Discussion in 'Current Events' started by scratch, Jun 22, 2006.

  1. scratch

    scratch Least Best Moderator Staff Member

    Yesterday, U.S. Senator Rick Santarum (R-PA ) held a news conference to announce that over 500 different munitions have been found in Iraq containing Mustard Gas and Sarin Nerve Gas since 2003. This was according to a document that was declassified after being requested by him. Another source says that in the months before the invasion, US intelligence watched convoys of Russian trucks head into Syria. The Russians, Chinese, and French all sold weapons to Saddam even though the United Nations had bans on these.

    Ever since the war started, you have all these people calling President Bush a liar because this was one of the reasons he decided to invade Iraq. Never mind that Clinton, Kerry, the Russian and British Intelligence Agencies all said Saddam had them. I think that it is interesting that it is obvious that all these people calling Bush a liar knew these weapons were there, Democrats sit on these Senate and House committees that had access to this information and they knew it.

    The mainstream liberal media will sweep this info under the rug as soon as possible. The President's distracters will still call him a liar, none of them have the class to admit they were wrong. Business as usual.
  2. wily_old_vet

    wily_old_vet New Member

    Scratch-The Washington Post, definitely a left leaning newspaper, had nothing on the front page about this discovery. Of course they did have a story about the 8 who were arrested for allegedly mudering a Iraqi on the top half of the front page. Why am I not surprised? It is up to us to get the word out.:mad:
  3. dannyboy

    dannyboy From the promised LAND


    They have had some of these for quite some time. Nothing new to those that have people in the military. While some would poke fun at those of us that knew they were there, I prefer not to rub their noses in the "I told you so".

    As a practical matter, a fully loaded AK47 or an explosive vest in a crowded building, a rocket propelled grenade fired at a loaded airliner, are they not WMD's to an extent? Or airplanes that slam into buildings? Does it have to be chemical or nuclear to be a WMD? How many people killed does it take to make the weapon used a WMD, or is it linked to how much property damage occurs? I would love to know the numbers involved that make the attack one by a WMD.

    He had them, always had. He used them, we had proof. Even Clinton had te knowledge and said as much. THe issue is not that they had them, but then who sold them to him. And from what intel is available, the Germans, French, Russians and Chinese are the major suppliers to Iraq. And since three of those make up the 5 member security council at the UN, it would be very bad form for us to find all those WMD's and be able to track them back to the originating country.

    So even though W knew they were there, we allowed most of them to be removed before we invaded so as not to give a black eye to some of the other world powers. France being the exception to that list.:lol:

    One for all you W haters, what WMD's were in Bosnia that we had to go in there and take over? And why are we still there?

  4. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Orange County Register headline....."Troops Face Charges"

    Paging through the entire front section I saw nothing about WMD's.
  5. susiedriver

    susiedriver New Member

    Re: Phony WMDs

    Okay, let’s try to dissect the truth from the bullcrap.

    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."

    So we are able to discern from Santorum’s statement that about 500 shells containing ‘degraded’ chemicals that pre-date 1991 have been discovered. These were not ‘WMDs’ despite dBoys definition. These were (15 years ago) tactical battlefield munitions. Not a good thing, but not a WMD. These were unusable shells that were not destroyed after the Gulf War. They are not WMDs, they are not evidence that Saddam was pursuing a weapons program after 1991. This was all addressed in The Duelfer Report, and Dear Leader commented on that over a year and a half ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14897-2004Oct7?language=printer

    The reason no one besides Fox is reporting on this is Santorum (R- Homophobe) is full of crap. This was not the reason we invaded Iraq, there are no WMDs there, in spite of dBoys statement of ‘those of us that knew they were there’.

    Oh, dBoy, I don’t think WMDs were the reason for the war in Bosnia, either.

    One more thing, I hate Bush.
  6. wily_old_vet

    wily_old_vet New Member

    welcome back susie. Nice to see that you haven't lost your left wing crap. If Sarin isn't a weapon of mass destruction, then nothing is. But I wouldn't expect anything else from you. How's your buddy Slothrop, haven't heard from him lately but expect to very soon.
  7. ditto44

    ditto44 New Member

    Typical statement for a Bush hater, guess he thinks Saddam is a saint.
  8. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    weapons deteriorated, but still lethal !!!
  9. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    You guys may not like Susie, but she does have her facts straight. Even the administration has admitted they were wrong about the WMDs:

    The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.
    Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."
    The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.

