# WMD found in Iraq



## mrhnau (Jun 22, 2006)

This report claims that since 2003, 500+ WMD's have been found. Suprisingly (toungue in cheek) this is not reported on CNN or MSNBC (at least that I can find). They are degraded, but still considered lethal. Degredation is a function of time.

So, I'm waiting to hear from everyone that claims this war was unjustified due to no WMD. Has this changed your mind? Are you suprised you are not hearing about this on the left-leaning press? They report on civil war in Iraq, people killed in Iraq, things going wrong for the US in Iraq, but something that helps justify our cause is snubbed. I'm not claiming the other news items are not news worthy, just the WMD story likely does not support their motives (ie dropping poll numbers for Republicans/Bush). Perhaps they will pick it up in time.

One thing I -AM- upset about is the news not coming out until now. It might have been clasified, but this has been happening since 2003. Bush and those with the proper intel must have been grinding their teeth every time someone asked about the lack of WMD's. I suppose they had some kind of justification for keeping it quiet until now though... just I would have prefered not having years of defending this war to a growing group of people.

Thoughts? Opinions?


----------



## KOROHO (Jun 22, 2006)

It's not surprising.
The left will still continue to pretend that there were no WMD found. They have to as this is a major theme for thier re-election bids.

The so-called "main stream media" or "drive by media" is essentially nothing but a branch of the democrat party. So they will not report the story.

The fact that there were WMD in Iraq is nothing new.  Even bill clinton talked about going into Iraq over the WMD issue.  al gore was a very vocal advocate of nuking them.

What we also know is that many other WMD were kept in underground tunnels so they could be moved around undetected and much of them were moved to Syria.


----------



## ginshun (Jun 22, 2006)

Quite interesting indeed.  It should be interesting to see what the libs, both in and out of Washington say about this.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 22, 2006)

I heard Senator Santorum today on Imus trying to justify that what was found was cause and justification for the invasion of Iraq.

Those who choose to pay attention will notice that the Department of Defense and the White House are not supporting the claims being put forth by Senator Santorum. 

Senator Santorum strives mightily to confuse the issue using fancy terms ... today he claimed that these weapons were hidden from UNSCOM. The Senator did not relate to listeners that UNSCOM was expelled from Iraq in 1998. In the fall of 2002 and winter of 2003, UNMOVIC was the United Nations Inspection regimen. Mr. Dalfuer's report is widely available and reports that no Weapons of Mass Destruction, and no Stockpiles, and no programs were found. The United States forced UNMOVIC to cease its operations before they were complete, else they impede the invasion. 

Either the Senator is deliberately misleading the American Citizens by not being complete in his descriptions of UNSCOM, or he is unaware of the subsequent actions by the United Nations. Either way, he does not deserve the vote of the citizens of Pennsylvania. And this will be a footnote to his insignificant career. 

Anyone want to hazzard a guess why Vice President Cheney, President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld aren't touting this 'discovery'? Or what about former Secrertary of State Powell; he put his reputation on the line for this invasion and it has left him in tatters, as well.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> This report


 
Its funny how this report is declassified and NOW there is WMD.  A few months ago, the Bush Administration, the CIA, and every other government agency was reporting that there wasn't any WMD.  So, where did this come from?  Didn't the Bush administration know anything about this report?  If people have been finding WMD since 2003, one would think it would be paraded around with pleasure.  

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

This is the actual report.  Kinda vague, don't you think?  I would really like to see what they "actually" found...


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 22, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> It's not surprising.
> The left will still continue to pretend that there were no WMD found. They have to as this is a major theme for thier re-election bids.
> 
> The so-called "main stream media" or "drive by media" is essentially nothing but a branch of the democrat party. So they will not report the story.
> ...


 
These thoughts are dumb-founding. 

The fourth estate is part of the democratic party?
Weapons were moved underground?
Al Gore advocating using nuclear weapons?
One must wonder what planet you have been living on? Amazing. 

Anyhow, welcome. 

Oh, and if you have any sources for these claims, please be sure to share them....


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 22, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Its funny how this report is declassified and NOW there is WMD.  A few months ago, the Bush Administration, the CIA, and every other government agency was reporting that there wasn't any WMD.  So, where did this come from?  Didn't the Bush administration know anything about this report?  If people have been finding WMD since 2003, one would think it would be paraded around with pleasure.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf
> 
> This is the actual report.  Kinda vague, don't you think?  I would really like to see what they "actually" found...



