1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

These aren't the WMD you were looking for......

Discussion in 'Legal' started by hillbilly, Jun 21, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hillbilly

    hillbilly Well-Known Member

    Old Jedi mind trick.....

    These are not the WMD you were looking for.

    Bush Lied, People Died, etc..........

    Nothing to see (repeat 500 times).


    And the accompanying story.


    Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
    Wednesday, June 21, 2006

    WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

    "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

    Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

    • Click here to read the declassified portion of the NGIC report.

    He added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.

    "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 document.

    "This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

    The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

    Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."

    Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

    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."

    The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.

    He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.

    "It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.

    Hoekstra and Santorum lamented that Americans were given the impression after a 16-month search conducted by the Iraq Survey Group that the evidence of continuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction was insignificant. But the National Ground Intelligence Center took up where the ISG left off when it completed its report in November 2004, and in the process of collecting intelligence for the purpose of force protection for soldiers and sailors still on the ground in Iraq, has shown that the weapons inspections were incomplete, they and others have said.

    "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.

    "It is significant. Perhaps, the administration just, they think they weathered the debate over WMD being found there immediately and don't want to return to it again because things are otherwise going better for them, and then, I think, there's mindless resistance to releasing any classified documents from Iraq," Barnes said.

    The release of the declassified materials comes as the Senate debates Democratic proposals to create a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq. The debate has had the effect of creating disunity among Democrats, a majority of whom shrunk Wednesday from an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts to have troops to be completely withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of next year.

    At the same time, congressional Republicans have stayed highly united, rallying around a White House that has seen successes in the last couple weeks, first with the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then the completion of the formation of Iraq's Cabinet and then the announcement Tuesday that another key Al Qaeda in Iraq leader, "religious emir" Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, was also killed in a U.S. airstrike.

    Santorum pointed out that during Wednesday's debate, several Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue.

    "This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.

    As a result of this new information, under the aegis of his chairmanship, Hoekstra said he is going to ask for more reporting by the various intelligence agencies about weapons of mass destruction.

    "We are working on the declassification of the report. We are going to do a thorough search of what additional reports exist in the intelligence community. And we are going to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war," Hoekstra said.
  2. FTF

    FTF member

    Considering that the entire basis of this global war on extremeism was built upon the theory that Iraq had ties to Al-Qaida and a functioning chemical weapons program... one would think that Dub would be all over anything related to WMD in Iraq. Hell, at least if they found WMD they could kinda-sorta claim a victory... doubt they'll be claiming a victory on a secure goverment anytime soon.
  3. Monkeyleg

    Monkeyleg Well-Known Member

    The above story is a lie.

    We all know that Bush lied.

    We all know that Saddam Hussein was a quirky, but affectionate, dictator.

    The above story is just one more fabrication from the Bush Adminisration to justify the invasion of Iraq.

    There isn't even any point in debating the above story, since the LA Times, the NY Times, the Washington Post and other leaders of the mainstream press have told us that WMD's never existed.

    The Iraqi invasion was designed to give Halliburton choice contracts (contracts for which they are now losing money on), and to give the American people cheap gasoline.
  4. shooter94

    shooter94 Well-Known Member

  5. grimjaw

    grimjaw Well-Known Member

    Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

    How much of that is left over from stockpiles before the first Gulf War, say in the Iran-Iraq timeframe? How many chemical attacks have the coalition forces suffered, compared to explosives? Why weren't any of these used? If we haven't found them all, why hasn't someone used them on us?

    Still skeptical here.

  6. Kim

    Kim Well-Known Member

    There was a General I think his name was McCaffery on Fox this p.m an another guy that was a former CIA, Counterterrorism guy or something. Their theory of why this was Classifed was that France, China and Russia all had a hand in some of the WMD shienigans in Iraq. They said there will probably be more found but that the Russians moved out most of the stuff in the months running up to the war to 3 places in Syria. That was why they did not for for the war in the Security Counsel and Bush did not want to embaress them since they are now helping with terrorism. Could be true. I think alot of things are done that we never know. Global politics in more ditry than our domestic politics. All kinds of deals are done undercover. Of coarse it could all be something else entirely.
  7. Guy B. Meredith

    Guy B. Meredith Well-Known Member

    I'm puzzled. I seem to remember news reports of findings that received no follow up primarily because the munitions found were pre-1991. So why is this now news?

