WMD's found in Iraq

[IBTG81]

Yes libby's, I know it's a Foxnews link

 

I know, I know...Bush bad, flightsuit, Haliburton, nosepick, mission accomplished, My Pet Goat, Cheney, Quail Hunting...Did I miss one?

[Johnny Coli]

Yes libby's, I know it's a Foxnews link

 

I know, I know...Bush bad, flightsuit, Haliburton, nosepick, mission accomplished, My Pet Goat, Cheney, Quail Hunting...Did I miss one?

712159[/snapback]

 

 

Swing and a miss, Ed.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the [senior Defense Department] 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."

 

Santorum is like that weird guy on the beach, walking around with a metal detector that eventually goes off. "I've found the treasure! I've found the treasure!" he exclaims. The skeptical beachgoers gather around the dancing fool, and watch as he frantically uncovers...an old piece of chewing gum foil.

 

 

An equally absurd tidbit from this Fox News bombshell is that Rep. Hoekstra, the other clown running around waving this "smoking gun", is actually the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

 

 

EDIT: In almost certainly related news, Santorum's poll numbers have hit a four year low (it's a FOX News link, for you Edward).

Only 38 percent of respondents said they approved of the way Santorum, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, is handling his job. Forty-five percent said they disapproved and 16 percent did not express an opinion.

Rick is getting killed in the PA-Sen race that has him polling 34 to 52 to Casey. 38% approval is pretty bleak, but it's not nearly as bad as how Our Leader is doing in Penn.

Bush's approval rating in the state rebounded somewhat in the latest poll, to 34 percent from 30 percent in May. The proportion of Pennsylvania voters who approved of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq increased to 35 percent from 29 percent.

Nice to see Fox pimping 34% approval as a "bounce." Edited June 22, 2006 by Johnny Coli

[OnTheRocks]

 

 

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the [senior Defense Department] 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."

 

 

ok...so you are saying they do have WMD's but these don't count?

[Helmet_hair]

So, did Saddam Hussein Lie about having WMD or was he misinformed by his intelligence agencies.

[chicot]

ok...so you are saying they do have WMD's but these don't count?

712221[/snapback]

 

Pre-1991 weapons would no longer be usable now, so all this means is that Iraq once had WMD's, which everybody already knew.

[Johnny Coli]

ok...so you are saying they do have WMD's but these don't count?

712221[/snapback]

 

Yes, I'm saying these roughly 500 pre-Kuwait invasion shells don't count. But if you won't take my word for it, because I'm obviously biased, you could get the same info from the Iraq Survey Group final report (pdf).

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.

 

Or, you could get it from Our Leader.

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

[snip]

The Duelfer report makes clear that much of the accumulated body of 12 years of our intelligence and that of our allies was wrong.

 

Or the Defense Department (buried near the end of this AP story, because the only people who think this is news are Hoekstra, Santorum, Fox News, and you and Ed).

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.

 

Or the US military, the White House, and the CIA (WaPo).

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

[OGTEleven]

  Pre-1991 weapons would no longer be usable now, so all this means is that Iraq once had WMD's, which everybody already knew.

 

712221[/snapback]

 

712232[/snapback]

 

Are these the ones that were said to be destroyed but never confirmed to be destroyed? Wasn't there a treaty signed requiring their destruction?

 

Does this mean Saddam was a liar or is there some other excuse now?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Pre-1991 weapons would no longer be usable now, so all this means is that Iraq once had WMD's, which everybody already knew.

712232[/snapback]

 

Not necessarily. Properly stored, certain of Iraq's stocks could last quite some time.

 

The odds of anything being properly stored since 1991, however, are astronomically low.

[chicot]

Pre-1991 weapons would no longer be usable now, so all this means is that Iraq once had WMD's, which everybody already knew.

712232[/snapback]

 

Are these the ones that were said to be destroyed but never confirmed to be destroyed?  Wasn't there a treaty signed requiring their destruction?

 

Does this mean Saddam was a liar or is there some other excuse now?