There is talk of trying to declassify the entire report. thats one I'd very much like to read. I'm a bit upset over it taking 3 years. like I said, I wasted alot of time discussing this in the past.



> Anyone want to hazzard a guess why Vice President Cheney, President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld aren't touting this 'discovery'? Or what about former Secrertary of State Powell; he put his reputation on the line for this invasion and it has left him in tatters, as well.



Same reason I said that perhaps the left media will pick it up. This only came public last night. I think it will be mentioned, perhaps not by Powell or Cheney directly, but I'm sure its going to get out.



> The fourth estate is part of the democratic party?


Huh? what fourth estate? talking about the media?


> Weapons were moved underground?


They sure were not parading them around on the streets when we arrived. Personally I think many of them were moved out to Syria (if I recall correctly, I heard a report of tons of biological agents being found near the border a few years back). They had plenty of time to hide them, since we drug our feets.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2006)

Here is what I don't understand.  The White House and the DoD have both said that they have not found any WMD in Iraq.  This report says that they have been finding it since 2003.  See the contradiction?  How could both the White House and the DoD have known nothing about what was in this report?  Just because it was declassified, doesn't mean the information just materialized.  The administration has known about this since 2003 and they STILL have said that NO WMD has been found.

It will be interesting to see if the White House changes its position based on this old information that it already knew...


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 22, 2006)

mrhnau, the White House has actually gone out of its way to distance itself from Senator Santorum's claims on this issue. It is not that they are staying silent on the issue. The Pentagon is also distancing itself from the Junior Senator from Pennsylvania.

And that you think the weapons were moved to Syria, is completely out of line with the investigations on the ground. All of the reports from the military groups sent to investigate and locate the weapons in Iraq report that there were no weapons in Iraq after the three week bombing campaign by President Clinton in the mid 90's. These investigators had time and money and the ability to interview the people who would know and work on any programs, had they existed. Compared to that evidence, your beliefs do not carry much weight. 


http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/37966/


> Sen Rick Santorum (R-Pa) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference yesterday to announce that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, *only to have their claims flatly disavowed by the U.S. Department of Defense.*
> 
> Santorum and Hoekstra were talking about _the degraded and inoperable remnants of Saddam's *pre-1991* chemical weapons program_ that are turning up at various sites around Iraq. Their allegations are based on the U.S. government's own Iraq Survey Group. The very same report convinced President Bush that Iraq did not have WMD.
> 
> *The DOD flatly disavowed the Congressmen's WMD claims.* ThinkProgress: "Fox News Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstras claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are not the WMDs for which this country went to war.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 22, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/37966/


 
So much for Fox News, Santorum, and Hoekstra...
:bs: 

Another fine example of "good reporting" by Fox and, yet again, another example of how desperate the GOP is getting.  Lately, it seems that everytime they (in general) open their mouths they trash their own credability.  The White House is making a good move in regards to this IMO.


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 22, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> mrhnau, the White House has actually gone out of its way to distance itself from Senator Santorum's claims on this issue. It is not that they are staying silent on the issue. The Pentagon is also distancing itself from the Junior Senator from Pennsylvania.
> 
> http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/37966/



OK, source for this please?  I've not heard of them distancing themselves yet.

Degraded or not, they are still potentially lethal. Having them is a violation of the UN sanctions. Hiding them among conventional weapons is an obvious attempt at fooling inspectors. Unless you are trying to claim that the paper is a forgery, then thats another line of discussion.

Weapons in Syria
Russia moving weapons
I just LOVE this quote!


> A Syrian official last night said: "These allegations have been raised many times in the past by Israeli officials, which proves that they are false."


so no matter what israel says, its false LOL!



> Another fine example of "good reporting" by Fox and, yet again, another example of how desperate the GOP is getting. Lately, it seems that everytime they (in general) open their mouths they trash their own credability. The White House is making a good move in regards to this IMO.


I'm sure the dems have never done anything like that  Can anyone say Dan Rather and Military records? Time will show though...


----------



## Ray (Jun 22, 2006)

I don't know why we'd be expecting to find WMDs in a country where every man seems to own a machine gun, SAM launcher or some other wonderful weapon.

I am quite certain that the mainstream US media are reporting things accurately and timely.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 22, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> OK, source for this please? I've not heard of them distancing themselves yet.


 
My source was the Imus program this morning ... and the link to the DOD I posted above. On the Imus program, if I recall, I heard that the White House would not validate Senator Santorum's statements. 




			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> Degraded or not, they are still potentially lethal.