    Colmes was on a roll tonight, but blinked when, after he proclaimed the munitions insignificant as they were old and degraded, Ann Coulter said something to the effect of, "But you wouldn't want your children playing with them." Colmes did not try to field that one.
  8. longeyes

    longeyes member

    curiouser and curiouser

    Maybe he should be concentrating on a secure government in the U.S.?

    There's got to be more to this. Kim's remarks suggest one plausible scenario.
  9. tulsamal

    tulsamal Well-Known Member

    I know that's what the press says. I know that's what most of the general population would say. But that's a mischaracterization of what really happened. The WMD thing came late to the party but somehow it's all that gets remembered.

    Bush started giving speeches saying that it was now US policy to seek a "regime change" in Iraq. This was at least six months before we were in the UN talking about WMD. Saddam and Iraq had basically been "reclassified" after 9/11. Before 9/11 we knew that Saddam was VERY anti-American, very brutal, and had access to a huge amounts of money but accepting that still seemed like a smaller risk than trying to act directly against him. It's the "don't pay any attention to the bad man with the gun and maybe he won't shoot YOU" theory of international relations. But 9/11 changed all that. Not because Iraq and Saddam were behind it. But because many members of the Administration realized they had been fooling themselves about our national security, especially with regard to events in the Middle East. Countries and leaders that had been considered to be "acceptable risks" suddenly were not.

    So the Administration decided the US would be better off taking the risk of getting rid of Saddam and Company than we were leaving him in power. There were speeches given and papers written. There was a suspicion that the bad guys we were flushing out in Afghanistan were slipping into Iran and Iraq. And then came the critical moment when the Administration concluded that armed US force was probably going to have to be used. This was before we ever went to the UN at all. Colin Powell was the SecState. He convinced the President to go to the UN. He convinced the President that we should seek a coalition as his father had done. But there was a big problem there.

    The UN Security Council wasn't going to agree to use military force against Iraq just because the US had decided Saddam was "a clear and present danger." They don't work that way. They operate much more like a bureaucratic judicial system than a strategic military command. You have to make specific charges. They have to be investigated over a long period of time. You have to create and pass resolutions which will attempt to change the behavior of the country in power. If the bad acts continue, further resolutions will probably be tried until everybody finally decides military force is the only alternative. So Powell explained to the President that the whole process could take years UNLESS we could go after Iraq with some already existing resolution. Well, hell, that would be easy. There were resolutions about their WMD. We knew for a fact they DID have them since the earlier inspectors had found and destroyed many of them. And we knew that Iraq had expelled the inspectors and refused to ever let them go back. The former inspectors had written reports that said there were still some WMD there in Iraq when they were expelled.

    So that led to the whole UN debate over Iraq and WMD. Ultimately I think Powell was proven to be wrong in his policy recommendation. He thought we should seek a coalition and avoid action unilaterally. But the UN debate created a perception in the press and the public that the whole reason to go after Iraq was for WMD. I argued long and hard at the time that it didn't matter to me if Iraq had one teaspoon of nerve agent in the whole country. I believed that the basic Administration conclusion was right: it was in the national self-interest of the United States to have a regime change in Iraq. Period.

    Now I would have been thrilled if they HAD found all kinds of nearly ready to go WMD all over Iraq. It would have just made justifying the whole thing so much easier. It's concrete, you can take photos of it and estimate the potential threat. But for whatever reason, it didn't work out that way. But don't try to convince me that "the fundamental reason the US went to war against Iraq was because of fear of WMD." I lived through it. I wrote a heck of a lot about it during the lead-in. And that's just not what happened. I don't have to go look it up.

    The Administration decided on a long-odds gamble. A gamble that would have never been taken before 9/11. You only take big chances when the possible outcome of not taking that chance is even worse. 9/11 convinced many people that the rise of extremism and anti-Americanism in the Middle East was just going to keep getting worse. We WERE going to keep getting attacked even if we tried very hard to "get along." (Witness attacks in France and Canada even though those countries have bent over backwards to distance themselves from the US.) So the US leadership could just keep doing the same ineffective things. The same failed policies. And we would get attacked harder and harder every year. Or we could roll the dice. We could take a gamble and actually intervene militarily AND THEN try to rebuild and reshape the defeated countries into places that would at least have a chance of being more pro-West. Knowing full well it could actually make things worse.

    Like I said already, it's a risk you only take when the alternative are worse. I think the decision was right. I'm disappointed that it hasn't worked out better. I'm not yet convinced that the outcome is decided. I would personally rather live in a world with human rights and democracy growing in the ME rather than one where Iran style revolutionary governments gradually take over and declare jihad against us.

