Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) announced at a press conference this evening that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. As Laura Rozen noted the purpose of the press conference, according to Hoekstra's spokesperson, was "to release the unclassified summary of an Army report on chemical weapons found in Iraq since May 2004." She goes on to comment, "I bet they are going to announce that they found the WMD after all."
Hoekstra's role in the announcment is clear: he is Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. But what is Santorum doing? The press release states that he was speaking as Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference--proving that this information is being used for partisan political gain.
This first report from CNS:
Reading from unclassified portions of a document developed by the U.S. intelligence community, 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."
According to Santorum, "That means in addition to the 500, there are filled and unfilled munitions still believed to exist within the country."
Reading from the document, Santorum added, "Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the Black Market. Use of these weapons by terrorist or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside of Iraq cannot be ruled out. The most likely munitions remaining are sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles. And I underscore filled."...
"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," Santorum said. "We have found over 500 weapons of mass destruction and in fact have found that there are additional chemical weapons still in the country."
Santorum believes this information can be used to help Bush and Republicans because Democrats have said in the past that there was no WMD in Iraq and it implies that U.S. forces must remain in Iraq for an unforeseeable period in order to secure the loose (degraded) mustard gas shells. And why would forces have to "secure" aging gas shells that date back to the 1980s and went unnoticed for ten years. Also, Bush admitted that there were no WMD, following the findings of the Duelfer report (see below):
The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.
Think Progress quotes the Iraq Survey ('Duelfer') report from 2004:
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
Meanwhile, Santorum's office sent out a press release after the press confrence on this "critically important information that the world community needs to know":
U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, joined Congressman Peter Hoekstra, (R-MI-2), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, today to make a major announcement regarding the release of newly declassified information that proves the existence of chemical munitions in Iraq since 2003. The information was released by the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, and contained an unclassified summary of analysis conducted by the National Ground Intelligence Center. In March, Senator Santorum began advocating for the release of these documents to the American public.
“The information released today proves that weapons of mass destruction are, in fact, in Iraq,” said Senator Santorum. “It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq. I will continue to advocate for the complete declassification of this report so we can more fully understand the complete WMD picture inside Iraq.”
The following are the six key points contained in the unclassified overview:
• 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.
• Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for Coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out.
• The most likely munitions remaining are sarin and mustard-filled projectiles.
• The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.
• It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.
I see nothing really earth-shattering in the release and don't consider it dire information for the "world community." As for the document released by Negroponte to Santorum and various other members of the House and Senate, it includes nothing different from what Santorum announced and what we already knew. It says that its purpose is to provide an "overview of chemical munitions recovered in Iraq since May 2004." DailyKos notes that "It then goes on to say 'Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered...' In other words, the agencies either don't think it's worthwhile to get the details right about when these shells were discovered, or they don't want to be pinned down."
Remember the depleted sarin shell found near Falluja in May 2004? Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association noted:
"If they used this old shell to build bombs, it's not surprising they would use one that had sarin because there were so many of them before the Gulf War," Kimball said. "This does not constitute evidence that (President) Bush, (CIA Director George) Tenet, (national security adviser Condoleezza) Rice and Rumsfeld were right" that Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction before the United States sent troops into Iraq last year.
It is obvious that Republicans will try to spin this "incredible" news so that they may feed their base a little red meat. Fox News has put up a report scouring the entire country, trying to insinuate that there are further weapons yet to be found. Fox also claims that this shows that Hussein was lying when he said all his WMD had been destroyed and that the weapons inspectors weren't able to locate a stockpile even after years of inspections. Even an administration official in the report stopped short of declaring "mission accomplished" when it came to these "WMDs":
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."
But then Fox tries to counter that claim by dragging in one of their "contributors":
"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.
So there is nothing new here. Fox News is being Fox News--distorting the news to make Democrats look bad.
Instead of looking at the Fox report, let's actually view a fair story by the Associated Press, which devotes only a few lines to the allegations and adds a cautionary comment from a "defense official":
With some Democrats saying the decision to go to war was a mistake, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., tried to dispel arguments by Democratic lawmakers that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
Santorum and Hoekstra released a newly declassified military intelligence report that said coalition forces have found 500 munitions in Iraq that contained degraded sarin or mustard nerve agents, produced before the 1991 Gulf War.
