2006 08:00 AM”

Elections!

EnvioLib
VERY good post!

Posted by: kctim at June 22, 2006 9:36 AM
Comment #160409

On the question of Binaries, I’ll admit that I haven’t found a shelf life on the most important of the components: Methylphosphonyl difluoride.

That said, I may have found out something else. Apparently the spin mixed binaries were rare. Most Sarin shells were mixed by hand instead, the Methylphosphonyl difluoride mixed into a shell that already had Isopropyl alcohol in it just before use.

If that’s the case, though many of these unused “Binary” Sarin shells might just very well be WMD only to germs, since all you’d find in them was rubbing alcohol Of course, I could be wrong on their distribution.

If we’re talking about unitary shells, the suckers were bad within weeks. Only the binary shells, which I believe were fairly rare among Iraqi munitions could survive years. How many, I am not certain, because I have not yet found out the shelf-life of Methylphosphonyl difluoride, which I wager would be the more unstable of the two.

Rahdigly-
Go back and read my stuff again, dear boy. I shall have to send you to the back of the classroom. My argument is that most of these munitions are no longer all that useable. Yes, Mustard Gas is nasty! Yes, Sarin is particularly lethal! My argument is not that they’re benign.

My argument is that that most of them are no longer in that lethal form. The Mustard gas rounds we’ve found are degraded. You wouldn’t want to rub this stuff on your skin, but it’s not as toxic as it once was. The Sarin, if in unitary form, is long since decayed into more stable chemicals. If in Binary form, it’s either a rare part of the munitions, or it’s mixed by hand, in which the likelihood is you only have a shell full of Rubbing Alcohol, if nothing has leaked.

Jack-
If the weapons were mostly degenerated, Saddam’s intentions are irrelevant: these munitions didn’t pose a threat.

There are a ton of issues your side isn’t bringing up and answering, not the least of which is the fact that we were heading there to confront a continued operation for producing these kinds of weapons, not to ensure the destruction of mostly defunct chemical ammunition. The threat was that Saddam was still making these things, and intending to hand them to terrorists. Go check your transcripts from that time. You folks weren’t talking about mushroom-cloud smoking-guns just to hear your lips flap.

This is not the threat we went there to face. The sooner you acknowledge that, the sooner we can talk about what these shells really signify, and why, through years of political desperation, they never tried to pull a stunt like this.

Old rotten shells were not the threat that we’ve seen 2500 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis die to rid the world of. You folks sent us to Iraq to face a dictator still making this stuff post-gulf war, to face a person who had an active nuclear program and active collaboration with terrorists. None of these things were true. You can muddy the water with “discoveries” like this, but they don’t cut the mustard here, much less the mustard gas.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #160411

Stephen, WWII shells are still showing up in Europe from time to time. That is all that needs to be said about this. Everything else is political shrill. Old shells in Iraq mean exactly what WWII shells mean in Eurpope today. In the past, there was a war there.

End of story. Has no meaning for today’s wars or their motives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 22, 2006 9:54 AM
Comment #160413

Jack -

Since you accuse me of telling lies that the US supplied Saddam with WMD’s, let me explain my source - if you follow these links you will see we were a major weapons supplier to Iraq during the 1980’s.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php


Also, you assumed I saw and was referring to the picture of Saddam with Rumsfeld. I never mentioned it. I was referring to our support for Iraq during the Iraq/Iran War, which Iraq started. We provided weapons and logistical support. The links above talk to this as well.

Jack you can believe what you want to believe in your naive world that the US is the good guy in this war, but you miss the bigger picture. This war with Iraq is hypocritical, we can make Saddam into our enemy or friend which ever serves our interests at the time.

This is not an isolated event. We did this to Norreiga as well as many others. This is our foriegn policy. 240 times since WWII we intereferd with foriegn countries elections or supported coups. It is about our interests, WMD’s, freedom, democracy, and fighting dictators are all a ruse to justify a war to the American People. And you line up behind your blind patriotism and say yes sir, sounds good to me.

This is why Europeans see the US as a greater threat to World Peace than Iran.

Posted by: stefano at June 22, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #160414

JBOD,

Anti-war arguments will be thusly:

They […] werent the right kind of WMD, so they don’t count.

They couldn’t hit America with them, so they don’t count

According to the FoxNews article, at least one senior Defense Department official is then anti-war himself:

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

“This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991,” the official said, adding the munitions “are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.

How come an anti-war could have an high rank in US Defense Department!?

These are all specious arguments, because they change the focus of the argument. The argument has been that there were NO WMDS. If it is now proven that there are in fact WMDs, then that argument goes out the window.

Agreed. So, let’s now find facts that prove that:

1) These pre-Gulf War (aka pre-1991) shells are still operative. The declassified report exert say it’s degraded gas sarin shells. How much degraded?
2) Saddam knows about these shells exists/were not destroyed
3) Saddam had an ICBMs program that could threat US citizens in a very short term after leaving Iraq sanctions
4) Last but not least, over 20,000+ iraquis civilians and 2500+ US soldiers death is a small cost compared to the threat these 500 shells could have posed.

PS: I always think Rummy wasn’t lying when he said “we know there’s WMDs in Iraq”, because comparing the list of WMDs destroyed under UN inspectors with the list of WMDs sold to Iraq by US before 1991 told him.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 22, 2006 10:01 AM
Comment #160418

environmentalliberal said:

Here is what we know:


1. The entire world believed they were there, including those against to military invasion

WRONG!!! I reasoned that he had gotten rid of WMD based on the psychology of the man and his history, and I wrote about this many times here at WB and elsewhere. Hence, your statement above is patently false, and demonstrably so.

Now I am just a bloke with a psychology degree. I reasoned the following. Hussein was a paranoid man with power who spent an entire life covering his ass. This man has inspectors about to snoop around in his country looking for WMD. If they find WMD it could mean the U.S. would invade and dethrone him from power. Hence, I reasoned, this paranoid man would NOT keep WMD lying about for the world to use as predicate for taking him down.

Hence I opposed the invasion in Iraq, on the grounds that Bush’s and Cheney’s claims of WMD were unfounded on a purely logical basis. And without irrefutable evidence to the contrary, Saddam maintaining WMD made no sense.

So, no, you are wrong. Everyone, did not believe he had WMD as I have been writing for years.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 22, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #160419

What about this? The Duelfer report from 2005 addendum:

ISG assesses that Iraq and Coalition Forces will continue to discover small numbers of degraded chemical weapons, which the former Regime mislaid or improperly destroyed prior to 1991. ISG believes the bulk of these weapons were likely abandoned, forgotten and lost during the Iran-Iraq war because tens of thousands of CW munitions were forward deployed along frequently and rapidly shifting battlefronts.
Posted by: womanmarine at June 22, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #160421

The left has been clamoring for Pres. Bush to “admit he was wrong” for the better part of 2 years.

Time to eat crow, lefties. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ADMIT S.H. POSSESSED WMDS, USED WMDS AND DID NOT DESTROY THEM AS HE WAS MANDATED TO DO BY THE ENTIRE WORLD??

1) If you actually read Joe Wilson’s full report, which I’ve done, you’ll find the “Africa” statements are true. What he’s been saying publicly is in direct conflict with the report he submitted to the CIA. He is a liar.

2) SH did aid terrorists and did provide financial backing in the form of payment to the families of suicide bombers who attacked western and Isreali targets. There were training sites in Iraq in the 1990’s. No one has ever pointed the finger directly as SH as the person responsible for 9/11. That argument was manufactured by the left as a political attack.

3) The biggest obstacles to a more diplomatic resolution and a more wide-spread coalition were the several biggest financial beneficiaries of SH’s dictatorship. Namely France, Germany, Russia and the UN “Oil for Food” administrators. The international corruption created by SH was what made this war inevitable.

4) The declassified document mentions that SH’s scientists were poised and ready to resume productions immediately as soon as the sanctions were lifted, which was SH’s goal. If you remember, he was constantly asking and attempting to persuade the world to lift them.

BTW, David, if the WMD’s that have been found have no meaning because they are more that a few weeks old (Stephen’s assertation), why has the left been so adimate in pointing out that “they did not exist” or that “Clinton destroyed them in 1998”? I don’t recall the president EVER saying that SH was currently making WMD’s…Only that he had not provided proof that they had been destroyed as required by over a dozen UN Resolutions. These “Old, useless WMD’s” meant something when you didn’t think any had been found, now that it seems we HAVE found a handful, they magically don’t matter?

Again, as I’d commented a few days ago, this is another example of the left hanging themselves with the rope they created. All we need to do is just stand back and let them do it. It’s almost too easy.

Posted by: Rich at June 22, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #160424

Stefano

I have written many times about the complexity of politics. During the Iraq/Iran war, the best case scenario was for nobody to win. We allowed Arab allies to share data with Saddam. And even today the idea that Iran would overrun Iraq may have been the worse choice among two bad choices

A country as big and powerful as the U.S. is never out of any action. You could also argue that the U.S. supported Iran in the war, since we shipped spare parts during Iran/Contra.

The key is significance. Your source on chemical weapons tries really hard to make nefarious pharmaceutical and agricultural exports (and very small amounts). I can go to my local farm supply store and buy precursor chemicals. What kills pine beetles on boll weevils may often be modified to harm people. The danger of chemical weapons is that they can be made from ordinary products. So we sold small amounts of dual use materials. There is NO reason to believe any of these products went into WMD and if they did they would not be significant.

Other weapons are even easier to refute. Saddam DID NOT HAVE AMERICAN WEAPONS. The conspiracy people can point to meetings or innuendo, but there is a bottom line that he didn’t have them, or more precisely 0.47% (that is about ½ of 1%) of Saddam’s weapons came from Americans sources. This conspiracy theory just wilts in the light. IF Saddam bought American arms, why didn’t he have any?

So I know that American hands are not always clean, although I would submit that given our immense power doing nothing is never an option. You know that we are often the largest aid donor even to our enemies. U.S. aid prevented famine in Afghanistan during the time of the Taliban, for example. You could well say the U.S. supported the Taliban.

But in the case of Saddam Hussein, we are clearly not the big guys. We had little to do with him most of his time in office. He was a Soviet client. He bought mostly Soviet and Warsaw Pact arm. He got lots of arms from France, who supported his nuclear power ambitions against our wishes. (When Isreal destroyed his nuclear plant (thank God) the same guys who complain out us now were outraged.) Was America involved in Iraq? Yes. Are we involved almost everywhere? Yes. Was our contribution large? No.

It is like blaming the company that makes steel for an auto accident and just as inappropriate.

Posted by: Jack at June 22, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #160427

We could find 500 nukes in Iraq and the left would still say Bush lied. It is very tiring. Bottowm line: we removed a top ten all-time mass murderer and are attempting to give the middle east a democratic form of government. “pay any price, bear any burden…” They don’t make democrats like JFK anymore.

Posted by: nikkolai at June 22, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #160429

David Remer,

Could you send me some of whatever it is you’re smoking? I’d like to slip the surly bonds of reality myself. First, you say that old shells from WWII turning up only points out that there was a war there. I have a dare for you. Take one of these old shells, throw it into a fire, and stand around and see if it blows up. Your argument is complete nonsense. Aren’t liberals the ones who campaign constantlys against landmines? Isn’t the reason they do so because they’re dangerous until destroyed, either by EOD or some Afghani child walking into them? If you’re so sure these chemical weapons are degraded, open one up with a hacksaw with no chemical protection and see what happens.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 22, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #160430

An excerpt from a link I’ve had, and which was mentioned earlier by stefano:

December, 1982: Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear]

October, 1983: The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [Bush’s Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992]

November, 1983: Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq’s missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate]

March, 1986: The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq’s use of these weapons. [Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002]

May, 1986: The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002]

May, 1986: US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994]

and there are more if you want to read the page.

So, “Saddam DID NOT HAVE AMERICAN WEAPONS”?

We were just sending him bug spray?

Posted by: Myles at June 22, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #160432

Rich,

4) The declassified document mentions that SH’s scientists were poised and ready to resume productions immediately as soon as the sanctions were lifted, which was SH’s goal.

No, it doesn’t.
But Fred Barnes is actually quoted in the FoxNews article for saying something similar:

“We know it was there, in place, it just wasn’t operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that’s what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction,” said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.

Seems Mr Barnes is not working for the Defense Department Intelligence but for FOX News and others conservatives oriented medias.

But, hey, no harm, we all knows how it’s easy to confuse official declarations with fox news ones.
;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 22, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #160433

“Reasonable people and those who have experience making real life decisions will understand this. Others, blinded by hatred or w/o significant experience being a boss, will not. And nobody will be able to explain it to them at their current level of understanding.”
-Jack

Jack,

Your posts are often on the intelligent and reasonable side of the conservative position but your accusation that this discussion is just further proof that liberals are blinded by their hate for Bush and that arguments that Bush did not lie don’t ring true.

Anyone can be emotionally blinded or polarized by fixating on certain leaders, just reference Bo’s insinuation Clinton is to blame for China having the bomb and means to deliver it to the US.

I am still convinced that Bush and Co. made the decision to take out Saddam and decided to sell that decision to the American people by any means they could get away with. Lest you forget, invading any country that has not threatened us or is about to attack was the standard and for good reason. War kills many innocent people and destroys many more lives. This administration seized upon the flimsiest of evidence (and some that didn’t exist) to sell this war. Bush’s oft repeated phrase denying he had not decided to go to war in the build-up to the invasion was refering only to a formality, not his policy of invading Iraq.

If Bush and Co. had tried to sell this war to the American people in real terms or goals they knew they would not be going to war. If Bush and Co. and said what the real costs of the war would be and our real reasons for invasion the American people would not have bought it. Instead, fear mongering, references to mushroom clouds, and repeating “911” with “Iraq” as often as possible was the way to sell the war.

The facts are we invaded another country that did not threaten us. We killed many more innocent Iraqi men, women, and children than the terrorists did on Sept. 11th in the name of self-defence. Planning for the post-war aftermath of a country everyone knew would become unstable (remember the first Gulf War?)was woefully unattended to. Do you and your leaders(?) with experience being a “boss” ever really appreciate what we have done?

I am not blinded by hate for Bush. I would say the Right and much of the American people are blinded by fear and an unwillingness to look at other people with respect and compassion. If you can tell me how you justify the lives we have taken for a bogus war in any convincing and reasonable way I will change my tune.

Posted by: Chris2x at June 22, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #160436

David,
So, you’ve personally interviewed SH to diagnose a paranoid disorder?

I think that SH is an evil, power hungry, greedy, hateful vindictive person whose sole motivation was to decieve the world into thinking that he had no WMDs so sanctions would be lifted….all the time they were hidden and secret plans were in place to revive the programs as soon as possible.

But, then again, I’m not a “bloke with a degree”. I’m an average Joe that looks around and forms his own opinion based on my observations and experiences. I realize that some people are just plain bad and no amount of psychobabble will help them.