Did you read the declassified document? There are no statements concerning the lethality. The statement is 'degraded'. How are you determining the potential lethality?



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> Having them is a violation of the UN sanctions. Hiding them among conventional weapons is an obvious attempt at fooling inspectors.


 
There is no evidence that these materials were 'in hiding'. At least not in the declassified report. That they were not destroyed by UNSCOM in 1992, may indeed be a violation of one or more of the UN Resolutions. But we went to war because of 'massive stockpiles' ... in 2003, right? 



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> Unless you are trying to claim that the paper is a forgery, then thats another line of discussion.


 
I make no claims to the authenticity of the document. I do submit that it 'Key Findings' were released at the request of Senator Santorum; who is behind in the polls for his re-election campaign. 




			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> I'm sure the dems have never done anything like that  Can anyone say Dan Rather and Military records? Time will show though...


 
mrhnau ... I will point out to you that Dan Rather is a news broadcaster. He is not an elected Democrat. That you seem to be unable to distinguish between the two concerns me deeply. I will even posit for you that Mr. Rather made a poor editorial judgement in the lead up to the 2004 election. 

But, can you, or anyone else show that then Leuitenant Bush attended his National Guard Service? The supposed 'Liberal Media' allowed this question to go unanswered through the echo chamber of the right wing media during the attack on Mr. Rather. 

For those paying attention, Senator Santorum is an elected member of the United States Senate. He is not a broadcaster making an editorial decision. Rather (pun intended), he is a desperate polititian trying to find some traction in a losing campaign.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 22, 2006)

Does it even matter at this point?

We tore the country up, right or wrong, found em or not... its pretty much been done.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 22, 2006)

The most likely thing  (without having been there , and having access to the data) is that these are munitions which were accounted for and under lock and key from previous inspections and accountings, but hadn't been disposed of, and had to be reaccounted for after we invaded. Many of the explosives used in IED's are from caches that were under U.N. lock and key until the invasion of Iraq.


----------



## rmclain (Jun 22, 2006)

I don't know anything about these reports.  But, I personally know a US Marine that was hit with some sort of nerve agent around the time of the first missile strikes in Iraq a few years ago.  Actually, his entire squad was hit, but I only know him personally.   Nerve agent = chemical weapon.

R. McLain


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 22, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Does it even matter at this point?
> 
> We tore the country up, right or wrong, found em or not... its pretty much been done.


 
Unfortunately, it is not done. 

We are paying 2 Billion Dollars a Week, that we do not have. 

At least 5 American Soldiers Died in Iraq today. 

No, it is not done.

.


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 22, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> mrhnau ... I will point out to you that Dan Rather is a news broadcaster. He is not an elected Democrat. That you seem to be unable to distinguish between the two concerns me deeply. I will even posit for you that Mr. Rather made a poor editorial judgement in the lead up to the 2004 election.



I'll work up an answer to the other points in time, but this one is disturbing.

Are you by chance positing that the major news agencies do not have biases?



> Surveys galore have shown that somewhere around 90 percent of the writers, editors and other personnel in the news media are Democrats and only about 10 percent are Republicans. We depend on the news media for information about government and politics, foreign affairs and war, public policy and demographic trends -- for a picture of the world around us. But the news comes from people 90 percent of whom are on one side of the political divide. Doesn't sound like an ideal situation.


Source
Here are some more. The last is from Wikipedia, a bit about both types of bias. Interesting read.

Those 90% of writers/journalists don't have a motive? What other jobs contain such a divide?

People rail against Limbaugh, but at least he has the guts to come out and admit his biases. Fox News? One of the few somewhat unbiased sources out there. They are a bit right I suppose, but for those on the Left, it only looks dramatically right leaning because its so seldom they see something close to unbiased. By comparison I guess it does look severly Right leaning! What I do like these days is there is at least an option out there. 15+ years ago you had little choice.

ok.. lets deal with other points.


> My source was the Imus program this morning ... and the link to the DOD I posted above. On the Imus program, if I recall, I heard that the White House would not validate Senator Santorum's statements.


Would not, or could not? Huge difference. I don't listen to Imus, so I would not know. I'd be curious to hear from the White House why they would/could not validate. I'll keep my eyes posted for that. Post it if you find it first please.



> Did you read the declassified document? There are no statements concerning the lethality. The statement is 'degraded'. How are you determining the potential lethality?


Yes, I did. The phrase "Chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal" is in there. Perhaps you missed it. Close to the bottom. That is how I determine potential lethality. I'm not planning on sprinkling them over my Wheaties any time soon.