But a defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age. Also, Democrats said a lengthy 2005 report from the top U.S. weapons inspector contemplated that such munitions would be found.
To those who see this as a "smoking gun" I advise you to use caution. Don't believe everything Fox News and Republicans tell you.
On top of everything else, "your comment has been flagged as potential spam."
LOL.
Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all." Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons." John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons." Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process." Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." These guys said all these when Clinton was president.
Is a fine example of a lib trying to tell other libs what Republicans are saying when they aren't. Further, it's another example of a lib trying to tell other libs what Fox News is saying when they aren't.
I find it interesting how libs cherry pick the ISG reports, but can't seem to find the part that points out that Hussein had every intention of restarting his WMD programs once sanctions were lifted. But then that doesn't fit their template.
Other items that don't fit the template is the concerns of the Democrats regarding Hussein's WMDs and dire warnings of imminent threat long before Bush was elected. For the whole "Bush lied" mantra to be true, he would have had to make it all up and sell it to the Democrats, the U.N., French, Germans, Israelis, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Saudis etc. long before he got to Washington.
My favorite part is when Think Regress got so orgasmic over the fact that Alan Colmes had the quote from the DoD official, but somehow failed to mention that this document came from the DoD. Nice, huh?
Who cares if Republicans get a little political victory from this small find. You know the Democrats would be dancing in the streets if we pulled out early and let the insurgents take over the country. There's a bit if a difference. Republicans get a victory when something good happens. Democrats get a victory when something bad happens. Also, I find it pretty pathetic that the author of this peice will put all his money on a defense official who spoke on a condition of anonymity. IMO, the AP is slanted heavily left and would not report this story without the no doubt left leaning defense official. Can we get a defense official with some courage to let us know who he is? It's the only way to achieve validity. They found WMDs.
Anyone in this administration who dares to speak the trust has to speak on condition of anonymity--look what they did not Joe Wilson and his family. BUSH HIMSELF AGREED WITH THE ISG REPORT--read the quote. Face the facts. A few 20 year old depleted gas shells are not the "WMD" that Bush had warned us about. Just admit that the war was a mistake.
A WMD is a WMD, isn't it? We have WMD's in the US nuclear arsenal that were built 20 years or more ago. Are you saying we should downgrade the classification on these weapons to something other that WMD's?
Personally, I wouldn't want to be the one who had to test the strength of the Sarin and Mustard gas. Why don't you volunteer and prove to me and the rest of the world that these 'old depleted gas shells' aren't as dangerous as the United Nations thought they were when they issued their judgements against Iraq 5 years ago. (They were only 15 yrs old then)
You remind me of the pacifists in the US in 1945 that called WWII "Roosevelt's War". Luckily, sane citizens of the US didn't listen to that crap either.
To compare this war to World War II is outrageous. I admire Franklin Roosevelt and George Bush is no FDR.
This is what Dan Bartlett said in 2003:
And Bush in 2003 SOTU:
What you say they have "found" here are far short of what the administration claimed Saddam had.
The administration itself has now admitted that those statements wre not accurate--are you calling your hero Bush a liar?
Give it up.
Which would you rather find in your yard?
Does the fact that they have found only 500 shells vs the 500 tons make them any less real?
I'm sure the all of the dead Iraqi's that were gassed after the first Gulf War would LOVE the opportunity to debate it with you.
Or maybe you would rather wait until its New York or Orlando or LA that gets gassed, and then make your apology to them.
As far as your liar comment, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy ALL used those same facts in their re-election campaign speeches. I guess those are just forgivable lies? Your double standard is showing. I suggest you tuck it in before it gets stepped on.
I said that you are sugggesting that Bush lied. BUSH HIMSELF ADMITS THAT THERE WERE NO WEAPONS. I repeat--even the White House acknowledges that there were no weapons. So if there were WMD, why would the White House say they were wrong? Surely ther are not that incompetent because that certainly wouldn't be smart campaign startegy.
True, some Democrats believed there were WMD--but why? They, along with Tony Blair and the rest of the world, were given false intelligence. We now today that Bush manipulated the intelligence to get his way. They did not have access to the same intelligence, as Bush would claim.
Is it a lie if you make a statement that you believe to be true, only to find out later that the statement may not have been 100% accurate?
Which was more inaccurate?
A. Saying that there were lots of WMD's when all we've found so far were 500.
B. Saying that there are no WMD's and finding 500.
ARe you saying they are both lies?
