November 2, 2005

The ‘No WMD’ Lie (with LINKED Proof)

April 2, 2007: Well, Isn’t This Special? Munitions Found Last Year Were Officially WMDs

___________________________

August 14, 2006: “The ‘No WMD’ Lie (with Linked Proof)” The Sequel

___________________________

June 22, 2006: MORE WMD Findings Revealed (Adding to Richard Miniter’s October 2005 List)
___________________________

November 2: This post was moved to the top for the remainder of the business day to show that full sourcing of claims made has been done, and because I’m sick and bleeping tired of the absurdity of the “no WMD” argument, the failure of the Mainstream Media to read their own news reports over the past two-plus years our forces have been in Iraq (and the 7-plus years since The Clinton Administration made the same WMD claims–See Updates 4 and 5 below), and the failure of this administration and the congressional majority to defend itself on the topic.
___________________________

I really don’t like to repeat posts after 5 days, but the Democrat leadership’s temporary hijacking of The United States Senate, unprecedented in my memory of at least in my 35 or so years of following the news, makes it necessary.
___________________________

The “No WMD” Lie

Did you know this? From Atlas Shrugs (scroll to end of post), based on member-only information at Human Events Online (external links added in response to Comment 1 below):

Did you know WMDs have been found in Iraq?
* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium (Aug. 1, 2006 Note: link has moved; updated with saved text from original)
* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents (also updated with saved text from original)
* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas) (May 7, 2006 Note: link has moved; will update with saved text shortly; May 8 – fixed)
* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

This is only a PARTIAL LIST of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet, Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces found NO weapons of mass destruction.

The question is… WHY do they believe this (“No WMD”) lie?

Hmm. Maybe The New York Times should be nominating Judith Miller for a Pulitzer instead of considering firing her.
_____________________

UPDATE: I have learned that these stats and much, much more are in a new book by Brendan Richard Miniter called “Disinformation: 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror,” which has officially moved to the top of my Christmas list.

UPDATE 2: In response to Comment 1 below, I have included links to stories from sources I would hope the commenter considers “actual news,” specifically (listed in order of appearance):
- a US embassy press release (7/8/04), based on a 7/6/04 Department of Energy press statement (link was removed in Summer 2006, and has been replaced with my saved copy).
- The Washington Post (8/14/05).
- SFgate.com via AP (7/2/04 — link was removed in Spring 2006, and has been replaced with my saved copy)
- Military.com via AP (7/7/04).
- CNN (for mustard gas-5/17/04).
- Fox News (for sarin gas-5/17/04).

I am glad I did the lookups, and have saved the text at each of the links to my hard drive for future reference (a good idea to emulate, IMO). Of course the commenter could have done all of this himself or herself in 10-15 minutes of Googling (tops), but it was easier to just “assume” it was all unsupported. Too bad, commenter. I guess that’s why I get the big bucks (oops–I don’t?). I am not glad the commenter had to resort to immature name-calling not supported by this initial reaction to Miniter’s book, but that seems to be par for the course for what passes for “discourse” coming from the left side these days.

UPDATE 3: From the incomparable Atlas Shrugs–”Moe, Larry, Curly: There Were No WMDs!”

UPDATE 4: Also worthy of a hearty reprise: “If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People — Version 3.0.” Names named with quotes from 1998 include Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, Scott Ritter, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, Joe Lieberman, Barbara Mikulski, and Dianne Feinstein. Oh, and John Kerry.

UPDATE 5: Porkopolis notes that we need to add Jimmy Carter to the list of Democrats with chronic amnesia (he added more on November 6), and provides a link to another item for the hard drive–Bill Clinton’s December 1998 speech justifying air strikes on Iraq:

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

He had to have them to be able to use them, right? RIGHT??

UPDATE 6: Marie at PeoplePolitical.org makes fabulous points about how the Democrat Party has deteriorated over the past 40 years into a reactionary, obstructionist, do-nothing entity. Also see Comment 13 below for more good PeoplePolitical links.
_______________

Nov. 12 Wizbang Weekend Carnival Participant.

