Congressional Republicans are at odds with Democrats -- and the Bush administration -- over the significance of 500 munitions found in Iraq since 2003 and recently disclosed by the Pentagon.
The rocket and artillery shells hold deadly sarin and mustard gas, a small part of the vast weapons of mass destruction (WMD) arsenal that Saddam Hussein built in the 1980s.
Republican lawmakers say the 500-plus shells, with more likely to be found in the coming months, are evidence that Saddam was still concealing WMDs in 2003 in violation of United Nations resolutions to disarm after Iraq's failed invasion of Kuwait.
The resolution "didn't say pre-'91 chemical weapons," said Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican. "It didn't say post-'91 chemical weapons. It said chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein violated this resolution and others like it. ... In part because of such violations, we voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq."
Get the rest of the Washington Times story here.
Fourty vials of suspected Sarin gas are seen in a brief case where U.S Marines found them while searching a house last November in Fallujah, Iraq. (Getty Images)
Monday, July 10, 2006
A Reminder About WMD in Iraq. We Found Some.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
This horse was dead before you started beating it. It's a sad day for the regressives when even the Administration knows better.
Hardly a dead horse, when no matter what Bush would say about this discovery, he will get slammed.
I still await an explanation as to how could virtually the entire world strongly believe they were there, but after the months long "rush to war," they were gone.
You can't blame Bush for misleading either. Several were making the claim and calling for strong actions against Saddam long before Bush was even a candidate.
Once it was Bush in office, many of the hawks in Congress turned to doves.
Go figure.
NIMROD: Take your blinders off, they found WMD and continue to find more. Of course Americans in Name Only (AINO) like yourself can't and refuse to see them.
Lew, Klatu, may interest you in a membership in the Flat Earth Society? You would fit right in.
LOL, Nimlo. We qualify for flat earth, but you deny what others report was found. What does that qualify you for, the Cranial Rectal Society?
Sorry, Lew but your sources have been thorougly discredited.
ingrate, they are far from discredited. BUt, since you say they were, how many canisters may I sign you up for to store in your home?
It's old, remember, no danger.
Odd how anything the left denies is considered instantly "discredited."
I could blame Bush for misleading...slew, you're a pig!
slew, how about this quote?
"We now have the luxury of seeing that the expected WMDs were not found, although several that are still dangerous in the wrong hands, were. Still not what was expected."
What's up with that?
racist, are you dense? Just because they weren't the ones expected to find doesn't mean they are non-existant.
Do you think some WMDs in Saddam's hands and possibly handed over to Al Qaeda are better than some others?
Does the following quote mean nothing to you?
"it is not unreasonable to assume that Saddam's action may have been precipitated by the fear that the U.N. inspectors were getting uncomfortably close to discovering some caches of reprehensible weapons of mass destruction, or facilities to manufacture them, that many have long feared he is doing everything in his power to build, hide, and hoard."
"Plainly and simply, Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to get away with his antics, or with this latest excuse for avoidance of
international responsibility."
Doesn't that sort of wrap it all up? How can you possibly argue with that?
I'm only quoting you slew..are you dense?
Typical libby, then. Can't come up with an original thought.
You sound like a libby to me slew..
"We now have the luxury of seeing that the expected WMDs were not found, although several that are still dangerous in the wrong hands, were. Still not what was expected."
Dear Allen Smearing guy,
You've been voted off the island. If I see that handle back here again I'll cut off the comments pages again.
It's on you.
Victoria
racist/khaldun, too bad you haven't the facilities to actually discuss anything.
I gave you an important quote on the WMDs and all you wish to do is engage in ad hominum.
I would have thought that the quote I gave you would pass for a reasonable justification for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam, don't you?
Let's see - Allen of Salem makes every post something about the evils of hispanics, and he's not racist?
Ok Victoria...
slew, what's to discuss? You're always right and make sure everyone knows. You will never lose, so why bother having a discussion with you?
Khaldun, can't you see that there was ample justification for Bush to invade Iraq in those words I quoted?
Given Saddms continual refusal to abide by the cease fire after the Gulf War he signed, 12 years and 17 UN resolutions and never coming clean about his WMDs or the programs, and seeing the likely hood those WMDs assumed to be there, and given that many have since been found, could easily fall into the hands of Al Qaeda, Clinton would have been hard pressed not to take definite action beyond a few cruise missles.
Given the same circumstances, had Clinton or even Gore been in office and been faced with the same delimna, they too would have had my support for strong action to eleminate a threat as that.
Read those words again and tell me what other real recourse Bush had.
Ample justification to invade Korea. Wait--they have missiles and are developing nukes, actual weapons of mass destruction. Let's not. Diplomacy anyone?
When would you like to invade?
slew, maybe Bush could have convinced Saddam to support a strike on one of the other members in the "axis of evil." Then, just as in the past, it would have been just peachy for Saddam to have chemical and other weapons.