Or are they statements, made at different times, using the best information available at the time.
I'd like to search your blog for how many times you have stated "There are no WMD's" to see if you will print a retraction for every single one of them now that WMD'S HAVE BEEN FOUND !!
You still didn't answer the question...
Which would you rather find in your yard?
YOur silence is speaking volumes.
The United Nations, the CIA, and the Iraq Survey Group all confirm that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Accept it (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/):
Did you not read the post. The "weapons" that you and Santorum are talking about were already acknowledged by the ISG:
What did Bush say of this report?
The shells found here are neither new or significant.
Go ahead... Admit it....
You were ALL WRONG !
They have found them.
Time to change your tune, toss out all of your "No WMD's found" paperwork and start a new file titled "WMD's have been found in IRAQ" with todays date on it.
You poor deluded fool.
Are you just throwing down your non-issues-based comments without reading my statements. We knew about these weapons before. These were not the weapons of mass destruction that Bush and the administration warned us about. Even he admitted that. Why don't he follow him and admit it yourself. I have never seen such incompetence in my entire life.
You must really be desperate if you want to call some eroding sarin sheels weapons of mass destruction.
Their failed policy of illusion is being advanced by delusion and you are one of those that have been deluded.
The third word of the third sentance in the unanimous (15-0) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 regarding Iraq's non-compliance voted on months before the ground invasion in Iraq.. is the word "threat". Yet even in light of the information coming from every angle how Saddam was threatening his people and our own for well over a decade, the liberals still refuse to acknowledge their OWN points. This is how it is simply just not safe to vote Democrat.
This story has also hit CNN, and MSNBC now, and they are saying the same info, not just FOX. The weapons themselves are from varying ages with the majority being from the first gulf war. This bares a strong resemblace to when they found a MIG-21 in Iraq. However to say its all false isnt quite being honest. Although I doubt Rick's statement about the Chemical weapons not degrading over time ( the actual degradtion over time depends on the chemcial itself and its purity)
No one is saying that it is false. I am saying that the spin is false. These are not the "WMD" that the inspectors were looking for and if they were the reason for going to war, then we have a problem. I'm sure if snoop around Belgium long enough, you'll find degraded and unexploded mustard gas shells from WWI.
When the weapons inspectors went to Iraq, they were looking for anything used "to develop, manufacture, or mass produce weapons of a biological, chemical, or radioactive nature".
These are EXACTLY what we were looking for when we went to war.
I'm sure even YOU could understand the difference between a rusted dud shell buried in the ground for 9 decades and a dusty crate of artillery shells buried beneath the floor of a mosque.
Or to put it another way, IF one of these were to be discovered in your yard, which would you rather it be? I'm sure the Iraqi's answer would match yours, because i'm sure they don't want them either.
I am not suggesting Santorum is trying to spin this for political gain. In fact, I am sure that the release of this ridiculous report coming a day or two after polls showed he is still trailing a Democrat challenger by more than 15 points is entirely coincidental.
Truth is, we have found a WMD much closer to home. It is Rick Santorum, who threatens the truth, freedom and constitutional rights with his bullshit, lies and misinformation.
I find it amazing that when the truth does come out, it immediately is labeled as "ridiculous" by the Democrats, and is claimed to be for political gain.
What you mean 'Pa Progressive' is that it is 'ridiculous' to believe anything that your party hasn't pre-stamped as being good for the Democratic agenda of pacifism, cowardice, and self indulgence.
Why don't you take it for what it is? Proof that WMD's existed in Iraq and have existed there.
Or are you saying that these older WMD's simply appeared out of nothing? Were they smuggled into the country AFTER we freed the Iraqi's? Are you going to assume that the ones that have been located are ALL that is there?
Thankfully Mr Santorum is the person in Washington doing the talking instead of YOU !
Wow, two closed mined political parties left in charge. The country left in the hands of the democrats and republicans has become like a child left with two babysitters, a priest and a pusher.....no good can come from that.