Share

62 Comments

  1. Where’s the actual proof of these claims? Not member-only information at a partisan site, but actual news items that prove a single thing said here?

    And using a book that’s not a part of a series of racist apologias might help your credibility a tad bit. Unproven assertions from radicals on high make you look incredibly dishonest.

    Comment by Proofer — November 2, 2005 @ 7:33 am

  2. My, my, the R-word comes out over WMDs. Amazing, and such typically childish and off-topic behavior.

    See Update 2. And please don’t waste your time responding until you can refute EVERY source listed. YOU’RE apparently on the side claiming NO WMDs, and THEY are the ones that set the bar so high. Good luck.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 2, 2005 @ 10:26 am

  3. Proofer got OWNED.

    I am constantly amazed by the short memories regarding Clinton and the WMD intelligence. He completely supported Bush’s interpretation of the data, and he certainly had bombs dropped on Iraq in ’99 and ’96 (I was there for at least that much). Not to imply that Clinton’s backing constitutes proof, but it certainly makes me cock a brow at the “Bush lied” Downing Street crowd.

    I really appreciate the gathering together of information, TB. It’s so rarely noted in the media, and I usually forget where I saw any of it… so thanks for digging it up. If nothing else, you have saved me 15 minutes of googling it myself!

    Comment by Wulf — November 2, 2005 @ 7:23 pm

  4. #3, Save the actual articles to your hard drive for when they are no longer available (which will eventually happen).

    Comment by TBlumer — November 2, 2005 @ 7:39 pm

  5. http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm

    Comment by JR — November 3, 2005 @ 6:37 am

  6. I can get Larry Elder’s accounts in his back logs of old articles as things were really going on then . There were WMD’s found. The media looked always the other way including Fox.
    People Political Website.
    JR

    http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm

    Comment by JR — November 3, 2005 @ 6:46 am

  7. #5 and #6, I deleted the other link, as it didn’t work.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 3, 2005 @ 10:14 am

  8. I love these links. My favorita is the quote “lingering hazards”. Funny… I never thought of a nuke as being a lingering hazard.

    Why oh why isn’t the administration singing this stuff to high heavens? WHY???

    Hmm… I wonder…

    Comment by Editor — November 3, 2005 @ 12:20 pm

  9. 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

    “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 Securiity 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 bby Sens. 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 invigorated 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 SSen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

    - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 20002

    “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 weap ons 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

    More Hypocrisy…

    And think about the recent report by Chief Iraq Inspector David Kay. The liberal media’s headlines triumphantly proclaimed that NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WERE FOUND. And yet Kay’s report held tons of evidence to the contrary. There were numerous vials of LIVE bio-toxins, tons of Scud missle fuel (Saddam said he didn’t have any more Scuds), mobile bio-weapons labs, reams and reams of documents detailing Saddam’s intentions for building WMD’s and attempts by Saddam to purchase long-range missle technology from North Korea. The inspectors also uncovered massive ammo dumps, and 30 MIG fighter planes buried in the desert. And this was just an interim report! They’re nowhere near finished digging yet. By the way… some of those MIGs were built AFTER the 1991 cease-fire, which means that SOMEBODY was selling illegal arms to Saddam. Well, gee… who could that be?

    With all of this hard evidence, why are the liberals still calling President Bush a liar? ANSWER: They want him out of Washington, and they don’t care how dirty they have to play to get it done. They’ll gladly compromise the safety of our troops AND the citizens at home (that would be you and me) to accomplish their goal. Maybe it’s just me… but compromising the safety of our nation to satisfy a political agenda seems just a bit like treason.

    Thanks to Paul for sending me the quotes. I was dreading digging up all this stuff by myself!

    Comment by JR — November 6, 2005 @ 1:12 pm

  10. From People Political.org

    Your Democrat Party Is Gone

    By Marie Jon’

    If you are a person in your late forties or older, you know (or should know) that the Democrat Party you once knew no longer exists. The Democrat Party of years ago is gone and does not appear likely to return.

    Who are the troubling mischief-makers these days?