712255[/snapback]

 

Saddam certainly is a liar and more besides. However, I don't think that technicality rather than an existing threat of actual, functional WMD's (which was what was sold to the the US public, the Senate, the British public, the British parliament, the world, etc ...) is worth the tens of thousands of lives lost or the billions of dollars wasted on this act of utter folly.

[Wacka]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

 

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

 

"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." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

 

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

 

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

 

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Cliche talking points...blah blah blah...

712311[/snapback]

 

You know...you could simply link to one of the ninety other times this has been posted.

 

Of course, even that is too much of an original thought for you...

[Johnny Coli]

[Replying to Wacka's long post...]

 

712311[/snapback]

 

 

The Duelfer report makes clear that much of the accumulated body of 12 years of our intelligence and that of our allies was wrong. George W. Bush, October 7, 2004

 

 

Not sure what the point of your post was, Wacka. The original premise of Ed's "hot-off-the-presses" topic-starter was that Ricky "38% and falling" Santorum and Hoekstra found some kind of smoking gun...a smoking gun that even Our Leader says doesn't really amount to much. So your ability to trot out old quotes from Dems and Clinton administration officials accomlishes what, exactly? That you've been waiting to spring that "Gotcha!" on us?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The Duelfer report makes clear that much of the accumulated body of 12 years of our intelligence and that of our allies was wrong.  George W. Bush, October 7, 2004

Not sure what the point of your post was, Wacka.  The original premise of Ed's "hot-off-the-presses" topic-starter was that Ricky "38% and falling" Santorum and Hoekstra found some kind of smoking gun...a smoking gun that even Our Leader says doesn't really amount to much.  So your ability to trot out old quotes from Dems and Clinton administration officials accomlishes what, exactly?  That you've been waiting to spring that "Gotcha!" on us?

712332[/snapback]

 

Thank you. I was trying to think of the best way to point that out.

[Johnny Coli]

Thank you.  I was trying to think of the best way to point that out.

712336[/snapback]

Yours was more succinct.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Yours was more succinct. 

712337[/snapback]

 

Yours was more to the point. I was just bitching that we had to read that sh-- again...you actually managed to not only point out that it really had precisely NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread, but to point out that it doesn't even have all that much to do with Iraq as it does to do with Santorum's election year challenge...

 

I mean, this is NOT really news. After '91, Saddam dodged inspections by spreading everything around the country, hiding or destroying all the tracking info, and daring the UN to find it all. They didn't. So stuff is still popping up all over the place. The real story isn't that they find a shell every other day...the real story is Santorum not only thinks he needs to boost his poll numbers by announcing it, but that he thinks brining up this dusty old issue is actually going to HELP his poll numbers. I've got to think there's lots of Republican party officials sitting around saying "Santorum, you !@#$ing idiot!" today...

[OGTEleven]

Saddam certainly is a liar and more besides. However, I don't think that technicality rather than an existing threat of actual, functional WMD's (which was what was sold to the the US public, the Senate, the British public, the British parliament, the world, etc ...) is worth the tens of thousands of lives lost or the billions of dollars wasted on this act of utter folly.

712265[/snapback]

WMDs, while included in a list of reasons, were never sold as the sole reason for the war.

 

To truly tell whether it is "utter folly" you would need a parallel universe machine.

 

Maybe some things would be "worse":

 

Would Saddam have cooperated with terrorists?

Would the further exposure of the UNs complete impotenece have further emboldened other countries such as SK?

Would people still be being tortured and killed in Iraq?

other.....

 

Maybe some things would be "better"

 

Would Saddam's presence have impeded Iran's recent threat from building?

Would we have been able to use our troops elsewhere with positive impact?

 

You would also need a time machine to see the future.

 

If Iraq ends up independent and democratic, in say the next 10 years, what value does that hold?

Has our stance improved our long term position in the eyes of potential threats (i.e. they know they cannot attack us without renumeration)?

 

Utter folly is a strong term and rarely accurate.

[X. Benedict]

WMDs, while included in a list of reasons, were never sold as the sole reason for the war. 

 

 

712390[/snapback]

 

The primary reasons were WMD's, links to Terrorism, and non-compliance with the U.N.

In my mind it was quite clear that the decision to go to war had little to do with these publicly stated casus belli.