Blah, blah, blah... Just keep on talking all you lefties. I love to hear you backpedal and stammer as you try to preserve your lame "no WMDs were found position." The most delightful part of all this is how you nuts are so desperate to find fault with the Administration over EVERYTHING. Bush has kept a hundred miles away from this report but you all just can't help yourselves. You HAVE to believe that this is an Administration conspiracy. You HAVE to believe that Bush, Cheney, Rummie and Rove are behind this. Let me explain things to you lefties: Bush gains huge credibility over this report and you can't stop it! Even if everything you say about the WMDs being old and degraded is true, the fact is that you have been shouting for the past three years that there were NO WMDs in Iraq. And to make things worse for you, Bush isn't behind the report. If Bush wanted, he could have had Tony Snow out shouting this story from the roof tops. The fact that he hasn't done so makes him appear stately, mature and prudent. By contrast, you all seem immature and petulant in your totally predictable criticism. If you were smart you'd be praising Bush for his prudence in this matter and saving your criticism for elsewhere. However, you modern lefties are becoming notorious for your tin ears. You are increasingly unable to understand and communicate with anyone who doesn't agree with you. This is why you will continue to lose both elections and the hearts and minds of Americans.
F--- you facist.
Wow that was mature. What are you like 12?? Im sure he feels horrible for his comments now (HA! YEA RIGHT)
In his speech announcing the beginning of bombings in Iraq, Bush saidthe following:
Fast forward to September 2004, when Bush said:
You all amaze me. You can't admit you were wrong even after your beloved leader admits it. You may not agree with us, but one person does--his name is George W. Bush
Maybe he should have put the word "YET" at the end? Would that have made you happy?
I still credit Mr Bush's policies with keeping any FURTHER attacks on the US from happening. They are too busy defending themselves to mount any kind of an offense.
I agree.. isn't it nice to see the lefties trying to pick up the shattered pieces of one of the major planks of their political platform?
I find it EXCEPTIONALLY funny that the only leftie response to your addition to this blog is "F**k you Fascist". They are so discombublated that they have reverted to name calling. I hope Kerry, Clinton, and the rest can come up with something better, but i doubt it.
I have provided you with quote after quote showing that BUSH HIMSELF ADMITS HE WAS WRONG. Get that point through your head.
If anyone is name-calling, I would say it is you, Mr. "lefty."
I suggest that you remove your rose colored glasses because not one Democrat in America is going to lose sleep over this report. Not one mainstream Republican in Washington is talking about, which just goes to show you how far removed from the mainstream folks like you really are.
Just the fact that WMD's HAVE BEEN FOUND should be enough statement of fact to prove the statement that WMD'S EXIST IN IRAQ.
Mr Bush doesn't need to get in front of TV camera's and say "I told you so", because WMD'S HAVE BEEN FOUND and he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected.
It's his opponents that are having to eat crow and soft soap it with statements like "It's not nukes" or "There isn't 500 tons of it".
Finally, Bill Clinton can get up and say "I told you so". He was using WMD's as a complaint against Saddam in 1988. The WMD's were only 8 years old then.
You still can't make the fact that the WMD's WERE FOUND IN IRAQ disappear.
Ok, I'm sorry for calling you all lefties. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I honestly thought it was an accurate description of you politics, but I didn't realize that saying it would made you feel so bad. Please accept my apology.
I proudly accept the title "lefty." I'll put the moral leadership of individuals like Marx, Robespierre and even Noam Chomsky over your beloved "W" any day of the week. At least they aren't shills for a Capitalist system that oppresses minorities and comits genocide against women and children.
Oh, I see; "Lefty" is name calling, but "F**k you, Fascist" is... what, a liberal greeting?
Each time any credible evidence shows up that involves anything anyone on the left doesn't want to admit to, they always turn away from the elephants in the room, though they are right there with them. Tell a lefty his feet are tied together, and he'll still try to make a run for it, just so he can prove you wrong. What he does, though, is fall flat on his face . . . as usual. That is why the democrats lost the house after 40 years, and it's why they won't win it back this fall.
This is a general post to whoever reads this site.
I did a Google search to find ANYTHING about the WMD's found in Iraq, because the news sites I look at every day HAD NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT THEM. MSNEWS AND GOOGLE NEWS didn't have news reports about it.
After having listened for years now to the Democrats saying over and over and over again "No WMD'S" in every campaign speech, I figured I would see at least one proud Democrat stand up and say that they were wrong. I guess I was wrong.
There is no such thing as a "proud Democrat".
I'm not a frequent visitor here, so all I have to say in parting is, good luck and Good luck to this nation if this blogger's powers that be actually get any of the power they have been craving for the last 6 years.