> There is no evidence that these materials were 'in hiding'. At least not in the declassified report. That they were not destroyed by UNSCOM in 1992, may indeed be a violation of one or more of the UN Resolutions. But we went to war because of 'massive stockpiles' ... in 2003, right?


Go and read the Syria/Russian link I posted. I admit I added it in edit, so perhaps you did not see it if I was not quick enough.

We went to war over WMD. We did not find the ones we were looking for (nuclear), but we found WMD. According the Russian link in previous post, they were hiding even more. Did they have nuclear or plans for nuclear? we might never know, since its entirely possible it left country. We gave them enough notice we were coming.

Whats the issue? We found WMD's, but you are not happy we found the correct ones?



> I make no claims to the authenticity of the document. I do submit that it 'Key Findings' were released at the request of Senator Santorum; who is behind in the polls for his re-election campaign.



No claim of its authenticity. Fair enough. However, I'll claim that Santorums re-election status does not validate or invalidate the document. Its irrelevant, unless you want to claim he is making national headlines just to get re-elected. I'd much rather discuss the message rather than the messenger, but since everything these days is politically driven, I guess its unavoidable.


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 22, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Does it even matter at this point?
> 
> We tore the country up, right or wrong, found em or not... its pretty much been done.



From the standpoint that we are there, and that insurgents are destroying at will, no, it does not matter. I don't think it will matter with regards to our withdraw timeline, or the number of deaths in the future.

From the document, they state that weapons could be sold on the black market. I find that disturbing. From that perspective, it does matter.

Politically, the left has been using this issue as a wedge. I think politically it does matter... I'd rather the war not be politicized, but I don't think thats going to happen...


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 22, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Are you by chance positing that the major news agencies do not have biases?


 
Did you read what you wrote? Here I'll help:



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> I'm sure the dems have never done anything like that.  Can anyone say Dan Rather and Military records?


 
In these two sentences, one can only draw the conclusion, in the English language, that your are calling Dan Rather a 'dem'.

You did not accuse 'news organizations' of 'bias'. You linked supposed actions of Dan Rather to the Democratic politcal party as a rebuttal against my accusation of  Senator Santorum's political motivation.


Anyhow, here is the exact (relevant) language of the memo :



> 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.
> 
> ...


 

Now, without context, and reading only the language here; *only the first bullet point* speaks specifically to any factual data.

That something is 'assessed to still exist' is not synonomous with actual existance. Nor does this Key Finding represent that our military has actually found any of these items that have been 'assessed to exist'. 

That 'pre-Gulf War' chemical weapons could be sold on the black market, does not mean the weapons are in Iraq, nor that they have been Iraq from any time after December 1990. This language could mean that in 1989, someone squirrelled materials (sold to Iraq by France and the US) out of the country and are now selling them out of Turkey, for all we know. 

The 'most likely' munitions remaining? What does that mean? Do we know if any of these munitions *are* remaining? This language doesn't say so. 

If the first bullet read something like "_Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain *partially *degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent, of which we determine ...._"

There might be more to this story. 

Oh, yeah, and 'It has been reported that I desire to win the lottery and spend my winnings foolishly'. 

Smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 22, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, it is not done.
> 
> No, it is not done.
> 
> .


 
Thats not what I said.  I didnt say "Its done" as in its finished... I said "it's been done" as in we have already done it...


----------



## mrhnau (Jun 22, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Did you read what you wrote? Here I'll help:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dude, you are a trip 
It was provided to CBS via a DEM Bill Burket. CBS and Rather were drooling too hard to verify the document before they tried to influence the election. Think this would have happened for Kerry/Gore? Doubtful.

supposed actions? Thats a bit humorous, considering its been fairly well documented whats happened. Well, perhaps not the explicit drooling, but you never know! :uhyeah: I personally not aware if Rather is a dem or not, but he sure tried his hardest to help them (ie Kerry in that specific election).



> Anyhow, here is the exact (relevant) language of the memo :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for typing it up actually. OK, I'll take out some of the bullet points and let you draw the conclusion.

Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.
While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal. 

Reading these two statements, its difficult to think that those 500 munitions were not potentially lethal. I'm failing to see the logic otherwise. They are two different bullet points, but drawing the conclusion is not exactly beyond your mental capabilities.

What does "most likely mean"? It means they have probably not found all of them. Simple english and logic. they are covering their bases by saying not everything has been found.


