"Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq"
So I suppose that this means that the Democrats have lied when they claimed that Bush lied. I have always thought that those accusing Bush of lying were deliberately distorting what the word "lie" means, so I guess that means that they were always lying, but by their definition of "lying" it must be obvious that they were lying.
The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.
Here is a video that is very interesting. Sadam's claim that all weapons were destroyed was "a lie." The administration has sat on this information because it apparently doesn't want to have this debate over again. I don't have a clue what the administration is thinking on all this. Here they have the evidence that shows that the WMDs were there and they fight about releasing even a small portion of that evidence.
Update: Here is the Democrat's response:
Democrats downplayed the intelligence report, saying that a lengthy 2005 report from the top U.S. weapons inspector contemplated that such munitions would be found. A defense official told FOX News that the weapons probably can't be used in their current form because of their age, but the report notes that they are still hazardous and possibly lethal to coalition forces.
This report contains all the response need: "but the report notes that they are still hazardous and possibly lethal to coalition forces."
Here is a video that is very interesting. Sadam's claim that all weapons were destroyed was "a lie." The administration has sat on this information because it apparently doesn't want to have this debate over again. I don't have a clue what the administration is thinking on all this. Here they have the evidence that shows that the WMDs were there and they fight about releasing even a small portion of that evidence.
Update: Here is the Democrat's response:
This report contains all the response need: "but the report notes that they are still hazardous and possibly lethal to coalition forces."
posted by John Lott at 12:50 AM
19 Comments:
Democrats lie? Drive by media lie? Say it isn't so.
An assault weapon can be perceived as a knife, hatchet, bear spray, rolling pin or baseball bat, or what they actually are: M-14's or AK-47's or M-16's. A WMD can be perceived as either a nuclear warhead with a delivery platform (rocket or shell, etc.) or a chemical bomb, or even the anthrax contained in small zip-lok bags (which was mailed by the CIA to Americans.)
If Iraq had nuclear warheads (real or perceived WMD's) with or without delivery platforms the Press and News Media would have had a field day with it; so why is it I have not read, heard or viewed the 'field day' ?
Also, we don't have to invade and occupy a country that has WMD's to eliminate the threat. We only have to lob WMD's or smaller conventional weapons (from the air) at the so-called WMD's to eliminate the threat.
To eliminate terrorist attacks against the US all we have to do is vacate the Middle East because it is our presence (diplomat and military) that incites the attacks.
Several weeks back Secretary of War Rumsfeld went to Viet Nam and shook hands (told some jokes) with communist VietNamese leaders. How does that make you feel ? After all, only 60,000 Americans died there trying to stop the spread of communism. What do you think of Rumsfeld, who was a member of the leadership that advocated and got millions of GI's sent there, when he laughs and jokes with these "enemies of freedom."
Was Viet Nam just another lie ? Was it an excuse to get Americans killed there, was it some kind of US foreign policy hustle ? Was it to stop the spread of communism; how so if Rumsfeld went there to chat with communist leaders. Thirty years from now will a former member of the Bush administration shake hands with members of al-Qaeda ?
"We got them on their last throes" [dick cheney]
wasn't it beautiful to watch all those Iraqis risk their lives and vote for theocracy and show-off their purple finger tips ?
we're spreading democracy in Iraq. we're doing it by establishing round the clock curfews, banning weapon possession, rounding up the women, imprisoning thousands of men, torturing them, sexually abusing them, shipping some of them to foreign prisons, and we are killing thousands of Iraqi children (it's only collateral damage) to kill a few of the so-called trouble makers (zarqawi.) our troops are also invading every home in Iraq without warrants, shooting the entire inhabitants in cold blood and they are just loving every bit of it. the Iraqis love us for our values and for our democracy - don't they.
why do we do these things - because of WMD's.
those little four-year-old Iraqi children you see periodically lieing dead on the ground are just collatoral damage; it's okay, things will get better, but don't you war mongers just love it to see how America slaughters children to spread democracy for our freedom.
While it's true that Curt Weldon does have a fixation on the intelligence bunch, it's Weldon's thought that this was buried precisely because US intel did not want their own errors (yes/no/maybe) to be public.
I haven't figured that out, either, but that's his thought.
Come on John, one does not even have to look outside the article itself to find that the "WMD found in Iraq" are essentially irrelevant:
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."