Nuff Said.
Why not state what you stand for and how this information fits into that stand, rather than try to slam those who don't agree with you. Discuss rather than argue...
These are not *new* discoveries- only the report is newly released. These are the same old shells initially discovered and mentioned in David Kay's and his replacement's reports. Are you Repugnant-kins too dumb to get that through your tin-plated skulls?
Then again I never met Republican who wasn't severely irony impaired. When I read about them calling Democrats closed-minded and dogmatic- that's like the pot taking out a Superbowl add to call the kettle black. This forum is a clear and present indication that this is very much a case of them hearing only what they want to hear.
One last time, although I am thoroughly aware this won't make a dent in those furrowed, thick Repugnant-kin brows: These shells are *old news*- the only difference is the newly declassified sections of an old report, which Santorum is trying to drum up his sagging poll numbers with. And you guys are falling all over yourselves to fall for it.
There is WMD in America too...so what? The alleged existence of WMD is just a convenient excuse to wage a war that is making BILLION$$$ for politically connected "defense" contractors. I'm more afraid of the WMD in the US under the control of a president who can't even command the english language.
Funny, when I went looking for information of WMD found in Iraq online, the first one I found was href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200601,00.html">this FOXNEWS foxfan story. It seemed to support what your saying.
Your blog was the second site I found.
When Bush declared there were no WMD, did you use it to your advantage to slam Bush supporters?
Now that there are WMD found, you are saying he lied, and slamming his supporters.
I bet you'd take the blue sky and use it to slam Bush supporters, won't you?
There "were" WMDs versus There "are" WMDs. This is a new report about old chemical weapons that are no longer functional. That places them in the "were" category not the "are" category.
My reading indicates that the report is old, the only thing new about it is John "Boy am I a Republican shill" Negroponte's declassification of it.
Correct
We know there were weapons in Iraq, we helped supply them in the eighties. That's not to say they were useless, as they still were effective. However, when Bush did say there were no WMDs he was talking about new weapons, new capabilities. These new capabilities, ie; a nuclear program, vx gas etc. have not been found. There are many reports to indicate that they did exist in some stage, and who knows maybe we have found those and that is classified. However, the statements today only point to weapons that we knew were there, that us, the CIA, ISG, and everyone else has said were there. However, these are not the weapons we spoke about! Regardless, other facts are known and have been reported but not on major media sources. Saddam's son's met with AQ Kahn, a man who is known in most circles to have supplied the means, methods, and everything else needed for nuclear weapons. He is rumored to be responsible for North Korea's, Iran's, and many other governments Nuclear programs. The meetings they had with him alone indicate a desire to build nuclear weapons, and that is some justification. Hard evidence isn't needed, and has not been found, the intentions of the iraqi government were a threat to the region and to the world. Because of this the United States acted. It might not have been the best way to act, it might not have been fully truthful, but it was for the better of the world.
I do not believe this Administration acted altruistically for the benefit of the world, or we would have gone into Darfur already. I think they wanted the oil and the bases in a country that would not be such a political headache as Saudi Arabia is- both for us and the Saudi regime. They just could not count on Saudi Arabia remaining stable enough to be sure we could continue to use those bases in perpetuity, but a nice friendly secular Democracy in Iraq could be counted on to provide such bases. That's what the Arab world fears so much- that we're never going to really leave, and the construction of 9 US airbases in Iraq tends to indicate that we will fulfill their worst fears.
Furthermore, the Neocons based this action on their belief in a terribly mis-guided version of the old "Domino Theory"- that one Arab Democracy in the region will cause other Arab states to eventually also adopt representative democracy governments. I don't think it holds any more water than the old Kennedy administrations belief that Communist governments would spread throughout a given region. Now this stupid idea has involved the US in two different insurgent wars that have proved virtually un-winable. Many moderate Arab comentators, and thousands of Iraqi's on the ground, all insist that out troops' presence in Iraq is *causing* the insurgency.
Saddam's Iraq was a testament to the success of sanctions- even when Saddam was able to corrupt a number of officials with the Oil-for-Food program, the sanctions had really arrested Iraq's ability to construct new WMD programs. If only we had exercised real patience, a peaceful turn-over of power may have occurred in Iraq. Now we'll never know.