----------



## KOROHO (Jun 22, 2006)

Sadly, I think the Buash Admin is not touting this WMD cache because they feel they lost the media war already and are just not fighting this battle any more.

It's very hard to put out the pro-U.S. side of the story when so much of the media are decidely anti-U.S.  Mr. Santorum is just not giving up so easily.

What we are witnessing in Iraq, which justifies us staying, is that we are fighting Al Qaeda there instead of here.  If we surrender to them now and run away, they will just regroup and attack us again on our own soil.

UNSCOM and the inspections were a joke.  What we know now is that Kofi Annan and much of his staff, as well as most of the "world leaders" against the invasion, were on Saddam's payroll.  What they say is meaningless.

What the leftists in this country refuse to admit is that radical islam had decalred jihad against the U.S. more than 30 years ago.  They have been hijacking planes and ships, blowing up corporate assets and attacking military posts in an "open ended war".  Reagan had the patriotism and the guts to stand up tp them some.  What I am glad to see in GWB is that he is a ture patriot and does not care what the leftwing democrats have to say.  He took an oath to protect America and he is doing that.

I always saw the democrats for what they are.  Now, thier siding with the terrorist in the war on terror lest everyone else see what they are.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jun 22, 2006)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> This report claims that since 2003, 500+ WMD's have been found. Suprisingly (toungue in cheek) this is not reported on CNN or MSNBC (at least that I can find). They are degraded, but still considered lethal. Degredation is a function of time.
> 
> So, I'm waiting to hear from everyone that claims this war was unjustified due to no WMD. Has this changed your mind? Are you suprised you are not hearing about this on the left-leaning press? They report on civil war in Iraq, people killed in Iraq, things going wrong for the US in Iraq, but something that helps justify our cause is snubbed. I'm not claiming the other news items are not news worthy, just the WMD story likely does not support their motives (ie dropping poll numbers for Republicans/Bush). Perhaps they will pick it up in time.
> 
> ...


 
And? So they found some degraded stuff that was left behind which it likely the Iraqi Regime did not even know was still there. So? The question was - was Saddam a threat to the United States and would he use WMD against the West? Considering the fact that he was in a fight for his life during the invasion and did NOT use any WMD against U.S. troops, the answer to the WMD question is, IMO, an emphatic no. Also, the gist of the matter was never, to me, at least,  did we find or not find a single specimen of WMD but, rather, was the pre-war intelligence bad or even a fabrication? Reconsider the stories we were being fed in the lead up to the war. So, they found some degraded and probably unusable canisters discarded and unaccounted for. Sorry - doesn't cut it.

Were some cannisters of degraded material that they didn't even try to use WORTH what this occupation is going to cost us in lives and livelihood? This war is turning out in many respects to have the same unifying effect upon Islamic Fundamentals as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (a FAR more brutal affair than any American action) is. This idea of "fight them there" so we don't have to "fight them here", is a crock - the two are not mutually exclusive and there are enough who hate us to attack us both abroad and at home.

Also, this "Anti-American Slander" that those who opposed the war are unpatriotic and terrorist sympathizers is shoddy intellectualism and demogaguery of the WORST sort. I opposed the war because I felt, with good reason, that it was CONTRARY to OUR best interests - not because I'm an American hating leftist.  Get a clue folks. Sometimes people disagree for cause and with good motives.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 22, 2006)

Look at the News Reports ... 

everyone is getting as far away from Santorum as possible on this. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/us/23believers.html?hp&ex=1151035200&en=0b9eaa24f3bd447f&ei=5094&partner=homepage



> The authoritative postwar weapons intelligence was gathered by the Iraq Survey Group, whose 1,200 members spent more than a year searching suspected chemical, biological and nuclear sites and interviewing Iraqis.
> 
> The final report of the group, by Charles A. Duelfer, special adviser on Iraqi weapons to the C.I.A., concluded that any stockpiles had been destroyed long before the war and that transfers to Syria were "unlikely."


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 22, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> Sadly, I think the Buash Admin is not touting this WMD cache because they feel they lost the media war already and are just not fighting this battle any more.
> 
> It's very hard to put out the pro-U.S. side of the story when so much of the media are decidely anti-U.S. Mr. Santorum is just not giving up so easily.
> 
> ...


 
We are not fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. The people planting bombs in Iraq are home-grown. They are the Sunni's who are terrified of being slaughtered by the Shi'ites they oppressed for decades under the rule of Saddam Hussien. 

While you declare UNSCOM a joke, they, and UNMOVIC were correct in their assessments about the state of Iraqi Weapons programs prior to the Invasion. 