    Conspiracy theories about President Bush "allowing" Saddam to hide his WMDs before we invaded are beyond ludicrous. The reason there are no newspaper stories about Santorum's big discovery is because there is literally nothing to report beyond a Senator who is in trouble in the polls trying to rally his base before the november elections. If there was any real evidence of WMDs you would be hearing it from the White House, not from Rick Santorum.
  10. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Too late for an edit, but I did notice this tidbit in relation to the Santorum story:

    "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."
  11. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    Kinda along those same lines I read a news report on the net this morning in which it said that military officials say all the weapons found were pre-1991' vintage.

    Did UPS stock drop below $80 per share again? And/Or Did Cheryl rescend the Browncafe banning policy?

    Hold It! Wait! I Feel it coming!


    Stop :lol: Tieguy!
  12. Nice dhl courier

    Nice dhl courier New Member

    didnt clinton take us into bosnia....
    lets see 15 year old weapons.in iraq... ....
    clintons watch also.
    "out troops will be out of bosnia by christamas" clinton said.
    hummm christmas of what year. they are still there.

    repubican or democrat.. the United States will do what it needs to survive.
    when you see someone in uniform.... tell them thanks for thier service.
    they have the nerve to face death everyday for all of us who drive the trucks and move the freight........

    well the facts remain sadam was bad he had to go....
    time will tell wether it was the right thing to do.

    History is doomed to repeat it self.
  13. susiedriver

    susiedriver New Member

    Hey dhl...

    1991 was 25 years ago, Bush I's reign. Not everything is Clinton's fault.
  14. dannyboy

    dannyboy From the promised LAND

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbup1:
  15. susiedriver

    susiedriver New Member

    err, 15 years, not 25...duh. George I was pres, then, in any case.
  16. susiedriver

    susiedriver New Member

    dBoy, are you saying that degraded tatical battlefield munitions are WMD's?
  17. dannyboy

    dannyboy From the promised LAND

    What about degraded nuclear battlefield munitions, would they be a WMD?

    You never did answer my question. At what level does a weapon become a WMD? What is your threshold? What is the cut off line in your mind?

    But then again, I would conclude from your statements then that these munitions are totally harmless? After all, they are degraded, right? In your mind then these would/could not cause massive deaths or serious health problems if detonated?

  18. susiedriver

    susiedriver New Member

    dBoy, are you saying that Iraq had nuclear weapons?

    Take the time to research the weapons in question. I have. Those that have been found are mustard and sarin. The weapons found were not WMDs. Could they have killed someone? Possibly yes, probably no. Massive deaths? Extremely unlikely. Read up on 15 yr old sarin & mustard weapons, then get back.
  19. dannyboy

    dannyboy From the promised LAND

    That is not my point and you know it.

    You are dancing around all the relevant questions without answering the most obvious.

    Come on now, you know what the answer is. At what point does a weapon become a WMD?

  20. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    What is WMD?

    From the UN:

    "The Weapons of Mass Destruction Branch provides substantive support for the activities of the United Nations in the area of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological weapons), including the threat of use of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist acts, as well as missiles."

    From the CDC:

    "Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) events (i.e., biological, nuclear, or chemical attacks) present different challenges than other incidents involving mass casualties (e.g., chemical spills, transportation mishaps, or natural disasters)."


    From Wikipedia:



    Pre-GB White House Era Ouotes on WMD and Iraq from the current loyal opposition side:

    "[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

    "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

    "Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

    "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

    "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

    "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

    "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

    No argument that what was suggested has not lived up to reality but if one is honest in looking, the belief concerning WMD was not of a one-sided nature either. Saddam and Iraq only had WMD as a result of our horrible foreign policy of empire expansion (global manifest destiny)and CIA Spy verse Spy games. Not being in majority control of this country's political machine at the moment coupled with the simple fact that Iraq wasn't a cakewalk after all just makes it easy to bury the past and portray others in a certain light for political gain that in reality they themselves are just as guilty. Had roles been reversed (yes I believe we'd still be in a war had Gore or Kerry gotten the WH and Bush never been there) we'd see the democrats defending the war and the republicans protesting with just as loud of voice. Maybe even louder. God, what sick delight it would be to go to a parallel universe with a video camera and DVD recorder to hook to the TV set. It's all about controlling the power and protecting the planned society they have us destined for.
    We are a fascist empire with the only question of which fascist party will Americans elect, a democrat or republican one. Democrats got us into WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam and now are mad that they got denied the power to get us involved in Iraq and the Mideast! Don't fret, our screwed up foreign policy and spook business will see that they have many, many more opportunities!