North Korea has China propping it up. Iraq had no such champion. The FACTS are that the UN sanctions program was working on de-clawing Saddam and his army. Another FACT is that, in a very lawyerly and savvy manner, the Bush administration cherry picked intelligence that supported their march to war, and deflected intelligence that did not by asking those analysts to submit historical backgrounds - the kinds of reports that take many months to prepare - with the full knowledge that they'd be at war soon (remember the Downing Street memo). So the "reasoning" based on intelligence was really a very cynical exercise in the tail wagging the dog.
Your belief that oil has nothing to do with this is an opinoin as well- and a very naive one at that. Oil will be in very high demand as time goes along, because even if we put hybrids or fully electric cars on the roads here, reducing domestic demand, we'll still need oil for our jet fighter planes and tanks to run on- those high-performance machines will not work as hybrids or on electricity.
Your belief that the bases will be a good thing is also an opinion. I think they will provide ample motivation for thousands upon thousands of young people to volunteer for the Jihad and blow themselves up all over the world. This is a war of ideas and ideals, it will be won or lost with words and politics. Armed conflict will never resolve this issue completely- history has always shown that there is never a shortage of heroes on either side of an armed conflict, but each side always assumes the other is morally weaker and inferior. Note how that perfectly describes the current state of thought between radical Islam and the Western democracies. We're rotten infidels, they are blood-thirsty murderers, etc., etc.
Why can't you all stop engaging in petty "us or them" thinking and try to get at the objective truth. So, big deal, there were WMDs in Iraq, but that doesn't really put to rest the doubts about the justification the US had for invading the country, although you never know what use these weapons could have been put to. Personally, I think Iran should have been invaded in 1979 in direct response to the revolutionaries' aggression against US diplomats. This, perhaps, would have eliminated any need to supply Iraq with weapons and would have given the US a possibly more secure foothold in the region.
As far as not believing anything you see or hear on Fox, why not apply the same critical attitude towards ALL the world media, such as CNN, NBC, CBS, BBC. Again, speaking personally, I see CNN and BBC as the main purveyors of politically-correct, anti-liberty and fear-mongering environmentalist ideas and I don't believe half of what they say. Same goes for Fox when it comes to all their religious-conservatism nonsense.
WMD in America. The US was absolutely right in using its WMDs in 1945. By bringing the war to a timely end, millions of American and Japanese lives were saved (i.e. 300,000 Japanese deaths due to the two nuclear devices were considered preferble to the million or more US and Japanese deaths that would have resulted from an invasion of Japan. Contrast this with the possibility of Islamic terrorists' using a WMD to kill hundreds of thousands for no other reason than to kill, kill, kill because their Allah commands them to. Weapons are always safer in the hnds of the good guys, and extremely dangerous in the hands of the bad guys.
Good and Bad are subjective opinions; there are plenty of people who think the US is bad and has been since WWII ended. I want to say right now that I am not one of them- but I won't let that belief lure me into simplistic thinking about how to resolve these issues. In truth all nations, like all people, do good and bad things; no person or nation is defined one way or another but rather each individual action must be appraised soberly and honestly so that bad policy can be improved, hopefully into something good. Try to keep a realistic perspective or we will just end up killing millions upon millions of people, and that would be BAD.
"Nothing is either good or bad, only thinking make sit so." - Paraphrase of Shakespeare
Do you see a pattern here. Rove faces indictment and Bush's poll numbers fall lower than Nixon's. Rove no longer faces indictment and everything goes Bush's way. Zarqawi is killed (supposedly), WMDs are found (supposedly) and the Democrats cave on troop withdrawls. Oh and guess what Bush's poll numbers are up. What more proof do you need. It's obvious that Zarqawi was a patsy, an administration plant that was sacrificed when he was no longer usefull. And the WMD "declassified" report was completely made up. All it took was Rove's undivided attention to coordenate the media blitz. You Republicans need to get used to it. There are no WMDs and there never were any. It was just a made up excuse to claim Iraqi oilfields for Bush and his big oil buddies.
Wow! I feel I'm witnessing the voice of the modern progressive in all it's glory. What insightful analysis? What infalible logic? I think we conservatives should just quit politics altogether and leave the country in your capable hands. By the way, could you tell me who really shot Kennedy?