I guess the truth is 'anti-US'. 


AND .... I find you offensive for that last paragraph. How dare you!


----------



## crushing (Jun 22, 2006)

The headlines don't seem to match the official statements in the article.

The headline reads:  *Officials: U.S. didn&#8217;t find WMDs, despite claims
*

But. . .

Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in Iraq for the past several years, and "*not the WMD we were looking for when we went in this time.*"

So which is it?  They didn't find WMD, or they didn't find the WMD they were looking for?  If they weren't looking for stuff like sarin and mustard gas, what else were they looking for?


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 22, 2006)

They found *refuse ... *18 year old warheads, that were useless.

However, ... mrhnau ... Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is backing up Senator Santorum now ... 

There have been several reports through the day where anonymous sources in the Department of Defense and Intelligence agencies said the Dalfuer Report is the final word. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. But even Dalfuer suggested they might find some of these old cannisters. 

So, it is interesting that SecDef Rumsfeld would step into this discussion in this manner. The News Reports on this subject are getting harder to find. They are being buried on web sites. This story was well on its way to quietly disappear. Perhaps the Secretary has breathed new life into it. 

I am very much looking forward to the intelligence agencies having to defend these broken down cannisters, with degraded material, as the reason we are involved in this mess in Iraq. 

I don't think they will do it. 

So, Let's look forward to Mr. Negroponte's comments. 



Personally, I think too many people are buying into Karl Rove's machinations.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jun 22, 2006)

crushing said:
			
		

> The headlines don't seem to match the official statements in the article.
> 
> The headline reads: *Officials: U.S. didnt find WMDs, despite claims*
> 
> ...


 
Functional stuff - not discarded and degraded "junk" to waive and say "We found it!", "We found it!".


----------



## crushing (Jun 22, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Functional stuff - not discarded and degraded "junk" to waive and say "We found it!", "We found it!".



I guess that is a reasonable assumption.  I would expect that non-functional junk would be labeled something other than simply degraded (which indicates merely some decrease in quality), maybe non-functional, ineffective, or nonutile would have been better descriptors (if you are correct).

I can see why such differing opinions and understandings of what was found can form.


----------



## KOROHO (Jun 22, 2006)

We are in fact fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.
This is where we again killed the #2 man by bombing the "safe house" where he was hiding.  His repalcement is credited with killing torturing and killing the 2 soldiers that were kidnapped from the checkpoint.

This continued lie by the left that "there is no al qaeda in Iraq" just goes to continously undermine the war effort and demorlaize our soldiers who are constantly told by the left that they are fighting for nothing.

By "fighting for nothing" the left means they are fighting for America.

2 of the most popluar leftists in the country are John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.  Both of them got thier politics straight out of North Vietnam.  They were traitors then and they are traitors now.  They have ALWAYS hated this country and are no different now.  They sided with the communist enemy in the 60's and they side with the terrorist enemy now.

People may be offended by the facts here, but that is thier problem, not mine.  I for one am glad to see President Bush taking action to avoid further terrorist attacks on American soil.  I am sorry that his doing that angers some.  But if you are a patriot, why would you want to see more terrorist attacks occur here.  It is much better to take the fight to them where they are and kill them there.

The left keeps on whining about Bush's "endless war on terrorism". Since they started it more than 30 years ago and have no intention on stopping, I am relieved to have a leader that understands the fact that is in a sense an "endless war".  The moment we surrender and run away, as the democrats want us to do, we will start to see more  9/11 type attacks on a regular basis.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jun 23, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> We are in fact fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.
> This is where we again killed the #2 man by bombing the "safe house" where he was hiding. His repalcement is credited with killing torturing and killing the 2 soldiers that were kidnapped from the checkpoint.
> 
> This continued lie by the left that "there is no al qaeda in Iraq" just goes to continously undermine the war effort and demorlaize our soldiers who are constantly told by the left that they are fighting for nothing.
> ...


 
Man, what a narrow-minded world you inhabit. Those who oppose the war are all unpatriotic leftists who side with the terrorists. Have you ever read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer? It does a good job of explaining extreme party-line folks on both right and left.  

Have you ever considered the possibility that this war just might be INCREASING the numbers of our enemies and that many who are in opposition do not wish this country ill - rather are deeply concerned that it may be following some policies that will, in the long run, be contrary to U.S. interests?  Geez. I have a hard time discussing issues with folks, either far right or far left, who have to demonize those who disagree with them.