    More at Marie’s column at PeoplePolitical.org

    Comment by Marie Jon' — November 6, 2005 @ 1:17 pm

  11. #9 and #10–

    JR–I approved your piece because even though it’s a lot longer than I would prefer, it’s directly germane to the topic and done without resorting to name-calling and immaturity.

    Marie–I excerpted yours because it’s VERY good but not directly germane. I hope the fact that I put a direct link to your column within your “revised” comment and added an Update 6 in my original post makes up for that. Also, if/when your piece gets archived to another page, send me the link and I’ll change it here too.

    I also blogrolled People Political, so you must understand that there is no attempt to muzzle anyone going on here.

    Now if you guys could figure out why your web site always bombs my Firefox for Mac browser (doesn’t happen in Safari), we’d really be in business!

    Comment by TBlumer — November 6, 2005 @ 1:57 pm

  12. #9 and #10 again–

    The big question I have is: “Why has the Administration’s response to these not been an in-your-face presentation of the obviousl and irrefutable evidence?”

    Comment by TBlumer — November 6, 2005 @ 1:58 pm

  13. Aw, Marie you’re killing me–I love the content of what you’re posting, but I can’t afford to have article-length comments. I hope you understand.

    Here are the direct links (which I had to look up, BTW) to what you wanted to post here. I also revised Update 6 to reflect what’s here in Comment 13:

    From World Net Daily: WMDs have been found in Iraq

    From Michael Gaynor at MichNews.com: DEM PLAN: DEFAME BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS

    From Larry Elder: What About Joe Wilson’s Credibility?

    __________

    Again, I blogrolled you, so I hope you realize I’m being sincere here and not just trying to cut you short. And indeed, “God bless our awesome troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

    Comment by TBlumer — November 6, 2005 @ 2:16 pm

  14. WMDs — The Democrat Betrayal – Wednesday, November 02, 2005 7:00 PM

    As I have often said (and resaid) the inexcusable element in the Democrats’ attacks on their President in the midst of a war is that they are betraying a war they authorized in the first place. In the wake of Harry Reid’s unhinged accusations the Republican National Committee has posted a collection of statements by Democratic Party leaders reminding us why we went to war.

    DEM OFFICIALS HAVE WARNED ABOUT WMDs IN IRAQ FOR YEARS

    Former President Bill Clinton:

    President Clinton: “We Have To Defend Our Future From These Predators Of The 21st Century. They Feed On The Free Flow Of Information And Technology. They Actually Take Advantage Of The Freer Movement Of People, Information And Ideas. And They Will Be All The More Lethal If We Allow Them To Build Arsenals Of Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons And The Missiles To Deliver Them. We Simply Cannot Allow That To Happen. There Is No More Clear Example Of This Threat Than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. His Regime Threatens The Safety Of His People, The Stability Of His Region And The Security Of All The Rest Of Us.” (President Clinton, Remarks To Joint Chiefs Of Staff And Pentagon Staff, 2 /17/98)

    President Clinton: “Earlier Today I Ordered America’s Armed Forces To Strike Military And Security Targets In Iraq… Their Mission Is To Attack Iraq’s Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons Programs And Its Military Capacity To Threaten Its Neighbors …” (“Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq Attack,” Agence France Presse, 12/17/98)

    Former Vice President Al Gore:

    Gore: “You Know, In 1991, I Was One Of Those Who Put Partisanship Completely Aside And Supported President Bush At That Time In Launching The Gulf War. And In That War, We Saw How Saddam Had Threatened His Neighbors And Was Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons, Chemical Weapons, And Biological Weapons. And We’re Not Going To Allow Him To Succeed.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 12/16/98)

    Gore: “[I]f You Allow Someone Like Saddam Hussein To Get Nuclear Weapons, Ballistic Missiles, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, How Many People Is He Going To Kill With Such Weapons? He’s Already Demonstrated A Willingness To Use These Weapons …” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 12/16/98)

    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY):

    Sen. Clinton: “I Voted For The Iraqi Resolution. I Consider The Prospect Of A Nuclear-Armed Saddam Hussein Who Can Threaten Not Only His Neighbors, But The Stability Of The Region And The World, A Very Serious Threat To The United States.” (Senator Hillary Clinton [D-NY], Press Conference, January 22, 2003)