Do you really think that the US government has been able to purposefully institute a fundamentalist Islamic jihad that has gone on for more than 20 years now, just so they have a justification to enact their less liberal policies (like snooping into *everyone's* phone records)? I think you are giving them waaaaay too much credit. Far more believable is that we inadvertently created this mess by first supporting the unilateral founding of Israel, then by deposing a properly elected Iranian government with a CIA-backed coup that put the Shah of Iran in power. Add to that decades of fairly one-sided support of Israel, and wa-la, insta-Jihad. I mean I think we are politically aligned, I just don't think this kind of conspiracy theory is really going to create solutions.
I don't think a vast conspiracy of this sort- between right-wing Republicans and right-wing Jihadiis- is in the least bit feasible unless there is an aggressive and powerful third party that is a mutual enemy- such as the USSR in Afghanistan provided. Let me tell you the CIA did not want to give Bin Laden Stinger missiles either, they witheld them for years. Finally we did and that broke the back of Soviet resistance there. But once USSR was out of there, those Mujahideen didn't want to have anything to do with the US.
No a far simpler and more plausible explanation is that we got where we are through a combination of short-sighted policy based mainly on greed and from having to deal with a society that only left its feudal history behind ~90 years ago- with the betrayal of T.E. Lawrence's promise that the Arabs were fighting the Ottoman Empire for their freedom, only to have Britian carve up Arabia into a bunch of factional psuedo-states, just like they screwed up Africa. Given that history, I understand why Arabs would basically distrust western democracies and westerners in general. Oh and they are basically still living with a feudal mind-set, and life was nothing if not cheap in feudalism.
With all due respect, I never said that the US government is in a conspiracy with the jihadists. I said that Zarquawi was a US agent. He had been turned by the CIA in 2003 and was working to help the US military find al Zawahiri (I'm not the first to say this.) The problem is that Bush got into trouble and all of a sudden he became more useful dead than alve. Furtharmore there is no place for your anti-Isreal/anti-semetic comments on this board. Following WWII there was a worldwide outcry for the a Jewish state. It's creation was anything but "unilateral." I'd expect this latent anti-semitism on a right-wing blog, not here.
These would be the same weapons that Donald Rumsfeld SOLD to Iraq for use against Iran. Obviously, Rumsfeld neglected to mention HIS role in this "discovery."
While this information does not completely exhonorate Bush as we were led to believe that a great many more existed, it does show that the accusations leveled against Saddam were indeed true and that WMDs were in Iraq and hidden since the first Gulf War. Just as Weapons inspectors had said. The more I see the more I am starting to see that some news outlets are everything they accuse the republicans of being. Rove now cleared of charges, WMDs were actually found, Zarqawi captured with tips by other Iraqis and Jordan showing they are actually committed to stopping Al Qaida. Perhaps it is not Fox news that is lying or exaggerating, but rather CNN and MSN doing the exaggerating. I have started to wonder just who exactly is lying here and who really is playing politics. Perhaps George Bush really was right, this information if nothing else shows that Saddam had full capabillity to reconstitute his WMDs program as soon as sanctions were lifted. If either Carter or Reagan had done this to Iran long ago, would we now be in a stand off with them over Iran potentially getting Nuclear weapons. Did we just prevent a future catastrophe in Saddam Hussien? Perhaps Blair is right, one day history will exhonorate them.
This information is warmed over cherry-picking of an old report whose conclusions were clear, and whose findings are well known to the Bush Admin. and have been for 2 years. There is nothing new about it. Nothing has suddenly been "found", other than maybe an old copy of the Duelfer report on some Repub's kitchen counter. The 500 shells mentioned, made to seem as if American forces had found a huge cache of shells in a single location, were in fact found in bits and pieces over a protracted period of time. These are the remains of previous conflicts, discarded, lost, forgotten or mixed in with more conventional weaponry. To cling to this as being any sort of proof that Hussein was lying about WMDs is to not understand what the Administration was alleging at the start of this mess, and why they're not running around trumpeting this "news" to everyone and his dog now. They know what it is: BS. Since they've already been linked to so much of it, I suspect they're not in a hurry to embrace Santorum's ridiculous attemps to get himself noticed, knowing this will seen by anyone of average intelligence for the farce that it is. As for the post above, you are a phony. You try and sound as if you are this unbiased, neutral observer that has suddenly seen the light of FOX news. Yeah, right. What gives it away is the statement "Perhaps George Bush really was right, this information if nothing else shows that Saddam had full capabillity to reconstitute his WMDs program as soon as sanctions were lifted." It was a little too canned, a foregone conclusion based on nothing and one that cannot possibly be reached by a neutral party on the scarce info provided. If you are telling the truth, maybe you can explain how this information "shows" any such thing. As for Bush and Blair, history will indeed judge them, as the war criminals and manipulators of truth that they are.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...classified.pdf
They are indeed going directly off the declassified document summary,
Here's the Basic Summary...