I just don't get why there's such a big "told you so" about finding weapons that America already knew he had and allowed him to have. Seems like a big "no sh*t sherlock" to me, and yet it keeps getting shoved out there by Victoria types.
Beating a dead horse is right. The terrorists could have had chemical and other weapons from Saddam long before 9/11 - good thing Bush started spying on Americans - err I mean terrorists before 9/11. I mean, that had to help protect us..
Haven't we set precedent to make a preemptive strike on NK? Couldn't terrorists get nuclear weapons from NK? Or was that just from Saddam?
Well, the lefties have ALL the answers, but no PLAN.....what a surprise....not. Sheesh.
That talking point was sooooooooo two months ago bear.
Get with it man..
Khaldun, your usual diatribe is lacking, as to be expected.
You are stating as fact what you and other lefties speculate and wish were fact. Same old tired rhetoric unsupported.
Since the fall of Saddam's regime and the earnest search for WMDs was undertaken, several months after the start of the "rush to war," all we have heard is that there never were any WMDs, Bush lied, Saddam destroyed them all, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Now, you come in and state we knew those were there all along?
Did you forget to tow the party line, again?
"Now, you come in and state we knew those were there all along?"
Don't act like this is news to you slew - I have always said this. If you want to ignore that 1. we allowed Saddam to have weapons because it suited us and 2. the weapons found thus far are indeed leftovers of these same weapons we knew he had, then be my guest.
"(slew says) all we have heard is that there never were any WMDs, Bush lied, Saddam destroyed them all, yadda, yadda, yadda. "
Um, everyone has agreed that there were not the "stockpiles" of weapons thought to be there. Sounds like no WMD to me, and to any average American watching the local news each night.
Bush didn't lie? How about the mobile weapons labs they found? The intel community was in deep division over these findings "before" he made that statement. Sounds like a lie to me.
Saddam destroyed them all? That sounds like the bs you all peddle about - like he put them all on jet planes and flew them out...not the kind of crap I would be saying. I've never said Saddam destroyed anything.
Oink oink slew, you pig. (by the way, if you are going to make a pig your sig, don't claim I am making a personal attack when I call you one - duh)
Again, Khaldun, if you want to make a claim, back it up with actual proof, not some tired old former Klansman reading a lefty article to the Senate.
As for your "stockpiles" claim, do you even realize the expected stockpile could easily fit into an average two-car garage? What, did you expect acres and acres of them?
And still, you have not addressed "they never were there," but turn a blind eye to over 500 canisters found, even if aged. They are still dangerous.
As for the mobile weapons labs, there were pictures of the trucks. They obviously weren't ice cream trucks for Good Humor. Considering the lack of real intelligence on the ground, thanks to the Klintoons, should they have been just disregarded?
The funny things is, people like you are the first to whine and cry that nothing was done to stop 9-11. Yet, when something is done to stop a repeat or disarm a dicator that easily could move something like WMDs into the hands of terrorists, you are the first to whine and cry that there never was any danger.
Typical libby.
The "they were all destroyed earlier on, if BS, was BS coming out of the left when they wished to denigrate Bush. You really should read more often.
As for calling me a pig, so what? I've been called much worse by much better. That's why the grin!
slew, your loyalism exceeds your capacity for rational thinking.
American knew Saddam had weapons, allowed him to have them, and had no issues making efforts to build better relations with him AFTER he used said weapons against his own when his position served our interests. Ignore this if you wish, but it has nothing to do with Byrd? (WTF are you talking about?)
As for "they were never there," I have never said that. So why do you expect me to address it?
How about this..My parents are your typical conservative, church going American. They don't spend hours on-line researching their news. They watch TV news and read the local news paper from time to time. Guess what slew? They thought, as everyone else like them did, that the President and admin had made it pretty clear that Saddam had lots of very dangerous weapons, something much different than some 500 expired weapons from the 80's. They also thought other things, like Saddam helped in 9/11, that the war would be over by now, and that Iraq would appreciate our "liberation." So guess what slew - my parents voted for Bush twice, and still think he's doing a good job - and even they have said "I guess the weapons weren't there." Rational thinking slew. Try it.
Have I ever said "nothing was done to stop 9/11?" No. Guess I'm not your "typical libby." But you sure are a typical loyalist (pig).
As for "they were never there," I have never said that. So why do you expect me to address it?
Again, Khaldun, you aren't towing the party line. Several members of your mindset have said so very publicly. Do you think there is no one else in the world but you?
As for your parents, God Bless them. Did we all believe there were untold WMDs? Yes. Not because Bush said so, but because EVERYONE said so. Like I have said, Democrats too have been calling for strong measures all throughout the 90s, when Bush wasn't the President. They weren't taken.