Rusted cannisters of inert sludge that used to be chemical weapons are not, in fact, WMD. And certainly nobody would have ever supported invading and occupying the country in order to destroy these useless artifacts.
It was never about whether or not Saddam had scattered goodies hidden somewhere. I vehemently opposed this war and I even I said he probably had something somewhere (while also noting that it would be degraded and useless, btw), it was about whether he posed a threat to us.
He quite clearly did NOT. And that is no lie.
Guav, please read what I posted: "Sadam's claim that all weapons were destroyed was 'a lie.'" The discussion was whether Sadam HAD WMDs. It was not simply about when they were made. It was that they had these weapons and that Sadam was not cooperating with the UN inspection teams to check out what Iraq had.
In any case, Iraq apparently did have facitilies to make WMDs, though this small part of the report doesn't go through it. Read Rich Miniter's book, Disinformation.
"The discussion was whether Sadam HAD WMDs. It was not simply about when they were made."
No, it was about whether he had 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents and an advanced nuclear weapons development program—not whether or not there was a 15 year-old shell buried somewhere full of sludge.
"Sadam was not cooperating with the UN inspection teams to check out what Iraq had"
He wasn't cooperating in 1998, which is why we pulled them out and launched Operation Desert Fox specifically to target Saddam's remaining WMD capabilities—the scraps that were left after 8 years of UN inspections and weapons destruction. And in that respect, Desert Fox was a huge success. According to the U.S. Central Command & Department of Defense, of the 100 targets on the list for Desert Fox, 87 were hit, breakdown as follows:
-COMMAND AND CONTROL: 18 of 20 targets hit
-REPUBLICAN GUARDS: 9 of 9 targets hit
-ECONOMIC: 1 of 1 targets hit
-AIRFIELDS: 5 of 6 targets hit
-AIR DEFENSES: 24 of 34 targets hit
-WMD SECURITY: 18 of 18 targets hit
-WMD INDUSTRY AND PRODUCTION: 12 of 12 targets hit
What did Republicans at the time have to say about Clinton's plan to destroy Saddam's remaining WMD capability? They complained about it. They hooted and hollered about Clinton's actions by saying that he was trying to distract the nation from that far more important topic—blowjobs.
"I cannot support this military action."
—Republican majority leader in the Senate, Trent Lott
"The President's motives in this attack is itself a powerful argument for impeachment."
—House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX)
"We do not even trust him when he orders the american military into action. We believe he is a shameless liar and it is time for him to step down."
—Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
"It's certainly rather suspicious timing, I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office."
—Tillie Fowler (R-Florida)
"It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it."
—Gerald Solomon (R-New York)
But in 2002 and 2003, Saddam WAS cooperating. We didn't invade because he wasn't cooperating, we invaded because the administration was set upon doing so, even though the inspectors we out in said that they had found nothing, and wanted more time.
In 2003 it was WE who were not cooperating with the inspection teams. If they were allowed to do their job completely, we still would have found these useless rusted shells, but it wouldn't have taken billions of dollars, tens of thousands of Iraqi and American lives, a complete loss of credibility, and being bogged down in what we have turned into a terrorist training ground.
Dear guav:
1) As I noted in my post, " the report notes that they are still hazardous and possibly lethal to coalition forces."
2) I don't see what hitting 87 or 100 targets proves about anything. First, there is almost no way that we could have known where all the targets were. Second, we didn't hit 100 percent of the targets. Third, it is not clear that we could have destroyed 100 percent of what was in those targets. In any case, the point that we did not get every thing is proven by this new evidence. Right?
First of all, I was under the impression that this was a NEW batch uncovered—as it turns out, it's not. This is a totally recycled story, and not even the White House is talking about it. The only person bringing it up is Rep. Peter Hoekstra and Fox—everyone else has just responded to it.
These are the same "WMD" that were found in January 2004, more than two years ago, and everyone discussed it then. Furthermore, all of this was already covered in the ISG final report. There is absolutely nothing new about this startling revelation.
"the report notes that they are still hazardous and possibly lethal to coalition forces."
Which would be irrelevant if coaltition forces weren't there, having gone into Iraq to uncover the rusted shells that are only a threat to them, should they be in Iraq in the first place.
See what I'm getting at here?
Dear guav:
Many of these finds have been reported previously, though the total has not. The problem is that if everyone knows the fact here, why are so many people saying that Bush was wrong about WMDs? Or worse that he lied about it?
