WMD found in Iraq

[Cryozombie]

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]

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



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.

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 :




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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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]

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


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]

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]

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


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?

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

 

[crushing]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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.