Posted by: Rich at June 22, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #160437

Has anyone looked at that “declassified document”?! It’s seems like a joke — a really bad one.
Negroponte, you know, the guy who carried out the covert funding of the Contras, and helped coverup human rights abuses by CIA-trained operatives in Honduras, declassified this information?
Why should we believe ANYTHING coming from these people?
Before we’d believe anything these people tell us, don’t we need a bit more information? Details like: Where in the country were these “WMD’s” found, exactly? Are there any pictures of these shells you could show us? Where are they now?
How can they be considered “WMD’s” if there was no way to get them to the US?
Without a way to launch them, doesn’t that mean they’re NOT WMD’s the way the administration was defining them before the war?
Without a way to launch them, doesn’t that make them WMD’s only to the Iraqi people themselves?
If Saddam knew he had WMD’s, why didn’t he tell his army to use them on us during our invasion?
If Saddam was so friendly with Al Qaeda terrorists, why wouldn’t he have passed the info on where these things were buried along to them, once he was in hiding?
These kind of questions need to be asked — because these people have lied so damn much, it’s difficult to believe any bit of information they give us.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 22, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #160440

Jack,

So your argument is that US is the biggest and most powerful nation, is involved everywhere, was involved in Iran-Iraq war but her contribution was NOT large?

What’s the point of being involved everywhere and being the most powerfull nation on earth if your contribution are so small?! What a waste of power.

It is like blaming the company that makes steel for an auto accident and just as inappropriate.

Steel contribution to car industry is nothing like small. I, for one, would rather have a car accident if every cars was made of… let’s say cotton instead of steel. Don’t you?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 22, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #160443

Adrienne,

Good questions indeed, that deserve honest answers.
Wait guys, I said “honest”!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 22, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #160445

Ad,
Typical….anything that disputes your opinion must be a pack of lies.

Funny how you first say that they are not “WMD”s, then later say they are only “WMD”s to the Iraqi people (due to the lack of a delivery method). Are they, or are they not? Come on…look at you memo to find out what you’re supposed to think on 6/22/06 (morning edition, that is).

Why didn’t he use them against us? Maybe because he knew he didn’t have a chance in hell if he did. If he proved the US correct, the entire world would’ve joined us instead of only half of the world.

Why didn’t SH do this-or-that?? Ask David. He apparently knows more about SH than SH knows about himself…

Philippe,
I stand corrected. The declassified PORTION does not mention the potential resumption of SH’s WMD plan.

However, I see nothing in the declassified portion of the report that says that the chemical agents are not dangerous. It does say, several times, that , althouth these agents degrade over time, these “degraded” agents are still “hazardous and potentially lethal” and are are sought after by “black markets, terrorists and insurgents” and pose a threat to people “outside if Iraq”. (Adrienne….that kinda’ sounds like a “WMD” to me. What does your memo say the definition of a WMD is this morning??)

Given your perusal of the document, why are you not contesting David’s and Stephen’s assertions that the agents found are “likely nothing more than rubbing alcohol”?

Nevermind….I already know.

Posted by: Rich at June 22, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #160447

I want to clarify something real quick. It was brought to my attention that my article was telling people what to think. I re read it and I see where that comes from.

Now those who could not support the war due to the “great lie” now that it is not, are you going to change.

I say be honest you hate Bush no matter what! Get over it.

I want to be sure that people know I do not want people to think a certain way because I say so. I want them to think a certain way because the evidence says so. If you interpret the evidence different then I do so be it.

Now that being said. I do not see where it matters when it was made. It was stated prior to going to war that it was there. True we stated other things were there as well such as mobile labs and some sort of nuclear program. As far as we know today they have not come about yet. We do know this much for certain. There are more classified documents that are yet to be declassified for a reason. From my understanding the reasons these took so long to come to public notice is they are still working on securing more items. They are worried that if to much information is let out then terrorist or some of the militias may find them before us.

I guess (my opinion here) there is much more and prior to making more claims of it not being there we should maybe wait a bit longer and see what comes out next.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 22, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #160450

Myles

Trade in agricultural, chemicals and computer systems is an important business. If you list U.S. exports to almost any country, you will find dual use. During the Cold War, we had a lot of trouble with Cocom regulations because almost anything can be misused. I recall a disagreement about shipping video games (the old fashioned Atari types) because they could be used in guidance systems.

The U.S. is involved in almost everything, so it is not surprising that you can find things about Iraq. The U.S. was a small player in the rise and rule of Saddam.

You can write all you want about U.S. weapons transferred to Iraq, but the bottom line is that Saddam had almost no U.S. weapons. It reminds me of when I lived in Brazil. The local paper ran a story about the U.S. invading Nicaragua. It didn’t happen. But when that same paper ran its top stories of the past year in its year end edition, it included that story. Why? Because it sounded so plausible.

This whole thing with Iraq is like the Monty Python scene where the guy claims a witch turned him into a newt. When he obviously is not a newt, he sheepishly adds, “I got better.”

Chris 2x

It was U.S. policy since Clinton signed it in 1998 to promote regime change in Iraq. I agree that the administration decided Saddam should go. They had what they considered good reasons. The president laid them all out. Among them was WMD, but that was not the only reason. It is a reasonable debate to talk about whether or not it made sense to invade Iraq. (I wrote an article about that last year.) You have to take into account not only the situation we have now, but also what we would have faced had we stood down in 2002. But this debate does not require you to believe that Bush lied. And IF he knew he was lying, why didn’t he take steps to cove his tracks, because if he knew he was lying, he would have known they would not find WMD?

Phillipe

My point is that we are all over the place, for good and bad. Our involvement in Iraq was one of the smaller things. We did less for Saddam than many others (including you guys) and even Brazil sold more to him.

Re steel - steel is a big part of a car, but steel is NOT the cause of the car accident unless you want to go back to the absurd causality that w/o steel there could be no car at all. Or the better analogy might be air. The criminal must breath air, so w/o air the crime cannot be committed.

Adrienne

Nobody serious person ever said or ever believed Saddam could possess missiles that could launch WMD to the U.S. The danger is that he could share them with terrorist and be a local menace. As I have explained many times, WMD need not be high tech. Chemists nearly 100 years ago could and did produce many of the WMD we still see today. They are dangerous precisely because of their ease of production. They are odious precisely because they have little value against military targets and are almost exclusively weapons of terror or weapons to be used against civilians.

Posted by: Jack at June 22, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #160451

Rich,

However, I see nothing in the declassified portion of the report that says that the chemical agents are not dangerous. It does say, several times, that , althouth these agents degrade over time, these “degraded” agents are still “hazardous and potentially lethal” and are are sought after by “black markets, terrorists and insurgents” and pose a threat to people “outside if Iraq”.

Did you notice that there were no insurgents in Iraq before US war on Iraq?
Did you notice that there were less terrorists in Iraq before US war on Iraq?

Sure, today the risk that such groups in Iraq could actually find old chemical munitions on
black market can’t be underestimate. But these groups quite didn’t exists at all *before* the Iraq war.

You can’t justify alone a war by the threat you forecast that exact same war will create. That’s a chicken and egg foreign policy!

Given your perusal of the document, why are you not contesting David’s and Stephen’s assertions that the agents found are “likely nothing more than rubbing alcohol”?

Because, first, I didn’t read the whole thread here (too many posts, too fast posters), second because I didn’t read their yet, third because noway I’m qualified about chemical munitions.

Well, I fear mustard and sarin gases could be find in other places than in Iraq alone. Didn’t a Japan sect use sarin in their terrorist Kyoto subway attack? Did they make alone or did they buy it and then from who/where?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 22, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #160453

Jack,

Nobody serious person ever said or ever believed Saddam could possess missiles that could launch WMD to the U.S. The danger is that he could share them with terrorist and be a local menace.

And, ironically, even with Saddam removed from power, that risk *after* Iraq invasion still exists and, maybe, have even worsen.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 22, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #160458

Rich:
“Typical….anything that disputes your opinion must be a pack of lies.”

Not typically. But I’m afraid with the Neocons it’s very much a “Boy Who Cried Wolf” situation. They’ve lied so much, that everything they say must be suspected of being a lie. And in fact, I think this is all a bunch of bullsh*t. Not because of my opinion, but because of what the Iraq Survey Group report said — which was basically that these things were too depleted and weren’t important enough to be considered “WMD’s” the way the administration was defining them before the war. And because someone from the DOD has come out and said these were old weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded, and that these are not the WMD’s this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, nor the WMD’s this country went to war over.

“Funny how you first say that they are not “WMD”s, then later say they are only “WMD”s to the Iraqi people (due to the lack of a delivery method).”

Yes, even if these rusted old things weren’t depleted, they couldn’t have been a Weapon of Mass Destruction to this country without a delivery system. And yes, since they are depleted they might still contain enough agent to kill a bunch of Iraqi’s, though on a much smaller scale than if they were newly produced.

“Why didn’t he use them against us? Maybe because he knew he didn’t have a chance in hell if he did. If he proved the US correct, the entire world would’ve joined us instead of only half of the world.”

Oh give me a fecking break! Saddam Hussein knows the US — the most powerful country in the world — is just about to invade his country, so he makes sure all of his most lethal weapons are moved out? Then he decides not use all these “lethal” shells full of mustard gas and sarin — instead he’s going to save those for some other enemy he’s going to fight in the future? It makes no bloody sense AT ALL.

“Why didn’t SH do this-or-that?? Ask David. He apparently knows more about SH than SH knows about himself…”

Saddam was a nut. David is not. He’s a very intelligent guy who probably does know more about the mind of someone like Saddam than that kind of person would know about themselves.
Judging by the illogic of your comments, David certainly knows a lot more than you do.

The unfortunate fact is, if even 300 of these old shells had still been good enough to be fired off at one of Saddams neighbors, we’ve now spent a billion dollars to find each and every one of them.

Jack:
“Nobody serious person ever said or ever believed Saddam could possess missiles that could launch WMD to the U.S.”

You’re right, no serious person ever did. Just Condi and Dick were talking about things like “mushroom clouds”.

“The danger is that he could share them with terrorist and be a local menace.”

What Philippe said.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 22, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #160459

Randall

I guess (my opinion here) there is much more and prior to making more claims of it not being there we should maybe wait a bit longer and see what comes out next.

3 years of occupation and around 500 degraded chimicals shells dating from pre-Gulf War were found. And having troops on the ground since 3 years doesn’t help much.

Sure, let’s wait a little bit longer, why not, afterall who am I to refuse to US what the US refused to the UN inspectors because it was pointless without the freedom to search everywhere?

Yeah, give it more time. Could you durint the same time clean the “WMD search collateral mess” also? Thanks.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 22, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #160460

David:

Stephen, WWII shells are still showing up in Europe from time to time. That is all that needs to be said about this. Everything else is political shrill. Old shells in Iraq mean exactly what WWII shells mean in Eurpope today. In the past, there was a war there.

End of story. Has no meaning for today’s wars or their motives.

Please explain why finding some WMD’s (which was part of the reason we went in not the only reason)is not part of the reason we went to war?

I do not think you can equate chemical weapons with standard explosives. Though they are both dangerous they are not equally on their ability to kill.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 22, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #160462

Phillip Houdain:

by give it more time I meant that they have already found more but because of the sensitivity of the issue they are not ready to declassify more information. The way I see it that is a logical move. It may pertian to information that could lead to more stock piles which no one wants terrorist to get their hands on. That is what i was referring to.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 22, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #160465

I want to see how effective these degraded chemical weapons are… now all lefties please stand over here by this shell for a few minutes and tell me what you feel when exposed to this degraded chemical.

Posted by: Don at June 22, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #160467

Randall, asking Saddam to find and rid his country of chemical stocks from a previous war is like asking Europe to have located its unused weapons caches and get rid of them, and in 10 years no less.

The President’s argument about Iraq’s WMD was that they constituted and clear and present danger. These old shells from a previous war do not measure up to that threat. It is unlikely Saddam even knew they were there.

Until you can demonstrate evidence for ongoing WMD development and new stockpiles, the President’s claims remain false, on their face. It is that simple and logical.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 22, 2006 1:14 PM
Comment #160468

Rich-
We fought this war as a pre-emptive war. That means there was supposed to be a gun to our head. The Bush Administration line was that Saddam was still able to produce these weapons, and was willing to give it to al-Qaeda terrorists to attack America. The even included intelligence about drones to make it seem like Saddam could actually go after the continental united states.

The Mustard shells, it’s agreed, were kaput quite some time ago. There are three options on the Sarin shells: One, they are unitary shells. Even if some kind of stabilizer was added, those are likely all useless anyways.

Two, they’re manual “binary” shells, in which case, what you had was a shell full of Rubbing alcohol, to which the Methylphosphonyl difluoride was added and mixed prior to use. Two possibilities arise there: They were forgotten with the chemical mixed, which means the Sarin likely went bad in that time, or it was never mixed in, in which case, all you have, if you have anything at all, is a case full of Rubbing Alcohol or a chemical cousin.

Three, they’re those nice binaries, in which case they’re likely still good, so long as nothing has happened to the different components. Since these are shells that have been buried for well over a decade, leakages and other problems are sure to have developed in most of them.

What remains might be toxic, but not as acutely toxic as the chemical weapon in question. This is not going to be the WMD that could kill thousands at a draw, if it even remains toxic in the same way.

These finds were not what our people were looking for. That’s why they don’t show up as evidence in the Reports of Saddam’s intransigence. These shell stockpiles were common from the Iran/Iraq war, and we know for a fact he used many of these kinds of weapons on his enemies. That we’re finding this many degraded shells years after the fact is not an indication of violations.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Saddam wanted to regain his capability. I just don’t think he posed the threat necessary to merit a pre-emptive attack, where the whole point is that we’re trying to knock out an immediate danger to our nation’s security. Saddam might have been a long term problem for us, but the trouble he posed for us was not worth a first strike invasion. Like it or not, that was the justification Bush gave to us for this war, and that is the cause, ultimately, that your so-called vindication has to vindicate.

Only, this evidence doesn’t raise Saddam’s threat level that much. This only works for you folks because you’ve forgotten what your people said in the beginnin about why we had to go to war. You’ve forgotten the point of what was said.

The Africa statements, for example say that Saddam was seeking 500 tons of Uranium oxide. Those documents have been proven false. What also has been proven false was that Saddam could get anything out of there without us noticing. Next to that, the wink-wink nudge-nudge exploration of commercial options doesn’t say there’s much of a threat from that angle.

There were plenty of arguments made by the administration that linked Saddam and the War on Terror. Just how does that happen without al-Qaeda connections? Go back and read through what your people said and wrote. They were essentially saying that Saddam was in league with al-Qaeda.