    (I think somebody touched a nerve. Sorry!)

  10. FTF

    FTF member

    As I remember (and I doubt this was manipulated by teh press)

    Bush also gave a speech declaring "mission accomplished" before 1/20th of the U.S. casualties were counted. Exactly which mission was accomplished? Hell, I voted for the guy, but if I was back in uniform I would throw a turd-laden MRE at him before I would do what he told me to do lol. Luckily he's too busy ripping away our civil liberties for protection from "global extremeism" to worry about 2a rights right now.
  11. DesertEagle613

    DesertEagle613 Well-Known Member


    Way to throw in a non sequitor.

    Not that it matters for the thread, but imagine what would have happened had Bush NOT declared "Mission Accomplished" until the insurgency was defeated, i.e. sometime in the near future, roughly 4 years after the invasion. People like you would be accusing him of refusing to end the war in order to destroy our civil liberties. You would be demanding him to declare Iraq "Mission Accomplished."

    In other words, stop getting so worked up over a bit of political theater. If you want to be upset about policies, go ahead.
  12. B Easy

    B Easy Active Member

    There were pictures of sarin munitions posted in TIME in either 2003 or 2004, but it was a very small quantity.

    This stuff is left over from pre-1991.

    It's definately not drinking water, but it's not sarin anymore. Though, Iraq did experiment with "dusty" agents which have a longer shelf life, I don't think that this sarin is really effective anymore.

    The question wasn't whether or not Saddam had some stuff lying around, but whether he was actively pursuing a relationship with Al Qaeda whereby he'd manufacture them viable NBC's.

    We haven't seen this to be the case, and wouldn't expect to, due to the relationship Saddam had with Bin Ladin.

    All in all, whether or not we should have invaded is really a matter of personal opinion, but I don't think that 500 munitions that probably aren't viable anymore (and wouldn't have been viable in '03) are really what we're looking for.
  13. FTF

    FTF member

    Iraq was "invaded" on March 20, 2003. Roughly 4 years after this date would be March 20, 2007. That gives us until March of next year for Dub to legitimately declare an end to the insurgency. I'll be anxiously awaiting said date and end of hostilities... being so close to a major VA hospital and all... I do dislike all the amputees and mental cases when I go to the VA...it's so distracting.
  14. Mongo the Mutterer

    Mongo the Mutterer Well-Known Member

    Yep Old stuff..

    move along nothing to see here...

    don't look behind the curtain.. you may see two fat guys named Murtha and Kennedy.


    In all seriousness though, I've often wondered why the lefties have been beating this drum so long. Bush didn't lie, by any standards.

    Saddam did have chemical weapons, as stacks of Kurd bodies attest to. No one doubts the validity of those slaughters (I hope). No one has ever convinced me the good ole Saddam had gotten rid of the WMD's. Lemme remember, oh yeah, he wouldn't let inspectors in to verify that he had... kind of a give away.

    To believe that they were destroyed by the regime who not only stockpiled them, but used them, is typical liberal blissninny surrendermonkey folly. But ...Bush lied and people died....:barf: :barf: :barf:
  15. shermacman

    shermacman Well-Known Member

    The only thing Bush is guilty of is having a terrible public relations department.
  16. 1911Tuner

    1911Tuner Moderator Emeritus


    "Still skeptical here."

    Of course, Saddam only had about 6-8 months to move'em into Syria and Iran, thanks in large part to Kofi and Kompany...:rolleyes:

    Left over from Gulf 1? Maybe...Probably. Doesn't make'em any less dangerous.
  17. Mongo the Mutterer

    Mongo the Mutterer Well-Known Member

    Agreed. But I think some of this PR manipulation is intentional. Give your enemies hope, let them get more and more ridiculous and strident,

    and then smash them and listen to the wailing and lamentations... :evil:
  18. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Well-Known Member

    I too have often gotten the feeling that Bush puts on a dumb act -- he's stupid like a fox.
  19. DunedinDragon

    DunedinDragon Well-Known Member

    But waitaminit???!!!

    I thought Saddam told the world he had DESTROYED all chemical weapons (whether they are old or not).

    Bush said Saddam had NOT done that.

    But Bush lied and Saddam was telling the truth???!!!:barf:
  20. Capital Punishment

    Capital Punishment Well-Known Member

    One of my favorite shirts :neener:

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page