Here's a good run down on the "WMD" found in Iraq. Link came from that Left-leaning anti-'merican site; the Drudge Report:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060622191218.0qmfazt6.html


----------



## pstarr (Jun 23, 2006)

I have a good number of students and friends who have returned from Iraq and one of their chief complaints is that what we're seeing on the news isn't necessarily the whole truth...and that the media focuses on any minute negative occurence while ignoring all of the good we're doing and the fact that, in the opinions of these soldiers, the Iraqi people want us to stay there (for now).

In any case, I'd much rather fight terrorism at its roots than fight it on my home turf.


----------



## KOROHO (Jun 23, 2006)

I'm not the least bit concerend about the WMD issue when it comes right down tro it.

I am just glad to have a President who has the fortitude to take the fight to them rather then just sit around and keep letting them hit us here.

What we do know is, regardless of the WMD issue and the questionable inteligence on the "yellow cake" issue - is that Al Qaeda has long been communicatiiong with Saddam and they have been and still are in Iraq.

As for creating more enemies, that is a fallacy.  What the war on terror is proving is that they never were our friends to begin with. 

The French have always hated us, even after we saved thier pathetic butts.  I know one person who was in France shortly after the start of the war.  He was sitting in cafe next to 2 frenchman who were to arrogant to expect that the "dirty American" sitting next to them might speak french.  One said to the other that "they are just there to take the oil".  He then went on to say "we need that oil here".  Chirac had been on Saddam's payroll since he was mayor of Paris.  He always hated the U.S. and this war gave him and the french people an oppertunity to show thier true colors.  The french never were our friends and never will be - they are mostly socialist.  They hate the notion of freedom and thus they hate us.

Who else do you think would still "be our friend" if we did not make the effort to defend ourselves against these terrorists?

Look at this way.  If someone were in your house killing your spouse or kids, and your best friend came over from next door and said "hey, if you try and stop that guy from killing them, I'm not going to be your friend any more", am I supposed to believe you would let them be killed?  Would you really consider that person to be a true friend?  That is just what is happening here.

The socialist/communist left is upset with the U.S. because we are killing terrorists that want to kill our citizens.  These people never were and never will be our friends.  There is no point in sitting around watching our American citizens get slaughtered so we can all pretend that people who hate us actually like us.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 23, 2006)

After 9/11 did France come running up to us and offer to help fight terrorism?  Nope.  

There were some who did offer to help but when the going got rough and they started taking casualties, they tucked tail and backed out.

Did they think that this kind of war would be short?  Did they think they wouldn't lose some of their own people?

We were told at the outset that this would be a protracted war and that much of what happens, we'd never see right away - unlike VietNam where the media misrepresented much of what happened as it happened...

And we all shook our fists and said, "Let's go kick some ***."  Now that we're having to pay for the cost of freedom, some people put their hands back in their pockets and kind of slip out of the crowd.

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in '41, we all shook our fists and we took the fight to them.  We kept at it until the fat lady sang.  And we lost a lot of good men and women doing it.  But we knew there'd be a terrible price to pay before we stepped over the line.

     It's the same thing now.  We were attacked and we've taken the fight to them.  Should we stop and try to protect ourselves by waiting until the enemy is about to bomb us again?  I say "no."  Let's hit them where they live.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jun 23, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> After 9/11 did France come running up to us and offer to help fight terrorism? Nope.
> 
> There were some who did offer to help but when the going got rough and they started taking casualties, they tucked tail and backed out.
> 
> ...


 
Uh, French troops, as well as other European forces as well as Canadian, are still serving in Afghanistan (the country from which the 9/11 terrorists were based). Sorry to burst a stereotype.

Uh, Iraq, according even to President Bush, had no part in the 9/11 attacks on America and equating our Invasion of Iraq to the war against Japan - which did attack us, or the Nazis who declared war on us after Pearl Harbor (and unlike Hussein, actually had a formidable military force) - is pure posturing.



			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> I have a good number of students and friends who have returned from Iraq and one of their chief complaints is that what we're seeing on the news isn't necessarily the whole truth...and that the media focuses on any minute negative occurence while ignoring all of the good we're doing and the fact that, in the opinions of these soldiers, the Iraqi people want us to stay there (for now).
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, I'd much rather fight terrorism at its roots than fight it on my home turf.



I can imagine their frustration at that. After all, thousands of homes DIDN'T burn down today in my home town, but the one that DID gets all the news coverage. By the same token, the scores of peaceful streets, homes and villages in Iraq likewise don't get the attention they deserve, either.