As far as being poised and ready to resume production goes, Saddam had not yet succeeded in getting that raised, so there was no immediate danger involved there. That is crucial since Pre-emptive war requires there to be immediate danger involved in not going to war.

As for this:

BTW, David, if the WMD’s that have been found have no meaning because they are more that a few weeks old (Stephen’s assertation), why has the left been so adimate in pointing out that “they did not exist” or that “Clinton destroyed them in 1998”? I don’t recall the president EVER saying that SH was currently making WMD’s…Only that he had not provided proof that they had been destroyed as required by over a dozen UN Resolutions. These “Old, useless WMD’s” meant something when you didn’t think any had been found, now that it seems we HAVE found a handful, they magically don’t matter?

Why should we consider the finding of these chemical munitions- unusable, pre-gulf war, and among the many forgotten stockpiles of munitions from a previous conflict- to magically be a vindication of a case for war that posited usable, recently manufactured, and accessible weapons of Mass Destruction? These things weren’t in wonderful condition at the time we said they were supposed to be an immediate threat.

So far, you’ve also been unable to prove that there was ever a working relationship with Al Qaeda, so just how were these weapons supposed to signify the reality of the threat Bush sent our armed forces to face?

That’s been the point all along. Was Saddam able to attack us? Did he have functioning, weapons, recently made, and therefore usable against us? He did not, and this find, given the condition and the antiquity of the weapons, changes nothing.

Bush is still wrong. The only thing Santorum and the rest are trying to do is feed folks like you talking points so you’ll take these fossils of the Iran/Iraq war, and magically turn them into the post-Gulf War weapons and production capacity we were supposed to find.

The weapons we sent to take care of, the threat we were supposed to face, do not exist. The fact that these finds mean nothing is quite evident from the fact that two weapons inspectors, both proponents of this administration, did not consider them a validation of the administration’s causes. Neither did the folks in the Senate Committee on this matter, who found that there was little evidence to suggest the production capacity or stockpiles on this matter.

Santorum, and whoever in the GOP told him to let this out know that people like you will jump for the chance to prove those damn liberals wrong, and will accept evidence like this without even questioning what it really means. What makes it even worse is that you people are acting like these were just found. These are what we found over time, and what nobody but Rick Santorum and a bunch of amateur weapons inspectors thought rose to the level of evidence of Saddam’s weapon capability.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #160469

Rich, the ignorance of your statement and question are funny. There have been documentaries on the life and times of Saddam Hussein by those who have interviewed him, and people in the village where he grew up. Did you know he was raised by a brutal Uncle in abject poverty and grossly abused by western standards while growing up?

Of course not. That is why you make the comment and question you did. Ignorance in comments know no bounds. What I find surprising is people’s penchant for flaunting it in public.

Check National Geographic and The History Channel for Saddam Hussein, a little mroe education would do your comments some good. While your at it, send some copies to Pres. Bush. He obviously needs to know what others do, BADLY!!!

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 22, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #160474
If they are useless then lets give them to the DNC to use as party poppers in 08. After all they are outdated, useless and insignificant 80’s equipment.

Let’s do the big test. Take the top 500 liberals in the country and give them each one cylinder to store in their cellar, den, garage or the room of their choice. At election time we will check on those cylinders and see what the status is

I want to see how effective these degraded chemical weapons are… now all lefties please stand over here by this shell for a few minutes and tell me what you feel when exposed to this degraded chemical.

Nice. Glad to see you guys know who the real enemies are.

Posted by: Brian Poole at June 22, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #160476

Bo,

If you’re not a captilist, are you admitting liberals are socialists, who has more faith in government than the people..?

No, I am a middle class working stiff who has enough compassion to hope that my tax dollars will go to someone who truly needs them, even if it means a few deadbeats use the system. I actually have very little faith in government, esp. after the last 5 years. Once we get some of these Neocons out of government we may be able to have a little more faith & trust in what our government does. I admit that the welfare system is broken, but lets fix it, not destroy it.

As for my reference to liberals love gays and hates Christians by and large who does groups like ACLU support and who do they oppose???

They support the U.S. Constitution, equality under the law and seperation of Church and State. They oppose those in government who violate the U.S. Constitution. They actually have more cases supporting Christian rights than they do Gay rights.

ACLU of Georgia and Baptist Church File Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner Barred from Preaching at Religious Services

ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug
Rehab Program

ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader’s Right to Sing "Awesome
God" at Talent Show

After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees
to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries

ACLU Helps Free New Mexico Street Preacher From Prison

ACLU of WA Wins Right of Christian Minister to Preach in Spokane Plaza

ACLU Fights for Baptist Preacher in Illinois

ACLU Backs Christian Abortion Protester in Ohio

ACLU of Oregon Defends Religious Liberty Of Adventist School Boys Basketball Players

ACLU Backs Missouri Nurse Penalized for Wearing Cross-Shaped Lapel Pin

ACLU Defends Christian Street Preacher in Las Vegas

ACLU Argues for Legal Recognition of Small Christian Church

ACLU of MA Defends Students Punished for Distributing Candy Canes with Religious Messages

ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln

ACLU Defends Church’s Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways

ACLU Defends Inmate’s Access to Material from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Following
Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks

ACLU Defends Families Fighting Removal Of Religious Symbols from Florida Cemetery

ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School

ACLU Argument In Support of the Display of a Christian Cross in a Public Forum

ACLU Defends Free Speech Rights of Christians And Others On Main Street Plaza

ACLU Defends Prisoner’s Rosary Beads

ACLU Pledges to Back Church in a Zoning Battle

ACLU of PA Files Discrimination Lawsuit Over Denial of Zoning Permit for African American
Baptist Church

ACLU Offers To Represent Private Prayer on Public Property

ACLU Joins Falwell To Fight For Church
Incorporation Rights

This is just a small sample of the cases supported by the ACLU.

One last question, do you believe we should cut and run, or do you believe we should do everything in our power to achieve victory and give democracy a chance in the middle east???

The only person, that I am aware of, that has proposed cut & run legislation in the Congress was Republican Duncan Hunter. I believe we need a change in direction. Stay the course is not good enough. I don’t think that most Americans are necessarily against the war as much as they are against the lack of progress. We need to do what it takes to end this thing ASAP, not stay the course. Having a plan is not a bad thing, unfortunatly all we get from this administration is “stay the course” and “when the Iraqis stand up we will stand down.” Those are not plans, they are political talking points.

I apoligize for diaobeying your rules, and speaking about other relevant issues, and remember this top democrats saw the same intel Bush did and voted for force…unlike Bush, they’re more interested in defeating Republicans than our enemies abroad and domestically…

This really is so not the point. The point is that we need a new direction in our national security. Whether they saw the same intel or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the intel was wrong so what are we going to do about it? Stay the Course?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 22, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #160477

Don-
First, here’s one perspective on it:

The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal. [so is the tap water over there. any expert could tell you that the Iraqi sarin-filled munitions produced prior to 1995 degraded to nearly zero as far as optimal lethality, and the mustard munitions, while long-lasting, are not lethal CW agents]

If you want a more neutral source on that, how about The Washington Post

The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.[emphasis mine]

So guess what: it’s official now. These are not the droids we were looking for.

Now lets get on to more serious issues, like how we end this war with some kind of dignity and integrity.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #160478

RE: “just reference Bo’s insinuation Clinton is to blame for China having the bomb and means to deliver it to the US”.
Wow I wasn’t even thinking about Clinton, China, or the bomb, so I guess those “unreasonable” people you referred too, can not understand points made… Okay, let’s sit aside WMDS, lies, Saddam’s intentions etc… if you yourself lived under a brutal dictator for over 30 years, where your wife, mom, sister, girlfriend could be yanked off the street and raped / brutalized / murdered by the regime without any consequence, if the dictator’s army slaughtered hundred of thousand of innocent people and buried them in a mass grave, if the dictator had a human shredder, and videtaped the torture for later viewing enjoyment, if his sons could at will feed people to his pet tigers, if your sons, brothers, were taken from your home and forced to join Saddams royal guard, if you were forced to watch your family go hungry without medical assistance, etc… and if another country was willing to invade, topple that regime and give you and your family a chance a freedom, would you rather risk being collateral damage in such a war, that might free your children, and descendants or would you rather continue living under oppression, and allow generations to come to live under such a regime, I for one love my family enough that if it took me dying to make life better for others then I opt for death, or in the words of another great american “give me liberty or give me death”

#2) Are we engaging Al-Quadea in Iraq?
#3) would a free democratic government in the middle east, hurt terrorists recruiting?

You ask for understanding of all people, isn’t the recognition of oppression and the goal of freeing them, even at the cost of life, the ultimate understanding of human suffering..
The same liberals who decry the war in Iraq, want us to use military intervention in the sudan.
Truth Is absolute, opinion is how far one separates himself from that truth..A Lie is something someone makes up, was Bush the first and only person to suggest Saddam had WMDS ?
Was President Putin lying when he provided intel that Saddam wanted to parrticipate in future attacks on america after 9/11 ?
Was Saddam lying on those audio tapes with his staff, talking about future attacks on America but wanted to make sure they could not be traced back to Iraq?
Have we had another terrorists attack in Amnerica, since 9/11 ?
The terrorists captured in Canada, a country that has stayed out of Iraq, and been more than hospitable to Islamic extremists, why were they planning attacks in Canada ?
When you say we should understand other people, it would be great if you would understand that there are terrorists, jihadists out there who see America as a country of Infidels, who defy Allah and therefore should be murdered, and don’t think that Bin Ladin was some poor misfirtunate misunderstood peasant, he and his family made a fortune off the capitilists system.
Last question, how many wars in your opinion were justified ? if you name any, remember many liberals at the time were against them .

Posted by: bo at June 22, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #160480

Santorum debunked over WMD’s by FOX NEWS

Transcript:

COLMES: Congressman, Senator, it’s Alan Colmes. Senator, the Iraq Survey Group — let me go to the Duelfer Report — says that Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there. And Jim Angle reported this for Fox News quotes a defense official who says these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded. And the official went on to say these are not the WMD’s this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMD’s for which this country went to war. So the chest beating at this Republicans are doing tonight thinking this is a justification is not confirmed by the defense department.

SANTORUM: I’d like to know who that is. The fact of the matter is, I’ll wait and see what the actual Defense Department formally says or more important what the administration formally says.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 22, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #160483

Video: Not Just a Number

By 15 year old Ava Lowery.

Ava Lowery: “Their Lives Are More Than A Number”

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 22, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #160485

I want to address this topic of a possible Nuclear program or the ability or close to the ability to produce WMD’s.

I guess the point here is that there is much we do not know. We do know that there is more we have found then has been declassified. That fact seems to allude much of the discussion.

This particular document only comes from a report strictly about chemical weapons. At this point the public does not know how degraded the chemicals are.

These are WMD’s and they can still hurt or possible even kill someone. They have only one purpose and that is to kill civilians. They are not used against armies any more because we know how to protect ourselves from them.

This is why (as so many have asked) they did not use them against our forces.

People who say these are unusable or not viable in some way are making some serious assumptions based on evidence we actually do not have. I think it would be better to wait until after the report comes out telling us more about there actual viability.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at June 22, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #160487

Jack,
You’ve been quite eloquent on how cheap to make and easy to get chemical weapons are. If they are so cheap and easy, why does Saddam’s possesion of some buried sub-par, probably useless ones now justify the war?

JayJay and Kevin23, excellent posts.

The argument of the righties on this topic seems to be that the finding of these weapons proves that Bush didn’t lie. As Jack said “We can argue about how bad it is, but you do have to give up the Bush lied rhetoric”

The lies that are most commonly brought up are about the nuclear and biological components of the WMD program. You know, the “we know where they are” kinds of things. The vial of anthrax. The fake uranium purchases. The aluminum tubes, and most of all the absolute certainty about how advanced the weapons programs were.

Even if we found freshly minted chemical weapons in big pallets with signs saying “Saddam Made These,” it doesn’t mean that Bush didn’t lie.

Just for the record, I don’t know if Bush lied, but he definitely cherry-picked his data with the intent of decieving the American people, and if you care that he never technically and by a strict definition “Lied” while doing that you need to reexamine your beliefs. However, for the point of the argument, this discovery does not prove that he didn’t lie.

It’s also arguable whether these are still weapons of mass destruction. There are a lot of chemicals that will “burn your skin off” as was stated above, but they are not WMDs. I think that when the DOD says they aren’t WMDs, you can trust them. The weapons we found did not justify going to war.

I’m glad we found SOMETHING. Hey, if the rest of the world believes the Fox news spin, we may even get some small shred of credibility and dignity back. These weapons, however, were not an adequate reason to go to war.

Posted by: Brian Poole at June 22, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #160489

If you set an exit date, that’s cut and run…
Democrats Joesph Libermann recently returned froma trip to Iraq, he publically announced that after his visit, the current strategy is working, and that in his estimation the Bush strategy is exactly right..
As for ACLU, they have oppossed every inititive proposed by the Bush administration on the war on terror.
They filed a freedom of information act request for additional photos from Abu Ghraib which served no purpose except to enrage our enemies and validate their assertions against America..When time magazine ran the story
about alledged Koran abuses at Gitmo, and it caused riots and the deaths of innocent people and made it harder for America to win the hearts and minds of people around the world, why was such reporting necessary?
THE ACLU doesn’t even want us to be able to listen in on Terrorist phone calls.
If you see ACLU as a noble organization, then you are definitely smoking wacky tobaccy, any group that assists child molestors and opposes the war on terror, is dangerous.
The cases you cited, required minimul effort and gave allows them some political cover from attack, and came right off their website, funny they’ll post what sounds good, but goes covert in extreme cases.
ACLU stand for (America’s Communist Liberals United)
And can you deny that if the UN or Clinton had performed their duties correctly, that the debate we’re now having would have been mute ???
I sure wouldn’t want to play dodge ball with a liberal because if they can dodge the ball as well as they can the truth, they’d definitely would win…
FYI I’m an independent, who voted for Gore the first go around, but stuck with Bush in the second election, he will stand up too liberals and terrorists alike, with resolve and determination..
I agree it wasn’t by accident that we haven’t had follow up terrorists attack here in USA, it’s because Bush has taken the fight to them…
ANd someone said ABC isn’t liberal how a few months ago, when the ABC news president was caught running his mouth on an open mike, trashing the president when Bush was addressing the American people ? or how about almost 85 % of reporters supported, Clinton, Gore, Kerry and were registered democrats ?
About 8 % consider themsleves independent, but still voted for democrats…
Those who say we need a new strategy, like what? and how what experience have you had in military or world affairs? how many briefings have you been involved with ?
Liberals always find it easier to oppose America rather than support it , and their rhetoric more closely allies itself with our enemies than our leaders.
Drew Carry once said he wasn’t experienced anough to criticize an airline pilot, or a surgeon, or a dentist, etc.., so by what qualification does he have the right to criticize our president ? Think about it? What credintials and intel do you possess?