After 9-11, in the six or seven months "rush to war," ample warning was given that we were coming for them soon. Where did they all go? If they weren't there, why didn't Saddam just come clean and stop the sanctions and prevent the invasion? That's all he would have had to do.
Your loyalty and adherence to myths and hatred are very telling. It was your biy, Kerry, making calls for strong actions to remove the WMDs long before Bush actually did. Maybe you can explain his change of heart, once Republicans were in the White House.
Anyone thinking the war would be over by now simply were not listening. From the get go, Bush has repeatedly stated this was going to be a long dirty fight. It's not Nintendo.
Just what is my "party line" slew?
Um, no slew - everyone felt Iraq was a continued and growing threat that should be addressed. He had moved far away from being an ally to the US and had the "potential" to develop weapons. We already knew he HAD weapons from the 80's, AND had used them. But no one sold us, that he had some "500 expired munitions and some yellow cake." No, it was very much propagandized -
"(Bush, 2003) We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
Oops. With claims like that, how on earth would you expect Saddam to come clean, as if he would anyway? Get real.
slew, Iraq was the same threat before 9/11 as it was after. Saddam should have been dealt with in the 80's, when he used chemical weapons on his own people. Instead the US continued to negotiate relations with him. How does this fact make me adhere to myths or full of hatred?
oink oink, piggy.
Hey, coward posing as allen, my son and I are still trying to figure out what gender initial you rate. After you surrendered to MRS. TAFT faster than a French army division would to a six-year-old with a slingshot, congratulating you on showing your "feminine" side is inappropriate, since you got OWNED and HUMILIATED by one. It took you less than 80 minutes to crawl into a new "name." You might want to ask (if not abjectly beg) your mommy to show you where she has hidden your cashews. No WONDER all you anti-American lefty cowards want to appease the terrorists so badly. You can't even stand up for YOURSELVES!! What a WUSS!! What happened to your "bravery" re "freedom of speech," and "tolerance," and "civility?" If you won't stand up to a real conservative woman, how could you EVER stand up to a shrieking harpy from the left? You're a gender-confused, anti-American, slanderer of allen, and a wuss, posing as a male human......LOL. I will happily remind the other posters of how quickly you relinguished any claim to intellectual honesty, or MANHOOD. You are so BUSTED!! But, on the good side, you can hide easily. After all, who could pick you out from the rest of your cowardly friends on the left? BWAAHAAHAAA!!
huh?
I'm not posing as Allen, only saying he is a racist.
Hey queer, it's Victoria's blog - not some battle front...you want her to shut down her comments because she can't tolerate someone's nick name?
I figured folks wouldn't like that much - esp the one's like you who fight for the good of the country from behind your keyboard...I mean, how else could you ever be so "patriotic?"
Whatever - at least I was born in America, queer.
Khaldun, don't you know that using the "Q" word is "hate speech?" I thought you little libbys were the tolerant ones that didn't engage in that sort of rhetoric?
As for the 500 WMDs, whether you realize it or wish to admit it, the world changed drastically on 9-11. It was no longer feasible to trust in Saddam and his known or unknown WMDs.
No, the US did not give them to him, or sell them either. We knew he had used them, yes, as did the Useless Nations and every other person with an I.Q. over 15.
He was not exactly a staunch ally during Reagans term, either. It was more like letting two enemies go at each other. According to Casper Weinberger, at best, the US gave him some intelligence on Iran.
Oink, oink me all you wish. I'm still looking you square in the face and grinning from ear to ear.
How is "queer" hate speech? Look the word up - fits him well.
Keep trying to paint me a "libby," not going so well, is it?
The world did not change on 9/11 slew. American policy changed. Sadly, along with that came a division created by conservatives and loyalists who feel only "they" are patriotic and American.
Everyone else sides with or are terrorists.
Sound about right?
Pitiful, Khaldun, just pitiful. I don't paint you as anything, you paint yourself.
Complacency is what always catches people napping. After 9-11, I would think most people would have woken up but apparently not.
Terrorism is very real, has been for decades. It isn't only America they are attacking, this is a radical religious ideology very unforgiving of all others, including their own which doesn't adhere to their radicalism.
This isn't a mere crime, it's a fight against global domination again.
Keep rolling over and going back to sleep and another large scale attack will hit the US inside of our borders.
So you agree or disagree with me?
"Terrorism is very real, has been for decades."
Did you miss the part where I said the world didn't change after 9/11? The only thing that changed was the way America has decided to react in response to the terrorism that you yourself agree, "has been there for decades."
How is that rolling over, and why is that pitiful? You're making no sense slew..
Khaldun, what constitutes "rolling over," (also referred to as going back to sleep) is the extent that many will go to prevent confronting terrorists.
Make no mistake about it, the War in Iraq is but a battle in the overall War on Terror.
Post a Comment