[Chilly]

Yes libby's, I know it's a Foxnews link

 

I know, I know...Bush bad, flightsuit, Haliburton, nosepick, mission accomplished, My Pet Goat, Cheney, Quail Hunting...Did I miss one?

712159[/snapback]

 

Catchphrases found!

 

BlueFire news reporter Chris W. is reporting that even though Republican-favored Fox News is running a story on finding WMDs, all that Republicans on PPP can do is toss out a link to the story and their favorite catchphrases. No intelligent discussion is expected to form.

[OGTEleven]

The primary reasons were WMD's, links to Terrorism, and non-compliance with the U.N.

In my mind it was quite clear that the decision to go to war had little to do with these publicly stated  casus belli.

712397[/snapback]

I do not disagree (although none of those were totally dismissable IMO). That statement could likely be made for 75% of countries entries into war throughout history.

 

It is also not "blood for oil" (at least not in such a direct sense) or "revenge for Daddy".

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The primary reasons were WMD's, links to Terrorism, and non-compliance with the U.N.

In my mind it was quite clear that the decision to go to war had little to do with these publicly stated  casus belli.

712397[/snapback]

 

Actually, WMD's and non-compliance with the UN were basically the same reason.

[KRC]

Actually, WMD's and non-compliance with the UN were basically the same reason.

712496[/snapback]

 

Non-compliance with the UN is more general and includes topics outside of WMD (terrorism, human rights, diplomatic relations, etc).

[X. Benedict]

Actually, WMD's and non-compliance with the UN were basically the same reason.

712496[/snapback]

Yes, I agree to a point. But it was constantly presented as if it was an independent reason -the need to uphold UN resolutions. One could be agnostic about WMD in Iraq and still agree that they were in non-compliance with regard to inspections.

 

Of course this was one of the most self-serving arguments because GWB is probably the President most ambivilent about the UN in recent memory.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Non-compliance with the UN is more general and includes topics outside of WMD (terrorism, human rights, diplomatic relations, etc).

712508[/snapback]

 

Except the specific resolutions always mentioned related to Iraqi WMD programs and their openness or lack thereof. We didn't march to Baghdad in 2003 because of their violation of the UN resolution to leave Kuwait in 1990.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Yes, I agree to a point.  But it was constantly presented as if it was an independent reason -the need to uphold UN resolutions. One could be agnostic about WMD in Iraq and still agree that they were in non-compliance with regard to inspections.

 

Of course this was one of the most self-serving arguments because GWB is probably the President most ambivilent about the UN in recent memory.

712519[/snapback]

 

Actually, it was presented simultaneously as the need to uphold UN resolutions AND as the need to maintain national security regardless of UN resolutions. In other words, the administration's reasons were simultaneously out of concern and lack of concern for the UN.

 

And yes, that's LITERALLY simultaneously. Two administration officials (i.e. officially representing administration policy) in two different speeches in the same morning said "It's a UN issue, the US can't take unilateral action" and "It's a US national security issue, the UN is irrelevant." Again, those were official administration statements given within an hour of each other. So no, it was never "constantly" presented as that...in fact, there was nothing constant about the administration's presentation.

 

But the thing really missing from the discussion that makes my point is: there's an executive finding, written sometime around 2001-2002, that says "The greatest threat to national security is terrorists with WMDs." Every other justification the administration ever gave was bull sh--...the real reason was that, as a matter of policy, this administration tied terrorism to Iraq via the logic of the international issue of counter-proliferation...which very nearlty makes Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions an anti-terrorism issue and justifies the whole invasion...pretty much makes it a foregone conclusion, really.

 

And it does. It provides perfect justification. If you accept the a priori assumption that terrorist WMDs were a greater threat to national security than pissing off the entire world with the unprovoked unilateral invasion of a soverign nation...

[X. Benedict]

Actually, it was presented simultaneously as the need to uphold UN resolutions AND as the need to maintain national security regardless of UN resolutions.  In other words, the administration's reasons were simultaneously out of concern and lack of concern for the UN.