Posted by: Sally at June 22, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #160493

Jack - You Said:

” Saddam DID NOT HAVE AMERICAN WEAPONS. The conspiracy people can point to meetings or innuendo, but there is a bottom line that he didnⴠhave them, or more precisely 0.47% (that is about ½ of 1%) of SaddamⳠweapons came from Americans sources”.

What are you smoking? Did you read the same links I did? To reiterate what myles posted referencing my links….

December, 1982: Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear]

October, 1983: The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [BushⳠSecret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992]

November, 1983: Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq’s missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate]

March, 1986: The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq’s use of these weapons. [Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002]

May, 1986: The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002]

May, 1986: US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994]

and there are more if you want to read the page.

So, “Saddam DID NOT HAVE AMERICAN WEAPONS”?

We were just sending him bug spray?

Who are the conspiracy people? Is the US Senate’s committee on banking, housing and urban affairs part of the conspiracy? Where did you get your figure .47%?

Your continued rationalizations and justifications for this war is mind boggling…

Posted by: stefano at June 22, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #160494

The sad thing is Sally, that with the constant flow of former and retired officials, as well as the alarmingly high number of internal sources who speak to the media off the record, combined with a complete lack of valuable information coming from the white house (they should just do away with the white house press-corp and the daily briefings…utterly worthless), together all these factors tell intelligent people to start questioning.

Ever heard of the Milgram Experiments? The idea was to find out when people start questioning authority. They found out more than 2/3 of people studied would administer what they believed to be an electric shock powewrful enough to not only cause pain, but causes them to lose consciousness, simply because someone with a labcoat told them it was ok. This experiment was used to explain how Germans for example could allow something like the holocaust to happen in their own backyard without stopping it.

Sort of sum things up for you? Or should we continue to close our eyes and ears and keep repeating “support the troops” … as if it really helps them avoid roadside bombs.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #160496

Gee, according to what I heard, the President (that witty man) has coined another catch-phrase to go along with “cut and run”. “Wave a little white flag”. That should play real well. Isn’t he clever?

Posted by: womanmarine at June 22, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #160497

Stefano,

We also stopped sending them replacement parts and soon after the sale, the equipment became useless. Do you think they can just manufacture F-16 parts, or fix advanced computer equipment when it breaks down? There is a lot more to a military being functional than just spending money. Case in point: 1991.

By the way, how come no one is yet to critisize Bush Sr. for not getting the job done right the first time? I mean, was that not a $300 million mistake? But I’m sure somehow Clinton is to blame.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #160498

Sorry…$300 billion

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #160502

Stephen -

The only way to end the war with integrity is to win. That’s also the only way to end it with dignity.

What we don’t want to do is follow a cowardly plan (like Kerry’s) which will only give the terrorists of this world more confidence in attacking us.

The point of this thread is that the left has been (wrongly) accusing Bush of lies. This info (which has been buried) proves that the Bush detractors have been wrong all along. Weapons that are still dangerous are part of his assertions. What else do we need to know…Bush didn’t lie. Thank you.

Posted by: Don at June 22, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #160504

Don-

Seriously?

So if I told you I was a rich oil baron who made a name for myself in the 1950’s by having sex with Joseph McCarthy in front of a howling group of rowdy Civil Rights protestors while I was drunk, then I provided you evidence in the sole form of empty beer bottles, you’d believe the whole story??

Nice. Perfect logic.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #160506

Kevin23 -

Grow up

Posted by: Don at June 22, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #160508

C’Mon people!

1) Bush said there were WMD’s.
2) There were WMD’s.
Therefore…

Posted by: Don at June 22, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #160509

Finding contaminated warhead shells with satin residue that date back to pre 1991 that are no longer viable as weapons is not the same as finding real weapons that could be used against other nations.

The WMD defense was based on current imminent threat to America, Isreal, and Iraq’s immediate neighbors.

The only threat those contaminated satin shells posed is if someone sat on them and rotated. Otherwise they are merely contaminated junk.

This Fox propoganda is similar to going into a park, seeing a former tank dislayed, and announcing you discovered a weapon in the park.

Sorry to disappoint all the BUSHies but useless contaminated junk is not the same as weapons of mass destruction.

Lies, distortion, and damn lies.

We were mislead and manipulated into attacking another nation reason for no justifiable reason at all other than electing a few extra Republicans during the 2002 election cycle.

walja

Posted by: walja at June 22, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #160512

“as if it really helps them avoid roadside bombs”… you obviously do not understand that the military expects in an engagment for their to be casulties, and while avoided them would be ideal suituation they realize that the enedmy we’re fighting doesn’t have any code of honor, nor rulkes of engagment, nor do they have dissenting voices among their ranks, they are of one mond, one accord, you and me are infidels who Allah wants dead..
The military objective is far more noble than avoiding IEDS, it’s to free a nation of oppressed people, to engage terrorists that want a Jihad, Zarqwaris papers indicate they wanted to a war between Iran and America, at any costs, if Iran lost, it would allow them more access to weapons and volunteers, if Iran won, America would be destroyed..
Your argument about electric shock, could be valid for either side of the debate, but in reality, the truth is, there is nothing I can say or post to sway you, nor you , I.
If we’re successful in the war on terror you will be free to continue your liberal rants, if we lose you will either be dead or living under a Taliban style government.
So guess which side I’m rooting for ???
Is it really so hard for you to back up your own country, and the military which down the through years has paid the ultimate sacrifice so that you can sit at your computer and trash our leaders, our military, our country, to issue tirades which are more aligned with Taliban than your own country ..
Vietnam vets and POWS said the voice of dissent back here in America was a weapon used by the Vietcong to demorilize them and degrade them.
Al_jazzerra network broadcasts anti-war remarks by protestors , Jack Murtha comments as well as Jimmy Carter’s comments have been repeated often in the Arab world…
Your view of our government is really sad, and I pity you, this is the greatest nation in the world, as the EU president stated yesterday America rebuilt Europe and came to the aid of previous enemies, we offered assistance after the Rsumai, singer / activits Bono reports that Bush has offered far more money and aid to AIDS crisis in Africa than any of his predecessors.
If Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq, and Saddam eventually assisted terrorists on an attack in USA the first question would be why didn’t he do anything, and when word came out that Putin warned him, he would be labeled incompetent..
President Lincoln once said, you can please some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can never please all the people all the time.
In the time of war, we need strong leaders, while the democrats are looking for political advantage for the upcoming elections, both Bush and Tony Blair, stand resolute in their determination to be victorious in this struggle.

Clinton / Reno invaded Waco for far less , and the Al Quadea network came to power during his tenure, despite repeated terrorists attacks on the WTC, USS Cole, etc…he and Madelyn Albright along with Reno, did not consider it a military matter rather a criminal matter.
Bin Ladin and the terrorists of 9/11 began plotiing 9/11 long before Bush took office, and Zarqwari was in Baghdad with Saddam long bfore the invasion as were terrorists training camps..
They were bolstered and encouraged by the lack of action from America, but they ran into the wrong man at the wrong time, let’s not forget when news of 9/11 spread across the world, cheers and dancing of joy erupted in many parts of the Arab world.
IF you ever encounter a terrorist, I’d love to hear you reason with them, and talk them into letting you go…
During the 8 years of Clinton, and non military intervention, did these jihadists / Islamic extremists change their opinion and goal, did they hate us less?
Years ago, I heard somebody on a news show, predict that if any WMDS were ever found, liberals would never ackowldge they were wrong, because to do so, would be to say they were wrong, and a liberal never admits being wrong about war or politics…
Remember the millions of people slaughtered by the Vietcong after we pulled out, did the liberals ever express regret about that massacre?

Posted by: Lisa at June 22, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #160518

Jack,
Dual use? Ahhh, hadn’t thought of that… let me look at the list again:

60 Hughes Aircraft Defender helicopters; United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs; shipment of weapons grade botulin poison; chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas; shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum; cyanide shipped to Iraq during the 80’s using a special CIA courier; U.S. and foreign firms granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities.

hmmm… I’m no engineer, so maybe I just don’t grasp the “dual usage” possibilities here.

Now, some of the others - computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, industrial goods, heavy trucks, armored ambulances, communications gear, industrial technology, $1.5 million in pesticides - ok, I can see some possibilities.

This is Iraq we’re talking about, not “any other country.” So while these same shipments to, say, Australia or Great Britian or even France might be reasonable, Iraq is a different story. But to cut to the chase (of this post), US weapons WERE there, to whatever extent they survived.

And to rebut another of your comments, the US doesn’t do ANYTHING in a small way, especially when it comes to arming folks.

Posted by: myles at June 22, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #160520

Lisa-

I guess I struck a nerve. I will point out some of your arguments and analize them when I get more time today. But for starters:

calling my words “liberal rants” shows you are in desperate need of a label so you can attack me. Try what I say, not what easier targets have to say. That is a fallacy of logic. I’m not a liberal, but rather a TRUE conservative.

And your examples about Clinton are so out of context I don’t even know where to start.

Lets just say this: for you: its better to be lucky than good.

“…trash our leaders, our military, our country, to issue tirades which are more aligned with Taliban than your own country ..”

Now there’s a well thought out statement. Being against Bush’s policies in a FREE country is now the same as being a member of the Taliban. Absolutely mindboggling logic.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #160521

“Now there’s a well thought out statement. Being against Bush’s policies in a FREE country is now the same as being a member of the Taliban. Absolutely mindboggling logic.”
Neoconservatism is like a fundamentalist religion. You can’t reason someone out of what they didn’t reason themselves into in the first place. Once you drink the phony hyper-patriosm kool-aid and the whole “liberals want to destroy america” nonsense, there’s no turning back.

Posted by: john at June 22, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #160523

Don,

I’m glad you know SOME basic logic. But You missed a few things…like the point. Just because ONE part of your argument is right DOES NOT make the WHOLE THING right.

And if growing up means dumbing down, then I’ll stay young forever. =)

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #160525

Don believes that:

Bush says there are:
1. WMD’s (and no, not that questionable outdated crap in a can)
2. A direct link
3. Imminent Threat
ETC, ETC.

Now we find something that MIGHT be remotely like SOMETHING he ALLUDED to. Therefore, everything he says and has said is gospel.

Now I think I’ve made my point enough times now that anyone, even a Bushie, can understand it.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #160561

Can someone on either side of the debate please explain something to me…

The whole administration was very very public with the reasonings for going to war. I recall Powell showing charts and pictures and whatnot at the UN, which was broadcasted on national TV for the whole world to see. I think even the daytime soap operas were pushed aside to cover this.

With such a public display of “declassified” intel in front of the world to justify the case to go to war, wouldn’t it make sense that IF wmd stockpiles were found, IF the mobile bio-labs were found, etc, that this would be front page news? Would not the world stop to see that yes, Saddam did have such things and mighty America uncovered them? Instead, we get a sloppy looking fax.

Bush loses credibility and popularity around the world for NOT producing solid evidence of his whole case to go to war…If there is evidence, why keep it classified? Makes no sense to me.

Posted by: Greg at June 22, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #160570

You lefties and righties sound like a bunch of five year olds on the playground. Yes it is, no it’s not, yes it is, no it’s not, yes it is, no it’s not… blah blah blah!

Anyone that thinks sarin gas and mustard gas is not a wmd is an idiot. I don’t care how old it is, it is still dangerous.

Anyone that thinks this proves George W’s case is an idiot. He made it sound like SH had wmd’s coming out of his ass.

Argument over. Everyone go back to your corners.

Posted by: David at June 22, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #160577

bo-
Saddam is a sociopathic, vomitious piece of human crap. That has no logical bearing, though on how well this president has justified or managed this war.

As for the People of Iraq, I’m sure if asked how they wanted to die, they would say they wanted to live, and that dying at the hands of a liberating Army is little better than doing so at the hands of Saddam. They’re still just as dead.

on #2, the fact is, we didn’t have an al-Qaeda problem in Iraq until Bush invaded and failed to secure the nation against outsiders

On #3, that is wholly a matter of opinion. After all, Germany was a Democracy until the Nazis came along. Also, we got Timothy McVeigh and so many of the other militias growing up in our backyard.

As far as Sudan goes, the reasons for our interevention there are pretty clear, the offenses already well documented and verified. We are not against humanitarian intervention on principle.

As far as the WMDs, Bush put together his case with specifics that made the truth of his case conditional on finding certain things: an operating CBW production capacity, a working nuclear program. This wasn’t merely about finding WMDs, it was about finding Working, newly minted supplies of them, and the stuff to make them.

Truth is, you’ve forgotten what your people were really saying at the time we started this war. You folks are up to your elbows in defending this administration, to the point where you can see little else but the latest talking point.

So make all the noise you want about those damned liberals, we’ll refresh your memory on what this country really went to war to stop.

Randall Jeremiah-
There’s much we do know, thanks to multiple reports on the subject: First, no nuclear program. They had nothing up. Second, no Chem Bio weapons production capacity. Best they had was sample and dismantled equipment.

The weapons, reports indicated, were degraded beyond usability. The weapons were not used because none of them were usable or accessible.

We have this evidence, it’s in the Weapons inspector reports that Duelfer and Kay submitted, which said that aside from some old degraded shells from the last war, nothing was found. These weapons are not some big discovery, they are simply warmed over material meant to deceive voters into thinking we found what we were looking for, when we didn’t.

Sally-
If you never leave, when do you win? When do your Iraqi troops get serious about defending their own country? It’s not cutting and running if you set your sights on finishing the job between now and the date you set. I mean, do you believe duration is the only element at work here?

If you’re worried about who will stand up to us, you’re worried about the wrong people, We’re not stupid, we don’t have a deathwish. We only have opinions which you people seem to fear worse than terrorist bombs and counterproductive military strategy.

Taking the fight to them. Well, tell me, why couldn’t Bush take the fight to Afghanistan far enough to reach Bin Laden and snuff that guy’s terrorist career out permanently? Why is that guy still starring in his own line of videos five years after he dared to attack us?

As for the president? He and the Legislative branch were elected by we the people, and it is an integral part of our freedom as Americans that we can criticize our government.

As for criticizing professionals? Professionals are called upon to perform. A surgeon can be criticized for malpractice if they leave objects in a patient, screw up an easy procedure, prescribe the wrong medication, or other things, because while the mistakes themselves might need professional understanding to comprehend, the effects are plain as day.

A pilot can be criticized for a near miss with another plain by the scared passengers, though they may not understand how to work the controls- the effects of a collision are obviously bad.

A plumber, contractor laying floor, a builder putting together a home can all know much more than the people criticizing their work, but if undesired consequences are happening, and the people are clearly responsible, then its their responsibility, regardless of how much don’t understand.