The two, fighting them at home and abroad, aren't mutually exclusive - see recent terrorist arrrests WITHIN the U.S.. That's simply a party-line talking point.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 23, 2006)

I disagree.  Al-Quaida has been seriously injured due to our efforts over there.  Sure, we're going to have some action in our own nation but nothing like what we might expect if we didn't carry the fight to the enemy.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jun 23, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Man, what a narrow-minded world you inhabit. Those who oppose the war are all unpatriotic leftists who side with the terrorists. Have you ever read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer? It does a good job of explaining extreme party-line folks on both right and left.
> 
> Have you ever considered the possibility that this war just might be INCREASING the numbers of our enemies and that many who are in opposition do not wish this country ill - rather are deeply concerned that it may be following some policies that will, in the long run, be contrary to U.S. interests? Geez. I have a hard time discussing issues with folks, either far right or far left, who have to demonize those who disagree with them.
> 
> ...


 
My apologies for the strident nature of this post. I clicked "send' without thinking it through. I DO stronly disagree with your take on those like myself who disagree with the war, but I shouldn't have written it this way.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 23, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> We are in fact fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.
> This is where we again killed the #2 man by bombing the "safe house" where he was hiding. His repalcement is credited with killing torturing and killing the 2 soldiers that were kidnapped from the checkpoint.
> 
> This continued lie by the left that "there is no al qaeda in Iraq" just goes to continously undermine the war effort and demorlaize our soldiers who are constantly told by the left that they are fighting for nothing.
> ...


 
You have incomplete understanding of al Zarqawi if you believe he is the #2 man for Al Qaeda. al Zarqawi was a small time thug, that prior to the invasion of Iraq was living in the US / British protected Northern areas of Iraq. The United States on at least three seperate occassions had the opportunity to eliminate the training camps at which he was believed to be operation, but as he was a minor character, the Bush Administartion would not authorize an attack .... one of the arguments for not attacking is to build support for the idea that there were terrorists in Iraq under Hussien. 

Al Zarqawi was an opportunist ... taking advantage of the United States military presence in Iraq to build his own stature.

Al Zarqawi was a usurper ... by naming his organization 'Al Qaeda In Iraq' (only after the 2003 invasion, by the way), he demanded bin Laden make a response or acknowledgement to him.

That you call a decorated war veteran a traitor speaks volumes. Shame on you. 

That you claim to United States Senators, citizens who have swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution traitors, and that they hate America speaks volumes about your attitudes and frame of mind. 

Shame on you.


----------



## pstarr (Jun 23, 2006)

He's not alone.  The fact that someone is a decorated war veteran doesn't mean that he's sterling.  In my opinion, and the opinion of numerous veterans, he's a puke.  And Hillary Clinton is a socialist.

If you think for one moment that everyone who holds a political office and who has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution and protect this nation truly intends to do so and is an honest, upright citizen...you need to read up on some history.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 24, 2006)

It seems Senator Santorum disappeared in a hurry, eh? 

Does anyone have any new news on this ... Has the Secretary of Defense said anything else? 

Or is this going into the dustbin of bad electoral politics.


----------



## Carol (Jun 24, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It seems Senator Santorum disappeared in a hurry, eh?
> 
> Does anyone have any new news on this ... Has the Secretary of Defense said anything else?
> 
> Or is this going into the dustbin of bad electoral politics.


 

They report, you decide.  I'm not convinced.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200763,00.html


(Shhh...Senator Santorum is talking about illegal immigration this week.  He's running for re-election doncha know!)


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 24, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> What we are witnessing in Iraq, which justifies us staying, is that we are fighting Al Qaeda there instead of here. If we surrender to them now and run away, they will just regroup and attack us again on our own soil.


 
Just so we're clear, you're endorsing the "Our Soldiers Are Disposable Human Shields" theory of the Iraq War. . .


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 24, 2006)

I found this quote from a guy whom we could expect to know a thing or two about this .... 



> They probably would have been intended for chemical attacks during the  *Iran*-Iraq War, said David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004.
> 
> He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.
> 
> ...


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 24, 2006)

KOROHO said:
			
		

> 2 of the most popluar leftists in the country are John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Both of them got thier politics straight out of North Vietnam. They were traitors then and they are traitors now. They have ALWAYS hated this country and are no different now. They sided with the communist enemy in the 60's and they side with the terrorist enemy now.


 
Sen. John McCain, another war veteran, would probably spit in your face if you said such things to him in person.


----------