Here is the bottom line: Sadam was hiding WMDs, they were still harmful, this is apparently just a small fraction of the classified evidence of WMDs in Iraq, and Bush was correct that there were WMDs (though this was just one of many reasons that he gave for the war).
My question to you is why is anyone still claiming that there weren't WMDs in Iraq? Why are Dems claiming that Bush lied still when according you everyone has know all this well before the 2004 election? Why isn't your response that of course the Dems are lying about Bush lying?
The problem is that if everyone knows the fact here, why are so many people saying that Bush was wrong about WMDs?
Because he was wrong.
The case presented to the nation and to the world was not that Saddam had a few rusted leftovers that MIGHT be dangerous to coalition troops (as you can see, IEDs are working just fine), but that Saddam had vast stockpiles, a nuclear program, and was going to attack us.
But all of that is wrong. He did not have vast stockpiles. He had no nuclear program. And he was not going to attack us. This administration took us to war on false pretenses, whether or not they were intentionally false or not.
(As far as calling Bush a liar, this administration has floated enough whoppers having nothing to do with the war whatsoever that it cannot be claimed that Bush is not a lair. Of course he is a liar, he is a US president. If he wasn't a liar he'd have never made it this far in government.)
Furthermore, chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction in any functional sense—tactically, chemical weapons are only effective when used upon an unsuspecting military force in a battlefield situation (or sleeping Kurds) and even then, the effect is entirely limited to the immediate area of contamination.
But as far as terrorism goes they are not WMD—they don't actually destroy anything. When released in an enclosed area upon an unsuspecting populace, death rates will naturally be higher. This is why subways are the usual targets. That doesn't say much however, as a man with a handgun and a few extra magazines during rush hour at Grand Central could manage to kill quite a few if he so desired. As far as terrorism goes, chemical weapons are not very good at killing people, just at terrorizing people. They're also EXTREMELY hard to deploy, which is why nobody bothers with them in the first place.
A home made nailbomb worries me far more than chemical weapons do, and I ride the NYC subway every day.
P.S. why are so many people saying that Bush was wrong about WMDs?
Because he was. Bush, on Wednesday October 6th 2004 said:
"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."
It's clearly demonstratable that Bush was, in fact, wrong. Whether or not he purposefully misled people is a different topic for discussion, but I don't think it can be argued that he was not wrong.
Bush was not wrong about the weapons being there, which is what is meant when people say that he lied. Your quote either shows him saying the opposite or that he was simply relaying to people the reports as they were made to him (hint that is not lying). In any case, this NEW report shows that they did have WMD. It took some time to find the weapons and there are still more that are in the classified part of the report. Do you understand what the term NEW means about the 500 number?
By the way, Sarin gas does not degrade. Anthrax was also able to be produced in large quantities.
holy crap, aluminum tubes were found in Iraq.
vote for me and I will set you free.
"If you don't vote for us, we'll get hit again." [dick cheney]
xenophobes, islamophobes, commiephobes, gunphobes and tubephobes...time for another war.
intervention, in the affairs of other contries, by former presidents destroys our own freedoms here in America. each new war allows some form of restrictions on liberty that is never undone. even the war on drugs, which harms more people than it protects, destroys our freedoms here in America; it does so in many ways, but the most obvious and common and destructive to liberty are when judges are forced to allow searches into homes by police to find drugs; and sometimes innocent Americans are killed during these searches - sometimes it is senior citizens who are harmed by police. wars, by our presidents pursuing their legacies, are more destructive to us than if our presidents would just simply not engage in any kind of war. viet nam got 60,000 americans killed; that's gotta be more americans killed than any amount of cocaine or alcohol in the history of the United States.
and the wars always require the lies (WMD's) that justify them. what's the common lie that justifies the war on drugs ? to protect our children - why - when the government will eventually send them off to war to get killed later; or when the government merely says that it's collateral damage when Iraqi children are killed by US forces.
we don't need this irrelevant debate or courtroom trial about lies - we need an end to our oversized bullying government and a return to our long ago brief period of limited-government that respects a constitutional republic form of government that respects our individual freedoms. wars and lies are the symptoms - democracy, an oversized government and it's contempt for our constitution and it's bill of rights are the problem. treating the symptoms won't solve anything - eliminating the problem will.
what does it matter ? you want to be free to say "the government stinks," or you want all of us to be forced to say "zeek heil" or "long live the president."