With Bush’s screwups, you don’t need a course in disaster management or a degree in military strategy in order to know something’s gone wrong. It helps to know why and how things went wrong, but as Americans, all we need to know here are the desired results. If the President can’t provide them, he should admit it and take responsibility.

Don-
1)Bush said there were WMDS being manufactured, programs up to create them. This was the basis for declaring that there was a threat requiring a pre-emptive war.

2)such a program did not exist, only old, degenerated munitions whose contents were useless for that purpose.

It’s the existence of WMD production and WMDs that were viable weapons that Bush failed to prove. Therefore, the pre-emptive war was not justified.

Bush knew the case for war was thin, that his evidence was qualified up the ying-yang, and that many people were dissenting on the reports. Knowing that, he presented all these things as a certainty. He did not let us have awareness of the great uncertainty surrounding the debate. Instead, he kept that secret, and by doing so lied to the American people. If we had known, we would have questioned then, and perhaps the drive to war would have been blunted.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #160585

“Anyone that thinks sarin gas and mustard gas is not a wmd is an idiot”

It does seem pretty clear cut. Until you consider that the stuff has been buried in a desert for longer than some posters have been alive. We’ll just never know if that stuff qualifies or not unless they inspect it and report the findings. If it was still a potent weapon…kudos. If not, oops again.

Either way, some heads need to come out of some asses, starting from the top.

I’ll say it again: I’m glad we found the stuff. Is it worth 3000 people and around a trillion dollars if this thing goes on for as long as it must? Any idea what we could buy with a trillion dollars? For starter: border security, good levy systems, better transportation, less taxes (sorry…borrowing), maybe even attack that social security thing we’ve been putting off for 20 years.

I can only hope they find more, but if they don’t, Bush lovers are STILL going to jump up and down and proclaim that we’ve just prevented future terrorist attacks. It’s possible…but a stretch. I doubt any CEO would find that to be a good investment were it a business decision (except maybe GM). It is also just as likely that we just incited another attack too.

Once again …priorities and unwillingness to ask “what if I’m wrong?”

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #160593

Lisa-
The enemy is more complex than you portray it to be, and that’s a good thing. We can get people to defect and turn a dime on Bin Laden and his fellow terrorists. We should recognize this fact and take advantage of it.

Don’t use that Taliban line on us. We have no desire to bow down to them. We fought them were they were, and are willing to give them an all expenses paid trip to the last judgment if they come sniffing around here. In case you haven’t noticed, we’re not big admirers of them.

We back our soldiers. You folks are content with a pat on the back. We want that back armored and watched by another soldier. That’s the difference between our approaches. Folks like you are too busy protecting your politicians and appointees to focus on that.

Our enemies can twist our mistakes, sure enough, so lets give them fewer as grist for their mills. Dissent can be twisted to discourage our troops, but we’d be shit out of luck if we went without it. Not every piece of good advice or valid criticism is pleasant to hear. Unlike you, I’m not going to presuppose that our enemies were unbiased reporters on these matters. Maybe you would put it past them to misrepresent what was said, but I wouldn’t.

On the matter of Saddam assisting terrorists to strike at us, the plain fact is that he had, and he wasn’t going to. He was certainly not going to help al-Qaeda.

On the matter of Waco, invasion was unnecessary, as this is sovereign territory of the United States. On the subject of terrorism being treated as a military matter, I recall your side being against military action, while Clinton made several attacks on al-Qaeda. But of course, it’s now more convenient to say the opposite, now we’ve gotten hit.

As for the people who got slaughtered post-Vietnam, that’s what happens when a war strategy fails so badly. The seeds for that were laid when we failed to do the proper nation-building on Vietnam to stand up to the North’s aggression. By the time we pulled out, it was far too late to do anything about it. That tragedy should not encourage us to stay endlessly and prop up governments that don’t work. That was the problem with Vietnam to start with. No, it’s a warning to be more serious about how we intervene, or get out before we make things much worse.

That’s the choice I believe: Get serious about what you’re doing and stop doing it half-assed, or get out of there, before you inflict more damage.

David-
Nobody’s arguing the toxicity of these weapons, but that does depend on the state of these fairly reactive chemicals. Sarin doesn’t last much more than a few weeks. Iraq’s plants put impurities in the mix that made this figure far smaller. Mustard Gas from that time has been found to be no longer effective as a weaponized agent. These chemicals we found were no longer capable of doing the harm they were designed to do. It’s no longer dangerous as a weapon. End of story.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #160605

on #2, the fact is, we didn’t have an al-Qaeda problem in Iraq until Bush invaded and failed to secure the nation against outsiders—okay so at least you admit that we’re fighting the Al-quadea and that have come to engage our troops there, so where would rather fight them, and Zarqwari was a member and was in Baghdad before the invasion and Saddam gave medical aid to Al Quadea before the invasion and he allowed terrorists training camps in his country before the invasion…we had EIGHT years of appeasement of these people during the Clinton administration, and their hatred of us grew stronger and they began plotting 9 / 11 during the Clinton administration..so they grew stronger under appeasement, and are now in disarray, on the run, under Bush, even personal documents found on Zarqwari makes references to the same… Nobody is advocating never leave, the Iraq government has just been formed, let’s stay the course and allow them time to take over, or would you rather leave, allow Iran / Syria to step in, if you think fuel prices are high now, wait until that happens, no matter how you disguise it, the same question by liberals is “when can we run?” instead it should be, how can we win?”
Dissent alone doesn’t make you Taliban but at some point, discourse comforts/encourages the enemy and lowers the morale of our troops and allies.
There are millions of Iraqis who are afraid of the insurgents brutality and afraid that if they take a stand USA and our allies will abandon them.
A recent survey of Iraqis showed overwhelmingly that Iraqi people believe insurgents and Al Quadea are more to determined than we are.
So how can you ask people who have lived in fear for over 30 years to stand up, when all they hear are voices demanding we run ???
ALL THESE PEOPLE HERE WHO CAN TELL YOU WHAT WE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO, MUST BE LEGENDS IN THEIR OWN MINDS.
tHEY DO NOT OFFER ANY PROOF OF EXPERIENCE IN MILITARY, POLITICS, WORLD EVENTS, HAVE NOT PARTICPATED IN CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE, AND THEY DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE GOVERNMENT AREAN, THE BEST THEY CAN DO, INSTEAD OF OFFERING REAL SOLUTIONS OR THOUGHTFUL ANAYLISIS, IS TO SIT IN FRONT OF THEIR COMPUTER, INSULT OTHERS, AND REPEAT THE SAME OLD MANTRA OIF hOWARD dEAN AND dnc.
I find it completely amazing, when a disgruntled retired military officer speaks out against Bush, the left embraces them, but those military men and women who support Bush, are idiots, so what yuou’re saying, if you want to be smart, agree with us ???
Why do you feel it necessary to attack and correct anybody who post an opinion in opposition to yours.
The beauty of free speech is that even if you don’t agree with what somebody says, you agree with their right to say it.
The funny thing is, if somehow one side or the other, was able to change the mind of the other side, what difference would it really make ???
If you’re so smart, and are such a great thinker, why don’t you have something better or more productive to do, that dispute others on a
pathetic little blog- I myself am off work due toi an operation and can’t stand daytime tv…
I often wonder where Jerry Springer gets his guests after listening to the tired arguments of the left on this blog, I know where…speaking ofg Springer, I suppose you agree with his recent statement that Bush is a worse terrorist than Zarqwari…
And what do you think Cindy Sheehan’s (another hero of those on the left) deceased son would think of his mother, is she honoring his commitment and sacrifice ???

Posted by: TonyS at June 22, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #160610

This is old news. The EMPTY canisters story hit the news more than a year ago.

The canisters were shown to have been empty for even longer ago than the first gulf war.

Try again.

Posted by: RGF at June 22, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #160650

I’m a proud liberal and here’s why…

Bush is an IDIOT who tricked us into war..
He’s the first politician to ever lie about SH and accused him of possessing WMDS…
If left alone, those freedom fighters would be at home playing nintendo, not plotting against us.
It’s an illegal war because he did not obtain authroization from congress.
He stole the election, if GORE had been able to select which counties in Florida to recount, he’d be president, and Janet Reno could waco those terrorists.
Al Quadea wasn’t behind the atrocities of 9 /11 just ask Charlie Sheen, he has proof that Bush / Chenewy orchstrated the whole thing.
Bush is a bigger terrorist than Zarquari just ask Cindy Sheehan or Jerry Springer.
Diossent is good, who cares if it insults the military who cares what they think, I believe we should abolish the military and let us spend the money other things.
I would rather see the Republicans defeated than the taliban or Alkatta.
The ACLU is only standing up for the rights of the poor misunderstood misfortunate jihadists, who are only guilty of praticing their faith.
Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, and I thought it was wrong to kill him, I defend the rights of all guilty killers to live.
But I do believe in abortion, no time limits so what if it’s full term innocent baby doesn’t a woman have the right to decide the fate of her child, regardless of heartbeat, brain waves, pain sensations.
I believe we’d all be better off under governments like China, Russia, France, who had the guts to try to protect Saddam, and blocked the UN security council who cares if they got oil, money, etc..from Iraq.
Ever since Saddam tried to assainate old Geore Sr. his drunken son has plotted revenge, and couldn’t wait until he rigged the elction and sent those planes into WTC.
Poor old Tony Blair much smarter than GW, was conned into supporting the war by that idiot GW,
I’m glad that my fellow liberals are spreading the truth, we know that no Democrat would take action against someone whose only crime is following their religion and attemtping to eradicate the infidels.
And even Alkatta was behind 9/11, which i find hard to believe, they never intended on a follow up attack, they just wanted to make a point, that’s all!!!
I’m too smart to work in the government, I’d rather been home in the afternoons to spread my viewpoints around the internet, and let all of you right wing morons bask in my glowing light of knowledge.

Posted by: HeyBoy at June 22, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #160652

Another thing, before we invaded Iraq, Al Quadda wasn’t our enemy, they’re just freedom fighters trying to run the imperiolists invaders out of the Arab world, if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone…

Posted by: HeyBoy at June 22, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #160660


These were old shells buried near the Iranian border during the Iran/Iraq war which ended in 1988.

Posted by: jlw at June 22, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #160661

TonyS,

ALL THESE PEOPLE HERE WHO CAN TELL YOU WHAT WE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO, MUST BE LEGENDS IN THEIR OWN MINDS. tHEY DO NOT OFFER ANY PROOF OF EXPERIENCE IN MILITARY, POLITICS, WORLD EVENTS, HAVE NOT PARTICPATED IN CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE, AND THEY DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE GOVERNMENT AREAN, THE BEST THEY CAN DO, INSTEAD OF OFFERING REAL SOLUTIONS OR THOUGHTFUL ANAYLISIS, IS TO SIT IN FRONT OF THEIR COMPUTER, INSULT OTHERS, AND REPEAT THE SAME OLD MANTRA OIF hOWARD dEAN AND dnc.

Welcome onboard, TonyS.

The beauty of free speech is that even if you don’t agree with what somebody says, you agree with their right to say it.

Agreed.
;-)

And what do you think Cindy Sheehan’s (another hero of those on the left) deceased son would think of his mother, is she honoring his commitment and sacrifice ???

I dunno myself, maybe we should ask his son directly to be sure. No, wait, he was killed in Iraq. Bad luck.

Anyway, his commitment and sacrifice was made to defend US values, and among them the free speech right for everyone that, among many, both his mother and these blog posters here are exercing.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 22, 2006 7:21 PM
Comment #160681

“ALL THESE PEOPLE HERE WHO CAN TELL YOU WHAT WE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO, MUST BE LEGENDS IN THEIR OWN MINDS.
tHEY DO NOT OFFER ANY PROOF OF EXPERIENCE IN MILITARY, POLITICS, WORLD EVENTS, HAVE NOT PARTICPATED IN CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE, AND THEY DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE GOVERNMENT AREAN, THE BEST THEY CAN DO, INSTEAD OF OFFERING REAL SOLUTIONS OR THOUGHTFUL ANAYLISIS, IS TO SIT IN FRONT OF THEIR COMPUTER, INSULT OTHERS, AND REPEAT THE SAME OLD MANTRA OIF hOWARD dEAN AND dnc.”

Yeah TonyS - Don’t you hate it when people assume they’ve got it all figured out? That they know everything about everyone and their intentions.

Well, I’m glad you know so much that you can afford to look down from your lofty perch at all us peasants who are still trying to make sense of it all. But me, I like public debate on the crucial issues of the day.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #160685

jlw,

These were old shells buried near the Iranian border during the Iran/Iraq war which ended in 1988.

Nope, these are the even smallest munition that could has been called a WMD once that Republicans & neocons are after since they said there were WMDs in Iraq.
;-)

I wonder what could have be the price Saddam pad for these 500 shells. US paid 300 billions and 2500 soldiers lives (and counting) to remove the threat they were posing…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 22, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #160687

I don’t usually post, but something I read bothered me a bit. Someone on the left was downplaying the effects of mustard gas. Please google ‘mustard gas’ and take a look at the pictures and downplay how dangerous it is some more.

Also, I was (and may be again) in Kuwait and Iraq with my M-16 and chem gear, with my mask at ready for the war. Have you ever had any of that harmless mustard gas pointed at you?

I supported Bush then and still do, realizing that I may be asked to pay the ultimate price. Why? During Gulf war 1, some of the old Sergeants said when Gen Schwartzkopf stopped short of Baghdad “mark my words, my kids will be back to finish what we started”. I have kids of my own now. I don’t want them in that hellhole, all because some of my countrymen didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to finish the job.

Over the next 15 years of my military career, we were deploying to Kuwait and Saudi as a madman continued to threaten and bluster. Now it seems we’ve come around full circle. Lets set aside partisan politics and finish what we started so we can get back to debating taxes and social programs.

Posted by: NotNuts at June 22, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #160699

HEY Kevin23 ,

Public debate is good, but often on blogs the debate turns into insults, and a person who forms an opinion without ALL the facts is foolish, and a person who isn’t involved with the government / military simply cannot possess all the facts…too often public opinion on both sides is formed by political slant, half truths, propoganda, political spin, and personal bias..
Both democrats and Republicans voted for use of force, and both parties even today overwhemingly voted against any time table to retreat from Iraq, thus whether you’re liberal or consrvative , pro or anti war, chances are your political representative understands the need to stay the course in Iraq..
Now if you’ll excuse me, I got to get back on my lofty perch, it’s lonely up there, looking down on all you misguided people…
Did you see the Atlanta Journal cartoon which has an American instructing an Al Quada on how to torture? funny huh?
Or did you hear about the raids in Miami against terrorists plotting another attack, seems we had undercover operatives..
Those who dismiss the latest WMDS findings, if these were missed by UN inspectors and SH lied about destroying these WMDS, how can you be sure this is the only stockpile or the worse of the lot?
And if they weren’t dangerous why were they classified ? Notice , not once do I make personal attacks, a debate should exactly that, a discussion of opposing opinions.
I firmly believe that no matter if you’re liberal or conservative, we are all concerned about the same issues, we just have different solution, so if you truly enjoy public debate, I urge you to speak out against name calling, insult,s, slurs, no matter if they come from right or left.
Someone on this blog said ABC,CBS, NBC, CNN, etc…easn’t liberal bias, if that’s so, how many times do their commentators refer to John Kerry, Hilllary Clinton, Howard Dean etc… as liberal, versus how many times they refer to Republicans as conservatives, that in and by itself should indicate their personal perspective, shouldn’t it, why else is it important to point out a conservative but not a liberal ???