1. Approximately 500 Sarin and Mustard gas Chemical munitions found since 2003
2.. Pre Gulf war Chemical munitions are assessed to exist in Iraq currently.
3. Pre Gulf war munitions are in danger of being found and sold on the Black Market, and can pose a danger outside of Iraq as well.
4. While Agents degrade over time. Chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal regardless.
5. Insurgents are looking to get their hands on them which poses a danger to coalition forces.
In a nutshell, it means Saddam did have or was hiding WMDs and was in violation of the Gulf War Treaty, but did not have an active program at the time we invaded. The munitions do exist in Iraq currently they believe more of them are out there in sites that have not been found or secured yet. Terrorists are indeed trying to get their hands on them and even in their degraded state they pose a danger.
While this does not entirely exhonorate the President, as we were led to believe it was an active and ongoing program, it does show that the basis of the charges leveled against Saddam Hussien were indeed true. He did have or was hiding WMDs just as the weapons inspectors said he was, and that there was a basis for the War in Iraq.
On another note, it also shows that Saddam could have reconstituted his Chemical weapons program as soon as the sanctions were lifted.
So perhaps in the end Bush was right, right now we are currently engaged in a stand off with Iran and the potential they may acquire a nuclear weapon. The evidence is starting to show that we just prevented a future catastrophy in Saddam Hussien by invading Iraq at present.
It should suprise no one that the Libs are trying to gloss over this WMD find. For three years they have been crying "Bush Lied, Bush Lied, No WMDs, No WMDs" to the point that they have made it who they are. With that I have said from the begininng that it doesn't matter what we find in Iraq the libs and Dems will try to gloss over it. It doesn't matter if we find a warehouse full of 55 gallon drums labelled, "Saddam's Bucket 'O Sarin" it will still be discounted.
To T-Bone's comment. If anything had actually been found in Iraq, this Admin. would be screaming it to the heavens. "It doesn't matter what we find..." is a ridiculous statement, since you haven't found anything. It's not the libs and Dems discounting this "find", it's the DOD and the American govt. It's pretty sad when the very people who would be vindicated if WMD had actually been found in Iraq won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. I guess to the wingnuts, even the Bush govt. has become part of the evil Democrat plot to discredit...itself.
Here is a good theory on why the Bush admin. kept this under wraps. As you might know, France, Germany, China, and Russia had some shady invlovment with Iraq. Probably what happened is that all the WMDs can be traced back in some way or anotehr to one or even all of these countries, and the administration kept the info classifed to use this a barggining chip to have these contries start helping the US, and to some small degree they have been lately, not by much, but to a very small degree. Sounds like something that makes sence to me.
Most of the newer WMD's are not in IRAQ anymore.
They were there, but, they are not there anymore. Thanks to the French.
Yes, they had a lot to do with it. Oil for food was a farce that we let the French portray to long. As well, in the first gulf war we know the French were selling things to the IRAQi's and if you have a doubt, see if you can find a veteran that knows why the anti-aircraft sites in IRAQ were in-accurate.
The U.S. sold printers to France, those Printers ended up in IRAQ at there anti-aircraft missle and gun sites. Why because we knew they would and they were programmed with a virus in the eeproms in the printers that were activated by there equipment.
Of course how'd we know this would happen? How'd they get there anti-aircraft sites? It's easy to screw up your enemy when you know what they own because it's old stuff you sold to someone else and they passed it on to your enemy.
How do we know they had WMD's it's not hard to tell, where did they go.
Check Syria, IRAN, or Afghanistan, what about France?
You know they didn't want us in there because we'd find out how they were backdooring the U.S. efforts.
There are a lot of WMD's that were destroyed without claim.
Maybe we should have been more careful when we did the shock and awe campaign. OOPS.
Next time someone attacks our country on our own land, maybe a nuclear exacted strike would be cheaper and easier. Probably not a good idea though.