Dear saturdaynightspecial:
Thanks for the comment, but when you say "and the wars always require the lies (WMD's)," what are the lies on WMD that you are referring to? A lie requires you say something that you know is false. Every intelligence service in the world (Russia and France's included) believed that Iraq had WMD. You would think that given how hard Russia and France fought against the war, they wouldn't have helped "lie" to give Bush cover to do what they didn't want him to do. In any case, it clearly looks as if Bush was right. Sadam wasn't being honest about the chemical weapons that he had.
For me the term 'WMD' originates from the Bush administration; and it implies a nuclear weapon which is known to be able to produce massive destruction. But because of Bush's war on terror the term WMD takes on new broader meaning. WMD now includes weapons used in World War One ! Mustard gas is now a WMD ! But I never associated the existence of WMD's with the first world war. The civil war involved trench warfare, but it was the first war that gave notoriety to the horror of trench warfare because of the introduction of mustard gas, the machine gun and then finally the battle tank (which finally neutralized the horrific effects of the machine gun.) Whether or not Bush lied depends on how you interpret what a WMD is; did Iraq possess mustard gas or a modern equivalent ? I didn't need anyone to inform me Iraq has or had WMD's if WMD's include gas weapons (chemical,) unless the chemical weapons were being manufactured to use in the USA on civilians.
Why is the issue of aluminum tubes relevant?
All of my childhood occurred in the home of an alcoholic (a bullshit artist); Bush is a former alcoholic. And some Alcoholics or former ones are highly reputable and honest (but not Bush.) Drug addicts have the strongest, most destructive tendancy to lie to support their habits. I know one when I hear one lie or rob you. Bush is, on the surface, a liar.
The two bodies of US soldiers, kidnapped, were found; they were decapitated and mutilated; such is the nature of this war. Bush is incompetent, especially as head of an army. Carl Rove was a successful draft dodger; Bush Jr. escaped combat by seeking refuge in the Air National Guard and may have been politically active to end the Viet Nam war.
By contrast Grant, Eisenhower and Bush Sr. were much more involved in war, and were more proper in waging it. The character of Bush Jr is questionable. Do you know what is occurring in Afghanistan now? Large scale military operations. Do you know the historic futility of this ? The military competence of Bush Jr, given he is army trained, is questionable.
Another poster has already provided evidence about these new reports of WMD's offered by the Bush administration, which does not have any credibility with me. I have seen, enough times, the evidence provided by the UN weapons inspection team to know that Bush is a massive liar, and his ability to lie and deceive the public is equal to the power and destruction of a modern day WMD, but not a nuclear one.
Anytime an American president advocates going to war the public should always, and only, insist the reason be clear, without ambiguity, and that the enemy be obvious; and that there be no doubts about the intelligence; otherwise the public should tell the president go to hell.
Dear saturdaynightspecial:
You cover a lot of ground here, but I dont think that you answered my question, and you certainly didn't clearly point to a clear statement. I haven't seen any evidence provided by anyone in this discussion that Bush lied, other than just the assertion that he did. I am sorry that you grew up in the household that you describe, but I don't see the relevance at all for Bush. As an aside, unlike most politicians, Bush is letting the military run the day to day operations of this war.
John,
I agree with some of what you say; and I also admit there are some, not many, qualities in Bush I like: he is not spineless and he is somewhat pro-gun; and aside his lies, in my opinion, I have benefited from his administration, especially on guns.
I want to see photos of WMD's in Iraq, buried in the sand or not. I doubt anything has changed: weapons of mass destruction are what they are and are easily photographed - seeing is believing. I wouldn't trust the testimony of any member of the Bush administration or his followers, including Bolton, or Russia, France or any other spy entity. They are all a day late and a dollar short, because as we now know, this administration won't hesitate to find something that could pass, photographically, as WMD's, bury them in sand, dig them up and photograph them, just to prove they weren't lieing.
You don't respond to my evidence that bush lied on WMD's.
"We gottem on their last throes" [dick cheney]
"I did not have sex with that woman" [bill clinton]
"Read my lips, no new taxes" [bush sr.]
Thanks for the space to opine.
John:
Some of these comments are rather removed from rationality and reality.
You have a lot of patience.
I hope your rational behavior will be taken as a model for others. However, I doubt the probability per individual is over 1%.
Keep up the good work.
Robert Ferguson
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home