Posted by: TonyS at June 22, 2006 8:38 PM
Comment #160704

Myles

Most chemicals are dual use.

And when you talk about mustard gas, the belief that the U.S. would NEED to sell this to anyone just makes no sense. The ingredients for these things are just NOT hard to get. THis is the case with most chemical weapons. You don’t have to sneak around. It is not plutonium. You just need someone who knows how to make it, can avoid international detection and be willing to do it.

When you talk about all the actual weapons systems the question would have to be where did they all go? Saddam didn’t have them or use them significantly. Saddam’s weapons, the ones he used against Iran and the ones he tried to use against us, were mostly Soviet and some French. All the stories about smuggling U.S. arms etc are disproven by the outcome.

She turned me into a newt. I got better. That is essentially what you have in the case of the weapons.

As for the chemicals, it is just unnecessary. Saddam could (and did) easily assemble all he needed w/o any American help.

Our big contribution to Saddam in the 1980s was to allow our Arab friends to share intelligence data. I don’t regret that, since the alternative may have been an Iranian victory. The best case scenario was no victor and that is what happened. There were no good choices. The other accusations are ghost stories.

Posted by: Jack at June 22, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #160737

This now justifies the cause for war. Saddam has refused to disarm after many nations told him to. We knew he wouldn’t use his WMD for defensive purposes. Now there is no way the anti-war can argue with us.

Posted by: Stubborn Conservative at June 22, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #160741

The U.N. placed sanctions on Hussien. Hussien played games with inspectors. Hiding and shifting. Insinuating that he had WMD’s. Bush asked the U.N. to lead the effort to removed Hussien. They were a bit preoccupied to bother. But, thanks to our “all volunteer” miitary. Iraq has a government elected by it’s people. Not the government that Bush would have preferred, but one recognised and honored by the world’s governments. If democracy in Iraq fails, it won’t be the fault of the coalition, but radical islamics. Who would rather fight for the power to rule by the sword. Forget WMD’s our volunteer soldiers know it is a worthy effort. Not a political football.

Posted by: Gman at June 22, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #160753

Bo,

“RE: “just reference BoⳠinsinuation Clinton is to blame for China having the bomb and means to deliver it to the US”.
Wow I wasn’t even thinking about Clinton, China, or the bomb, so I guess those “unreasonable” people you referred too, can not understand points made…”

Sorry, Bo, my mistake. The insinuation was by HardHatHarry.

“Tell me one time Rush Limbaugh has resorted to
mean spirited name calling??”

Are you kidding? What about the famous cheap shot he took at Chelsea Clinton when she was just a 13 year old kid by calling her the “White House Dog”? Only Coulter (among major pundits) has sunk lower.

Posted by: Chris2x at June 22, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #160755

I feel much safer now that Iraq is run by Islamist nut jobs.Keep our troops there so i can feel tough.I dont want to lose face in front of the world, no matter how many troops die.

Posted by: Tom at June 22, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #160757

“a person who forms an opinion without ALL the facts is foolish…”

Then all of humanity is foolish. And I’m not even going to go into the “why we went to war in Iraq” example, where every American formed an opinion, because it’s too glaringly obvious at this point. We never even know when we’ve got all the facts, and we always form opinions about everything…this is how the brain works. Nothing wrong or un-natural about it. Maybe it is foolish, but its the way “God” made us…aren’t supposed to be in his own image too? Then I guess it is divine foolishness.

“…and a person who isn’t involved with the government / military simply cannot possess all the facts”

and you are absolutely positive people here are outside of those realms? Sounds like someone formed an opinion without all the facts.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 22, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #160767

I have to agree about “a person who forms an opinion without ALL the facts is foolish.” Nobody ever has all the facts and all decisions are made in a climate of uncertainty. If you wait for all the facts, it will probably be too late.

We don’t make decisions rationally. There is some research that indicates that more than six or seven different pieces of information starts to HURT good decision making.

Posted by: Jack at June 22, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #160773

TonyS-
It’s not as if we haven’t been constantly talking about how Bush let al-Qaeda into the country. We know we’re fighting them there, but at the very least, we’re not making the mistake of believing that we’re actually occupying their full attention.

The medical aid that Zarqawi supposedly got was the amputation of his leg after an injury in Afghanistan. Only trouble is…

When the video of the Berg beheading was released in 2004, credence was given to the claim that Zarqawi was alive and active. The man identified as Zarqawi in the video did not appear to have a prosthetic leg. Videos of Zarqawi aired in 2006 that clearly showed him with both legs intact.

As for Clinton, he hardly appeased the guy. First, appeasement means giving something. Clinton closed off the top and bottom thirds of the country in a no-fly zone. He directed several attacks on Saddam when he got out of hand, concluding with the massive airstrikes of Desert Fox.

I don’t think you have any real handle on the modern liberal’s feelings about this. I think you confuse loyalty to the president’s agenda with loyalty to the cause of fighting terrorism, and that you your party is so concerned about the messages that our words are sending to the enemy, that you’ve forgotten to consider what message your actions are sending them. Actions speak louder than words. Abu Ghraib did to the war what a million dissenters could not.

Ultimately, it’s how this president has decided to fight this war that has brought us to this.

As for Cindy Sheehan, I don’t agree with her, but I certainly don’t agree with those who will label a mother a traitor and an opportunist taking advantage of her son’s death, merely because in her grief she’s come to so strongly oppose the war. She has experience of something so many of her critics and detractors have no idea of, and their response seems to be locked on this attack mode that pervades Republican response to critics. Why does every disagreement have to come to this kind of personal attack? It is possible to politely disagree with somebody.

Notnuts-
I would take issue with anybody downplaying the terrible pain and suffering that Mustard Gas can inflict, but it’s not as lethal an agent as Sarin. As long as you don’t inhale the stuff, or get it on too much of your body, it’s only going to give you the most painful widespread blisters you’ve ever had in your life.

We’re not talking about fresh batches here, though. We’re talking about stuff that’s been buried for years, in corroding shells, undergoing chemical degradation with the passage of time.

As for the rest of it, you live up to your name: what you say isn’t nuts. We should finish what we started.

Jack-
It’s the processes and the technology to do these things that are important. The Chemistry isn’t that complicated- in theory. In practice, though, you have issues of purity, of reaction temperature, of how you get the stuff in and out of the munitions without dying in the process and so on and so forth.

One example of this issue comes up in the shells of Sarin. Impurities in the process Saddam used to make Sarin added to its short shelf-life. His manual “binary” process of adding the Methylphosphonate Diflouride before use is another; many Iraqis died using this process when they screwed it up. The introduction of true binary shells means avoiding those problems. They were rare, though.

Point is, technology was likely our biggest contribution to them, the knowledge on how to make the system run purer, faster, safer and more effectively.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 22, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #160776

Jack,

Look, I wanted to believe Bush and Co. were at least doing the wrong things for the right reasons. I bent over backwards, knowing my country had been attacked and needed defending, to believe the over-arching goal was to change the dynamic in the middle east against totalitarian regimes and monarchies. In fact, I still believe it is possible (though not likely given this administration’s pentient for bungling). I want Iraqis to stand up and demand democracy and honest government (Hell, I want my fellow Americans to do it and vote the bums out too). I want an arab democractic government to stand firm against Iran and swing Saudia Arabia into a modern democracy. I still secrectly hope that Bush and Co. are right and we will be successful.

However all that, this adminstrations case for war was a bunch of half-truths at best, lies and fear-mongering at its definite worst. How can you defend what this administration did to sell the public on this war? Even Colin Powell is extremely embarrassed he let his good soldier sense of duty roll over his better instincts and ever participated in making the case for war.

Now, the right wingers want to point to some buried chemical weapons on the border with Iran and left over from the Iran-Iraq war as vindication?

Come On! What this administration did in leading us to war is despicable. They decided to take out Saddam (because before Sept 11th they already wanted to) and used that attack on Americans to attack a country with the most flimsy links to Al Qaeda and turn it into a terrorist training ground. They do not respect true democracy or the will of the people. They consider us sheep and the more scared the better.

You still haven’t answered my question. How do you feel about the thousands of innocent men, women, children, grandparents, mothers, brothers, sisters, and fathers killed by our actions in Iraq for a dubious and ill-planned cause?

This question isn’t just for Jack but all you righties out there who seem to subsist on thinking the only lives that counted in this whole mess were those killed in the Twin Towers on that fateful day. If an Iraqi takes out ten of your innocent family and friends while going after Bush for destroying his family will you blame him ?

Posted by: Chris2x at June 22, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #160798

general Schwarzkopf stoped short because Powell and bush 41 told him to stop. and any good general takes orders from his CIC. they said the mission was complete. and remember there was talk about the other Arab countries being Humiliated.?

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 22, 2006 11:30 PM
Comment #160813

Hey Chris2x,
Rush apologized for that many years ago, said he was wrong for makingthe statment, and hasn’t repeated such harsh rhetoric…however, if you listen to Rush, a lot of time his statements made in jest, but repeat something he has said in the last several years not something that he repeatedly and profusely apologized for years ago… after I asked that question, I remembered the Chelsea statment, even his fans who agree with him on policy took him to task for that, ..if Saddam’s old weapons aren’t relevant then a one time old insult should not be held against Rush…Once you’ve apologized is it fair for someone to repeatedly remind you of your mistake especially so long after the event???

Posted by: bo at June 23, 2006 12:05 AM
Comment #160830

Kevin23 “We never ever know when we’ve got all the facts”,… then why do anti war opponents condemn Bush/Blair as well as the rest of the world’s intelligence agencies for basing their belief that SH possessed WMDS, wasn’t that assessment based on best intel, and now that some 500 lbs of degraded chemicals were found which were undecalred, how do we know that’s all he lied about, is it easier to believ that Bush lied, than SH lied?…
JACK…”Nobody ever has all the facts and all decisions are made in a climate of uncertainty. If you wait for all the facts, it will probably be too late.

We don’t make decisions rationally. There is some research that indicates that more than six or seven different pieces of information starts to HURT good decision making. “
I pose the same question to you,…
Stephen Daughtery,

the appeasement reference by the Clintyon administration was referncing Al Quadea, but if you want to split hairs about the meaning of appeasement, then allow me to restate it, Clinton knew Bin Ladin was a threat to US security and was behind the first WTC, USS Cole, etc…and when he given a chance he declined to give the kill order, had he given it, the WTC might still be standing and those 2500 US troops would probably still be alive..
Debating the rationale for the war is foolhearty, we’ve been in one for a few years, and we are fighting Al Quadea, they started this was against the infidels, they hijacked the Islmaic religion, they are thugs and murderers who would love to see you and I, dead, they are still seeking to launch another attack on US soil, Bush is trying to defeat them, even it means the Republicans losing in the mid term elections and his presidency goes down in flames…
That’s putting the safety of your country ahead of personal gain and partisan politics,


Posted by: TonyS at June 23, 2006 1:04 AM
Comment #160840

Was President Bush the first president to claim SH had WMDS ?
Did he come to this conclusion with or without information provided to him by the intelligence community?
Did Colin Powell believe there were WMDS?
Was Bush the only leader in the world who believed SH had WMDS?
Since we’ve located approximately 500 lbs of WMDS, that were not disclosed to the UN nor destroyed as Saddam stated, is it possible there are other stockpiles we’re not aware of ?
Could they be even more dangerous?
Is it possible that Saddam hid or transferred his stockpiles before the invasion?
Did Bill Clinton and Al Gore believe and publically address the threat Saddam posed to the free world?
Before the invasion, when democrats saw the same the same intel, did they proclaim SH possessed such materials, di they deem him a threat who would pass along such technology to terorists networks?
Did SH possess millions of US dollars which could assist in terrorist attacks?
Is it better to combat Al Quadea in Iraq, or would it have been better to combat them here?
If George Bush manipulated intel domestically concerning SH WMDS, then how was it possible for him to manipulate foreign intelligence?
Did the president obtain intel from his own people or from George Tenet, Clinton’s man in charge of CIA?
Nobody in the military knows exactly the number of collateral damage in Iraq, the numbers on left wing websites are exagerrated to undermine support for the war.
President Keneedy was a great president, who was a deomcrat, Jimmy Carter a deomcrat was a fiasco, Nixon a republican, was a fiasco, Reagan a republican, was a great strong president.
So neither party can claim greatness while proclaiming the other inadequate.
Whether or not history validates Bush’s decision, only time will tell, but he did what he thought was best, there are things we definitely do not know at this time, because if we know so does our enemies, and things we may never know.
But one thing is certain, we have not been attacked on domestic soil since 9 / 11, and that isn’t by accident.
Another thing we know, Al Quadea consider this country infidels, and do not mind dying, to serve a distorted view of Allah.

Posted by: KIMB at June 23, 2006 2:24 AM
Comment #160860

Hey KIMB its mostly sunni and shia types blowing our troops up…. when will you guys stop spinning this bs about fighting Al Quadea.

Posted by: Blind Freddy at June 23, 2006 8:11 AM
Comment #160865

Heyboy-
Bush is not an idiot, but he is a fool. The idiot has the excuse of not knowing better.

If we hadn’t invaded, there would be nobody for the insurgents to fight against. It’s only logical. You don’t have to be left wing to figure that out.

It’s an illegal war in some people’s view because it was started as a pre-emptive war. We were supposed to be hitting Saddam, in theory, before he could hit us. Now, this has to be an immediate threat. It can’t be five years down the road, it’s got to be right now. If Bush knew that the evidence didn’t really support the interpretation of an immediate threat, then the war was illegal.

Bush’s aggressive tactics in disrupting and delaying the count are part and parcel of why many consider him illegitimate. After all, would a duly elected candidate need such strong-arm tactics to win?

I can’t speak to what celebrities say, they speak for themselves. Should I rely on Ted Nugent to speak for all Republicans? No?

Dissent is not good. It’s necessary. The military, however, is both a good and a necessary thing. But since you were telling me my opinion, rather than actually listening to what others and I have to say, you missed that point of view. As for insulting the military, I’d have to say that some individuals in the military may find what I say to be questionable, but I have done my absolute best to show my respect for them. I have, at the very least asked for more than just moral support for the troops. I have advocated for them to get the manpower, the vehicles, and the other things they need to win, rather than attacking the media everytime it reported these things were falling short.