 

And yes, that's LITERALLY simultaneously.  Two administration officials (i.e. officially representing administration policy) in two different speeches in the same morning said "It's a UN issue, the US can't take unilateral action" and "It's a US national security issue, the UN is irrelevant."  Again, those were official administration statements given within an hour of each other.  So no, it was never "constantly" presented as that...in fact, there was nothing constant about the administration's presentation. 

 

But the thing really missing from the discussion that makes my point is: there's an executive finding, written sometime around 2001-2002, that says "The greatest threat to national security is terrorists with WMDs."  Every other justification the administration ever gave was bull sh--...the real reason was that, as a matter of policy, this administration tied terrorism to Iraq via the logic of the international issue of counter-proliferation...which very nearlty makes Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions an anti-terrorism issue and justifies the whole invasion...pretty much makes it a foregone conclusion, really.

 

And it does.  It provides perfect justification.  If you accept the a priori assumption that terrorist WMDs were a greater threat to national security than pissing off the entire world with the unprovoked unilateral invasion of a soverign nation... 

712539[/snapback]

 

Excellent post.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Excellent post.

712543[/snapback]

 

Except that I forgot to add that it justifies the invasion under the Bush Doctrine...so you have to accept the a priori assumption of preemptive action as well...

 

It also illustrates quite well the fundamental differences between Bush and Clinton foreign policies. With Bush, you can at least discuss it intelligently, agree or disagree. With Clinton, we're reduced to "Why the !@#$ are you letting Mavis Leno dictate your foreign policy?????"

[cromagnum]

I posted a link in another thread, where isg has released iraqi documents that have been translated.

 

http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com/

[boomerjamhead]

Swing and a miss, Ed.

Santorum is like that weird guy on the beach, walking around with a metal detector that eventually goes off.  "I've found the treasure!  I've found the treasure!" he exclaims.  The skeptical beachgoers gather around the dancing fool, and watch as he frantically uncovers...an old piece of chewing gum foil.

An equally absurd tidbit from this Fox News bombshell is that Rep. Hoekstra, the other clown running around waving this "smoking gun", is actually the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

EDIT: In almost certainly related news, Santorum's poll numbers have hit a four year low (it's a FOX News link, for you Edward).

 

Rick is getting killed in the PA-Sen race that has him polling 34 to 52 to Casey.  38% approval is pretty bleak, but it's not nearly as bad as how Our Leader is doing in Penn.

Nice to see Fox pimping 34% approval as a "bounce."

712174[/snapback]

 

Breathe....

 

That's it.

 

Inhale. Exhale. Inhale. Exhale. Inhale. Exhale.

 

All better now?

[Chilly]

Breathe....

 

That's it.

 

Inhale.  Exhale.  Inhale.  Exhale.  Inhale.  Exhale.

 

All better now?

712948[/snapback]

 

wtf?

[cromagnum]

You ever watch the pbs show frontline.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view

[/dev/null]

Pre-1991 weapons would no longer be usable now, so all this means is that Iraq once had WMD's, which everybody already knew.

712232[/snapback]

 

How do you know they would not be usable now? Has anyone seen a "Best if used by 1991" label? I'd imagine they have a shelf life a little longer than a bottle of Tylenol®

 

The United States and Russia/USSR haven't produced chemical or biological weapons for some time either. Doesn't mean that they don't have them anymore

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'd imagine they have a shelf life a little longer than a bottle of Tylenol®

 

Not generally. If high-quality and stored properly, they can last a while. (Sarin, for example, can last as much as a year). If left out in the open with other munitions, the chemicals tend to break down and become unusable as weapons (i.e. still poisonous...but when you detonate the shell, it releases a toxic sludge, not a gas. Not an effective weapon.) Generally, after '91, Iraq couldn't store them properly - storage sites for chemical weapons tend to be big things that are easily noticed by inspectors.

 

The United States and Russia/USSR haven't produced chemical or biological weapons for some time either.  Doesn't mean that they don't have them anymore

713676[/snapback]

 

The US and Russia had long-term storage, too, and had better quality control and added additives to increase stability. Iraq's CW program developed along with the Iran-Iraq war...hence, stability was less an issue since weapons went from manufacture to use in a manner of weeks during the war. I'm willing to bet Iraq never truly stockpiled large quantities of chemical weapons.