The ACLU has helped all sorts of people. If you did actual research on the subject, you’d find that out.

The law already outlaws abortion in the third trimester, except under certain circumstances, often when the baby is already dead and poses a risk to the mother. But little details like that might get in the way of certain folk’s moral indignation.

As for al-Qaeda (not al qaedea or Alkatta), you’ve got it backwards. Bush was wanting it to be Iraq, trying to find a link, despite the fact that even an amateur newshound like me knew who pulled this off in ten seconds flat. We have never been under the illusion that the time since the last attack indicates how safe we are. We’re a hell of a lot more wary of al-Qaeda than you people ever were. Wasn’t it our President, who said Bin Laden doesn’t concern him much anymore? Four years later we’re still picking up the pieces from that blunder.

You can indulge in your fantasies about what we think of the terrorists as much as you want, it doesn’t change the fact that we were on the ball about al-Qaeda earlier, and are more serious about its threat now that the right is. At least we looked in the right places first.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2006 8:36 AM
Comment #160868

Ad,
Again the double standards. “This” person says they are degraded…you want to believe that, so you use that person’s quote.

Another person says SH’s scientists were prepared to resume the programs if SH got the sanctions lifted. That’s not what you want to hear, so that person is a hack. Ad hominem.

I don’t see anywhere in that one-page document where it says that these were “rusty old things” that were not dangerous. It said they were, most likely, degraded but still dangerous and probably lethal.

I’m not a chemist…I’m simply reading a document. Not hard to do, even for this product of the public education system. You seem to have acutally seen these items, since you can describe them in such detail. Or, perhaps, you are making this up? Occum’s Razor? I really doubt you were either the one who dug them up or the one who investigated them. What is the alternative, then?

And as for your belief that they are not WMDs because there is “no delivery system”. I’m at a loss. If it can only be detonated by a “suicide bomber” and it kills a thousand Iraqi’s, it’s OK…but if he can lob that same thing 5 miles and still kill a thousand people, now it’s “bad”?? Double standards abound.

Dave,
I understand SH had a tough childhood. That, without a doubt, shaped him into the bastard he became. I, too, saw interviews with him. I don’t think that excuses what he did. It may be the reason why, but he’s still an evil person. He had attacked and/or invaded 2 other countries and used WMDs on the ones who fought back, in addition to his own people. Where do you find “logic” in that? What arrogance one must have to be so confident that you can predict someone elses future actions by such “logic”.

BTW, I do think David is an intelligent person…I also think highly of others on the list - regardless if I agree with their positions or not.

I do not call others “ignorant” or whatever. If I read something that seems contradictory, I like to comment about it. At least when someone challenges me, I attempt to defend my statement. I also admit when I’m wrong. I don’t try to discredit that person by personal attacks on their character.

Posted by: Rich at June 23, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #160869

Tony S-
Bush and Blair were negligent with the intelligence process, Bush at the very least pushing for conclusions whether this was what would organically grow from the facts or not. It’s no accident so much bad evidence accumulated in the case for war. They were willing to take any evidence that painted a scary picture for the average American about Iraq. That, friends and neighbors, is different from just not knowing everything.

The problem of information is not solved by limiting your information intake, but rather processing it so it adheres together into clusters. These clusters can be better processed than all the information at once. To do this, though, Bush would have had to let his intelligence people do some of the analysis for him. That, though, would have left things open to conclusions he might not have wanted.

Take your conclusions with these Shells. The question was not whether they were chemical weapons, but whether these were the ones we were looking for, and whether they signified a present threat. These were forgotten shells from the last war, likely corroded, leaking, the ingredients degraded to inertness. Mustard Gas only lasts 13 to 15 years under ideal conditions. These had been buried since at least 1988, in non-ideal conditions.

There was no appeasement of al-Qaeda. First, let me correct you: Bin Laden was not known to be a terrorist mastermind before about 1996. Besides, I think Clinton sent quite a few cruise missiles after Bin Laden and his operations, an action for which the Republicans greeted him with charges of trying to distract Americans from the impeachment. It’s good to know those politicians had their priorities straight.

The reason, by the way, that Bush’s efforts to defeat Bin Laden are sending his mid-terms and his presidency down in flames, is that he hasn’t made a lot of good effective decisions along those lines. You know, people might just find that as a negative.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #160871

KIMB-
No, but President Bush was the first to claim that he was in leaque with al-Qaeda, and that the WMDs required a pre-emptive strike before Saddam hit us first.

He did so with information from the intelligence agency, but by his choice, without their full analysis and review of that information. His officials worked over the information with the intent of making the strongest case possible, but not with the tools that make a case truly strong, truly factual.

Colin Powell had his doubts about the evidence he was asked to present, at one point tossing the report across the table and calling it shit. (Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward)

The WMDs we located were unusable.

If Saddam did transfer the WMDs, the question is how did he get them past us, and why aren’t we going after the people he hid them with?

Gore and Clinton addresse that threat, but did not pose it in terms of threat to the US itself, nor did they advocate pre-emptive strikes. Their military responses were under the auspices of the UN.

Democrats did not see the same intel, nor did many Republicans. They saw edited version of the intelligence that excluded many of the qualifications and dissents on the matter of the WMDs

Bush got intelligence from both Tenet and his own people, with both influence by the politics surrounding the build up for war.

As for Saddam’s terrorist threat, the guy was paranoid enough that he only supported local terrorist groups intended on striking local enemies. After the foul-up of the strike on Bush in Kuwait and Clinton’s cruise-missile attack on his intelligence headquarters, he quieted down on even that. As a secular Baathist, he did not get along well with the fundamentalists of al-Qaeda. If caught they were often tortured and executed.

As for manipulation of intelligence, our foreign intelligence comes through the CIA, same as our domestically gathered information. No need to go elsewhere to deal with things.

As far as collateral casualties go, you might have a point, but sites I’ve seen have had both conservative and liberal estimates of dead at hand.

As for the lack of attacks since 9/11 not being an accident, the question is, by whose intent are the hands of al-Qaeda stayed at any given moment?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #160881

Don,

I want to see how effective these degraded chemical weapons are… now all lefties please stand over here by this shell for a few minutes and tell me what you feel when exposed to this degraded chemical.

Okay, I take these degraded shells found in Iraq for one hour and you take US White Phosphorous ammo for just few minutes. Why should you worry, White Phosophorous is used *only* to enlight the battle field…

Isn’t ironic that the most recent chemical weapons used in Iraq had “US Army” wrote on them?
But, oh, looks, at last we found (around 500 degraded chimical shells of iran-iraq age) WMDs in Iraq! See!?


Posted by: Don

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 23, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #160894

“You still haven’t answered my question. How do you feel about the thousands of innocent men, women, children, grandparents, mothers, brothers, sisters, and fathers killed by our actions in Iraq for a dubious and ill-planned cause?’

This is a set up question, but I will answer it anyway.

Each year Saddam was in charge, thousands died. Various human rights groups estimated that 50,000 Iraqi children died each year because of sanctions. I think those figures were inflated, but remember those are the same groups that are bringing you the figures people use re Iraqi deaths today. Saddam’s wars, oppression and mismanagement killed literally millions. In the grim calculus, this war probably saved lives. I am not citing that as a justification of the war. But I also reject the idea of increased deaths as an anti war argument in this case.

In any war, people die. It is hard for a civilized country to accept the types of things that happen. But sometimes it is necessary. Had the allies attacked Germany before they went into Sudetenland, would it have been justified? Hitler was a popular, nationalistic leader back then, just trying to get justice for his people. Or what if the U.S. had attacked the Japanese fleet when it was just on a ‘training exercise’ in the general direction of Pearl Harbor. Preemption is a slippery doctrine. If you really prevent something from happening, people will believe it would not have happened anyway.

And people (like us) long accustomed to security start to believe it is the normal and natural state of affairs.

Posted by: Jack at June 23, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #160910

Well, the truth is making its way home…the military had very little to do with the findings of these stockpiles. Check out the story on page 2 of the article where the guy who first followed up on a local tip tried to call the military every other day for weeks until they finally agreed to check it out. I’ll bet they are now glad they did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/us/23believers.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 23, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #161006

Jack-
How many people will die in how many other countries unaided by the U.S. Because of the way we chose to fight this war? How many allies will be left in the lurch because of the troubles of readiness that plague us now, and will plague us after the end of the war?

How many Americans will die because the seeds of alienation were planted between allies, encouraging wasteful bureaucratic stupidity in the relations and creating friction where international cooperation is supposed to occur?

As for Sudetenland and Pearl Harbor? The first could have been solved diplomatically by simply not agreeing to the annexation. The other attack, I think, could have been dealt with by attacking the Japanese planes when they entered our airspace without our permission, and then seeking out their aircraft carriers and sinking them. In the first case, you pre-empt by diplomatic policy, which is entirely justifiable. In the second case, you wait until a technical act of war has occured (the invasion of our territory) and them slam them before they can attack. Pre-emption in military terms does not always mean pre-emption in legal terms.

The point would be, you do what you can diplomatically, and construct your pre-emptive attacks, on the rare occasion you employ them, so that there’s little room for denial on the part of those we attacked.

DanS-
I’m not avoiding the facts, I’m giving them to you. Only 8 people could see the full report, with all the qualifications and footnotes. Everybody else was handed a declassified version that was sanitized of those items. We know this because the classified version was later made available to the public.

The weapons found could not have posed a threat, and therefore could not have justified the threat based justification of war that pre-emptive strikes require.

As for the toxicity of the weapons, that’s the key issue. These are after all Chemical Weapons. The point is that very small doses of these sicken, blister and kill people. If they’re fresh. If they’re not, they’re no longer the chemicals that kill and maim. They might have some nasty effects in sufficient doses, but when the point is to kill and blister people with small doses, that might be a problem when it’s misted by the bursting charge.

You should understand that the official Bush line is that these shells are useless and are not the weapons we were going in there to find. abandoned, unusable chemical munitions are not a justification for a pre-emptive attack.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #161018

Randall,
I cringe each time I read points of view such as yours because I wonder where does the rhetoric finally lead us to. I am concerned that we are too sophisticated and too self-assured to turn around this hell-bound train. I am a Democrat and I have taken careful pains not to call the Pres a liar because first of all the entire definition of lie changed a long time ago. Let’s take your comments/questions and reverse them and we can quickly see that these kind of dilogue gets us nowhere. Here we go: (1) Until WMDs were found was that enough for you to entertain the possibility that Bush lied or at least made some misjudgments? (2) Until WMDs were found did you ever voice your disapproval of the war? (3) Do you consider this new information on these weapons to represent the kind of threat that the Pres was portraying as justification in the lead up to the war? You have every right to your opinion and I am probably one of few members of that club that still believe in those basic rights. I have not called the Pres a Liar and have defended you to others because I believe it’s very important to respect that position. However, the manner in which those have an opposing opinion have been portrayed raises serious questions about where the country is headed. How you honestly answer the questions I posed will be revealing and most importantly provide a sense of your respect for diverse opinions!

Posted by: george at June 23, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #161044

Stephen

Diplomatically? You recall how well diplomacy worked with Hitler (and with Saddam). The only diplomacy that worked came when he invade Poland. That was the whole problem. Hitler would not stop. He promised and then just moved in and the allies didn’t back up their demands. The bottom line is that diplomacy w/o the will to use force if needed is just hot air in a situation like that.

Diplomacy can work with reasonable people. Not everyone is reasonable.

And Pearl Harbor was hypothetical. If you see the fleet coming, do you really have to wait until they actually attack? In some cases it may be way too late.

Posted by: Jack at June 23, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #161108

Kevin, Kevin, Kevin,


|Well, the truth is making its way home…the military had very little to do with the findings of these stockpiles. Check out the story on page 2 of the article where the guy who first followed up on a local tip tried to call the military every other day for weeks until they finally agreed to check it out. I’ll bet they are now glad they did.|

So let me get this straight, one story about one of the places that the WMD were found, really means that all the different stockpiles found happened the same way? OK.

You know guys, this has been the most interesting thread. It is the first long thread that I have ever read in its entirety. The post that stands out the most to me is Posted by: Environmentaliberal at June 22, 2006 03:16 AM


1. The entire world believed they were there, including those against to military invasion

2. We knew he had used them in the past.

3. We believed that we had destroyed some of them during the Clinton era.

4. We gave him quite a bit of time to do something with them before we went in.

5. We know that the Russians were in Iraq 6 weeks before the invasion moving something around.

6. We know something went over the border into Syria in a convoy of trucks.

7. Saddam loved to hide things (including himself) underground.

8. Iraq is approximately the size of California.


Many of wonder why we always believed that there were weapons. This, whether right or wron is why. But his ilustration is the best:

We also know that if your local news reported for 6 months that a certain house in your community had a stockpile of illegal drugs, by the time the police broke in, they would probably be gone.

Now you guys can argue back and forth as you already have about wether the weapons are old or new, potent or not, and all the little nit-picking things both sides will argue the next few days.


He/she is right. These weapons are going to continue to be found and you guys as in many times in the past will be on the wrong side of History.

Posted by: scott at June 23, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #161129

Jack-
Diplomacy does not mean caving into his demands. Diplomacy can be used to stall, to confront, to put somebody on the spot, etc, etc. Don’t you recall Adlai Stevenson telling the Russian Ambassador after his evasions that he was prepared to wait for his answer until hell froze over? Or how about Clintons stern reproach to Saddam Hussein about the Assassination attempt on Bush, which having followed a cruise missile attack on Saddam’s intelligence HQ promised the next attack would bring regime change?

Or how about Reagan negotiating arms reductions, glastnost, and other exchanges that helped to rust the Iron Curtain into collapse?

Diplomacy is a discipline, not merely an alternative to war. It’s sad that under the Bush administration it’s been relegated to such a limited role. Diplomacy is merely how you let people know what you will do, why you will do it, and what they can do if they want you to stop doing it.

In terms of Pearl Harbor, if you’ve got the information, you could hit them out at sea at night, while all the planes are on the ship. That said, you might have to explain an unprovoked attack on a ship in international waters. No, it’s much easier to say that rat’s after the cheese if you have him squirming in the trap. They only have to cross into your waters unannounced and uninvited. If you know they’re coming, you might know where to watch for them, especially in the days where propeller engines limited range, speed, and altitude.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #161131

Scott-
Of all the weapons found, not a one has been post Gulf War, and none have been useable as weapons. If you want to claim we found some old munitions, fine, they’re found. But these shells were certainly no threat to us at the time we started this war.

As for your points:
1)Not quite. There were doubts among the different powers. But go on, though.

2)Does not guarantee use in the future. We used Nuclear Weapons on two cities and have never dones so again in more than sixty years.

3)Many of them were.

4)Still, here’s the thing: they would have had to import red-flag raising amounts of chemicals for which they had no other use, and they would have had to rebuilt certain equipment which would give off certain fumes and by products.

5)Maybe they were doing something, maybe they weren’t You can insinuate something, but what’s the proof?

6)Again, you can insinuate something, but what kind of intelligence do you have on the matter?

7)Does not speak to what he would hide.

8)California is the size of California, but we don’t see people traipsing over every square inch without leaving a paper trail.

Ultimately, there has been absolutely no evidence that the WMDs were moved anywhere, much less that any real quantity was made Post Gulf War.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 23, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #161138

Well, Jeremiah, aren’t you just the bouncey little cheerleader for Bush?

This information is so old it’s grown mold.curled up, and is now raisin quality. Now if you have nothing new on the “great WMD buildup” created in bushies’ imaginations, time for beddy bye.

Posted by: KDTEXAS at June 23, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #161141

“So now we freed the Iraqi people and we found WMD so where is the great lie you folks keep talking about?” - Randall

I love this “we” garbage. What part did “we”, you in particular, Randall, play in this great freeing of the Iraqis? I love how all you keyboard defenders of the war claim a stake in this war. What exactly did you, or Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Condi, et. al. sacrifice? Party on, bush twins, while other “we’s” fight your daddy’s war.

Posted by: KDTEXAS at June 23, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #161156

Steven,
Good to discuss with you again.

|But these shells were certainly no threat to us at the time we started this war.|

Highly debateable if not absolutely wrong. They have lessened in strength but are far from being ‘no threat’. If not tho, lets bury them in ANWAR.

1. I think if you do some resaerch the very high majority felt that way. a few on the fring, you are right, didnt. John Kerry said in a sneate campaign that “if you don’t believe SH has WMD’s, don’t vote for me.”

2. We also aren’t a crazy raping killing dictatorship either. I beleive it was far moer likely that he would still have them since he had used them. We know he didn’t go to WMDaholics anonymous.

3. I agree. Remember this was not my list.

4.I don’t understand your point. Why would he have to have all that stuff to hide, bury, move WMD to a place very dificult to find.

5. Again, this is not my list, and you are right. But I dont think Environmentalliberal’s point was to prove that he had them. It was to prove that there was alot of reasonable doubt. Enough that the dems could be wrong.

6. Ok, you are right. It could have been DELL computers. Maybe it was artifacts from the ancient city of UR.

7. No just states he buried things.

8. Where are you from steven? I live in the foothills of the Sierra Nevadas and They just pulled a fighter pilot from WW2 out of here who had been lost for all these years. It took our Govt. 5 years to find the Olympic Bomber in a state much smaller than CA. I think his point is that WMD could easily be hidden and hard to find.

But I think Environmentalliberals’ point is that we can debate back and forth on quality of WMD. But politicaly, it is going to be a hot potato. And the Dems are going to be left holding it if they continue to find weapons that Saddam lied about to the UN. Quality or not.

Posted by: scott at June 23, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #161165

Each day one by one, the dummyrats fall and lose a nother screaming hissie-fit anti-war Bush bashing, bloger propaganda, lock-step dummyrat talking point.Perhaps if the dummyrats would get back to aborting there children and return to the glorification and propagation of gay lisbian and sexual transgender movements they could far better serve there constipated constituency.

Posted by: angry white capitalist pig at June 23, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #161194

Santorum’s WMD claim is pummeled again

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 24, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #161245

Scott-
Anything can be highly debateable. One just has to start the argument. In this case, you can argue practically anything about the shells, but this isn’t my opinion about them, this is David Kay and Charles Duelfer’s opinion.

The ANWAR argument is cheap. The point is not whether these things are still poisonous. If just being poisonous was the point we could stuff them full of heavy metals and blow them up over these people’s heads. No, the point is that when fresh, they are toxic on another level altogether, so mere droplets of these substances are enough to sicken, burn, blister and kill people. In the condition they are in now, they don’t have that capability as a weapon. A chemical weapon is useless if you have to drink the contents or paint yourself with the stuff to die. The point is Mass Destruction, not merely small group or individual poisonings.

1)I would do more research myself, if I were you. There were a number of mainstream intelligence agencies raising red flags on the matter. As for Kerry? Well, I can say from experience that I was taken in by Bush’s claims. I believe people who have been mislead reserve the right to change their opinions consistent with what the evidence shows to be true.

2)I used a bad argument. Perhaps the better argument is that he would be unlikely to vindicate our position and justify an intervention against him.

4)The production of Chemical weapons requires many dual use chemicals, but often in proporrtions unnecessary and useless for the benign purpose. You’d only need so much of a certain feedstock for fertilizer or pesticide. Getting the stuff in greater bulk would send a signal that the more malign purpose was at work. So would be gettin certain kinds of equipment in combination (we know how these weapons are manufactured), or the plants giving of certain byproducts or certain precursors. This kind of activity is not random.

Which brings me to 8.

Human activity is rarely random, especially when it comes to big important things. I’m a resident of the Great State of Texas, second biggest in the union and largest in the Lower 48. Theoretically, people could live anywhere, the roads could go anywhere in the state. But they don’t.

Theoretically, Saddam could hide WMDS in many places, but in practice he would have to find a place accessible by heavy vehicle, he would have to have people to work on the project, he would have to get the stuff moved from all the places where it was to begin with…

Sooner or later, the logistics of it guarantee that somebody’s going to find out where these things were buried.

All this time, and it’s not happened. It may be possible, but it doesn’t seem all that probable.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #161261

|Anything can be highly debateable.|
Not so true:
Was George Washington a good president? Debatable.
Is he dead? Not debateable
Was he the first President? Not debateable.
Was he married? Not debateable.

I was refering to Environmentaliberal’s post and point. Again you proved it.

But here is my point:

This is just the beginning and we are now in a trap. The argument that there were NO WMD is now invalid. It doesnt matter how old or how potent. They will find more! I don’t like it! I want the Republicans to go down in smoke! But mark my words: They will find more!

Politically: The Reagan Democrats are those who mainly follow headlines. They dont have much discussion. They dont follow the facts very deep. All they will see is that the Dems called him a liar for a long time and now they were wrong.

If more and more weapons show up, (and I could totally be wrong but I believe they will), it will make the Bush is a liar strategy suicide for the Democratic party.
Posted by: Environmentaliberal at June 22, 2006 03:16 AM
Read His post.

I dont think he is talking logistics. He is talking pure politics. Notice he is not a Bush supporter.

His point is that it is debateable, and the swing voters will not get deeply into the debate. If they keep finding wmd that Saddam told the UN he did not have, no matter what the quality. It is a problem for the Dems.
a good example of this is the culture of corruption question. We could debate back and forth on the logistics. I could give you mayor for mayor, governor for governor, rep for rep. But what will sell? But the public debate will
come down to Tom Delay and William Jefferson. Most of the public doesn’t have a clue as to why the dems think Tom Delay is corrupt. Most do not even know what a lobbyist is or does. But $90,000 wrapped in aluminum foil and stuck in a freezer they understand. Bribary, they understand.
So by default, the dems have a big problem with this debate as far as using it to win an election based on an argument of corruption.

We could go back and forth.
|here were a number of mainstream intelligence agencies raising red flags on the matter|
Yes, a number but far from any majority. and France, Germany, Russia, China, and most in the UN beleived he had them. That was’nt the question. The question was about how to proceed.

|but in practice he would have to find a place accessible by heavy vehicle|

Malarky, give me a pickup truck, some men and six months, I could hide half of my small town in the Sierra Nevada’s with no trace. And the actual WMD, not the weaponry it is put in, can be carried out in a mayonaise jar.

|Based on its estimate of the amounts of various types of media unaccounted for, UNSCOM estimated that the quantities of additional undeclared agent that potentially could have been produced were: 3,000 – 11,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 6,000 – 16,000 litres of anthrax, up to 5,600 litres of Clostridium perfringens, and a significant quantity of an unknown bacterial agent.

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/980603-unscom.htm

My point is that the dems have all their eggs in one basket. ‘He Lied’. If it unravels, and it might not, but if it does it is suicide.

Posted by: scott at June 24, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #161462

Scott-
I would argue that the argument was never that there were no WMDs. That’s an unfortunate simplification of the essential argument, which implicitly speaks of the newly manufactured WMD, that supposedly was cooked up in the post Gulf War period of Saddam’s regime.

Taken from this perspective, the statement that we haven’t found the WMDs is not as broad as it sounds when interpreted literally; the context narrows it considerably, and the Kay and Duelfer reports definitively close the case, until further evidence develops to the contrary.

All we have to do is stand firm, and make the arguments we’ve been making. The point must be actively made: we invaded to confront an active threat, one that did not exist.

As for corruption? I think voters will see that we took our own initiative to throw the congressman under the bus, instead of deploying one pundit after another to excuse his behavior. A culture of corruption isn’t merely individual politicians going bad, it’s a system that excuses and even encourages such behavior. I think you’re wrong about DeLay, actually. I think people could well understand why folks considered him corrupt. People had dealt with his crap for years in Houston, including the recent light rail issue and the The Texas congressional redistricting. his repeated interferences in that process gave a clear indication to many people in his home state what an abuse of power was. When the indictments came along, and he was smiling in his mugshot, some conservatives rejoiced, but I think many ordinary people were just creeped out. I think people became clear on his corruption. Otherwise, why would he have stepped down?

On the matter of the movement of the WMDS, I would say the trouble is doing it without accidental releases, and without tipping people off as to the locations of your WMD production facilities and the hiding places. Satellite reconnaissance photos would sooner or later demonstrate the pattern, and we would have found the hiding place. Also, there’s a good reason for the safety. If your plant is in a populated Area, and there are suddenly a bunch of deaths from Nerve Gas, or a bunch of mustard gas blistering, then everything’s given away. The Fresh WMDs are extraordinarily tetchy. That’s why degradation poses a problem for mass casualties.

As for the UNSCOM estimates, there’s one small problem with your approach. Just because something wasn’t declared destroyed, doesn’t mean it’s still around. If Saddam got hasty, panicked amidst inspections, he might have destroyed weapons without documenting them. They would remain just as destroyed as those neutralized under the right paperwork, but you would be counting them as still extant.

Note words like estimate (translation: we’re just guessing), Potentially (could be, we don’t know), etc., etc.

In the original National Intelligence estimate, the classified version, the document was rife with such language, language that presented a cloudier picture. The one given to congress was scrubed of that uncertainty. There’s a mountain off difference between asking people to go to pre-emptive war over guesses, and asking them to go on certainties and solid intelligence gold. Bush new his case was weak, and yet he presented one that had no uncertainty, no wiggle room.

That is the lie, the worst one of all: to take consent without allowing people informed consent. We had a right to know whether our suspicions were just that, and only that. It’s one thing to claim that Saddam Hussein may still have weapons, and keep him isolated in sanctions. It’s quite anothter to send us to war thinking we’re defending America from a threat, only to find that teh information Bush was certain about was presented to him as being thin and uncertain.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #161930

Jack,

Thanks for your response and the question is not a trap or set up but legitimate. However tough the question may be it does not preclude a reasoned and legitimate rebuttal. I don’t think you provided a strong answer.

The argument that we saved Iraqi lives by going to war and taking out Saddam is speculative at best. I can’t believe you are arguing that one in light of the current situation. Of course Saddam was brutal and killed thousands but WE don’t go killing thousands of innocent people in other countries on that basis. How many more lives could we have save if we took a fraction of the money spent on that war and fought TB or malnutrition instead? It is besides the point.

The facts remain, Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq unlike the Taliban and Afganistan. Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11. We decided to attack a country that might help terrorists based on the slimmest of evidence (or Cheney’s 1% doctrine) with the argument that even if there is a 1% chance of a threat and we can save American lives we need to go on the attack and with the much greater certainty of killing hundreds if not thousands of innocent (but not American) people. Actually, we have killed thousands of Americans and wounded or maimed many more than that in this war. Where is the morality in that?

Premption is definitely a slippery slope but I can’t believe you turned in on its head! There is a big difference of being confronted with a clear and present threat and the “evidence” provided by this adminstration. I for one need a lot more than that before I go into my neighbor’s house with guns ablazing because I think he might be a threat. Hey, if I kill him and he never molests my daughter, I was right!
Don’t you think we should be held to a higher standard when it comes to killing thousands of people?

My point is the horrors of war are truly glossed over in this debate, especially among the jingoistic right, and if the magnitude of the effect of this war on the Iraqi people were measured by the same horror and indignation we reserve for al Qaeda’s attack on our own soil we wouldn’t be there.

The real setup involved this administration’s push for war.

Posted by: Chris2x at June 26, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #202753

uh..what planet are you living on? These so called “Weapons of Mass destruction” were nothing. Chemical and biological weapons have a shelf life of 6 months and they are no longer useful and can’t be weaponized. Chalabi was the whole source of our intel and he was proven to be a criminal, liar, and profiteer who we ran out of office fairly quickly.
We had 36 undercover CIA operatives in various levels of the government, weapons and defense. All 36 said that Saddam lacked the capacity and ability to produce weapons of mass destruction after 1995. But Chalabi’s false intel supported the Bush administrations agenda so we went with that.
Also, It’s amazing that this little rag-tag country could even develop chemical and biological weaponsback in 1979-1980 Maybe they had help from an outside source? Oh yeah..that was us. WE developed their weapons, built their labs and trained them how to make them. They were for use against his enemies, who were our enemy as well, Iran. But when he used it on an opposizing tribe that was trying to overtake his government, we step in 20 years later and kill him for using what we gave him and doing what we told him to do. But I guess when we said to use on his enemies,we really meant only our enemies.So here we are with thw war spinning out of control, over 3,000 of the finest men and women this coutnry had to offer are dead, and for what? Why did we disband the unit looking for Bin Laden? Wasn’t he responsible for 911?
Here is the real point. Afghanistan was our best chance and we blew it. We had an opportunity to win the hearts and minds, of not only afghans and iraqis but the entire Arab region. We had a true chance for success in Afghanistan. We could have succeeded in building a model democracy that would have inspired and built the cause for change from the inside out. But instead we have to half-assed attempts with no full commitment to either Our resources are stretched to thin. We do have enough support form the rest of the world because Bush told them to hell with you we’ll do it our selves. “Be careful what you ask for”. Because we got just htat. we’re standing here, the US taxpayer, footing the entire bill for Iraq. We could have strengthened our ports security, increased police presence, instead of reducing funding for police and fire dept. We could have built 700 schools with the money that has gone to Iraq..700! It’s time for people to wake up and realize the failure of this administration and begin to understand the lasting reprocutions that this will have for us, our children and grandchildren. They will pay the price, and continue to die for these mistakes.

Posted by: Myles at January 12, 2007 6:40 AM
Post a comment