    Sen. Clinton: “In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His Nuclear Program. … It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)

    Sen. John Kerry (D-MA):

    Sen. Kerry: “The Crisis Is Even More Threatening By Virtue Of The Fact That Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability, And Is Pursuing A Nuclear Weapons Development Program.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14332)

    Sen. Kerry: “If You Don’t Believe … Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

    Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC):

    Sen. 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.” (MSNBC’s “Buchanan And Press,” 1/7/03)

    Sen. Edwards: “The Question Is Whether We’re Going To Let This Man [Saddam] Who’s Been Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction Continue To Develop Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Get Nuclear Capability, And Get To The Place Where If We’re Going To Stop Him, If He Invades A Country Around Him, It’ll Cost Millions Of Lives As Opposed To Thousands Of Lives.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/6/03)

    Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV):

    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.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 8/3/92, p. S11188)

    Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN):

    Bayh: “In My Opinion – And I Do, As You Know, I’m Fairly Hawkish On Iraq. I’m Inclined To Support Going In There And Dealing With Saddam. But I Think That Case Needs To Be Made On A Separate Basis – His Possession Of Biological And Chemical Weapons, His Desire To Get Nuclear Weapons, His Proven Track Record Of Attacking His Neighbors And Others.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 8/4/02)

    Bayh: “The Question Is, Do You Want Saddam Hussein Having Chemical Weapons, Having Biological Weapons, Possibly One Day Having A Nuclear Weapon? Do You Want To Have To Deal With That? And If The Answer Is No, Then What Do You Do About It And When Do You Do Something About It?” (CNN’s “Live Event/Special,” 12/1/01)

    Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE):

    Biden: “First Of All, We Don’t Know Exactly What He Has. … We Know He Continues To Attempt To Gain Access To Additional Capability, Including Nuclear Capability. There Is A Real Debate How Far Off That Is, Whether It’s A Matter Of Years Or Whether It’s A Matter Of Less Than That, And So There’s Much We Don’t Know.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/4/02)

    Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM):

    Richardson: “The Threat Of Nuclear Proliferation Is One Of The Big Challenges That We Have Now, Especially By States That Have Nuclear Weapons, Outlaw States Like Iraq.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America,” 5/29/98)

    Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL):

    Sen. Graham: “I Don’t Know If I’ve Seen All The Evidence, But I’ve Seen Enough To Be Satisfied That There Has Been A Continuing Effort By Saddam Hussein Since The End Of The Gulf War, Particularly Since 1998, To Re-Establish And Enhance Iraq’s Capacity Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological And Nuclear.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 12/8/02)

    Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL):

    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 North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Or Some Other Nation May Acquire Or Develop Nuclear Weapons.” (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 9/30/99, p. S11673)

    Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI):

    Feingold: “With Regard To Iraq, I Agree, Iraq Presents A Genuine Threat, Especially In The Form Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological, And Potentially Nuclear Weapons. I Agree That Saddam Hussein Is Exceptionally Dangerous And Brutal, If Not Uniquely So, As The President Argues.” (Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI], Congressional Record, 10/9/05, p. S10147)

    Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL):

    Nelson: “And My Own Personal View Is, I Think Saddam Has Chemical And Biological Weapons, And I Expect That He Is Trying To Develop A Nuclear Weapon. So At Some Point, We Might Have To Act Precipitously.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 8/25/02)

    Nelson: “Well, I Believe He Has Chemical And Biological Weapons. I Think He’s Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons. And The Fact That He Might Use Those Is A Considerable Threat To Us.” (CNBC, “Tim Russert,” 9/14/02)

    Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV):

    Sen. Byrd: “The Last U.N. 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 …” (“Threats And Responses,” The New York Times, 10/4/02)

    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):

    Pelosi: “Others Have Talked About This Threat That Is Posed By Saddam Hussein. Yes, He Has Chemical Weapons, He Has Biological Weapons, He Is Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. H7777)

    Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA):

    Harman: “I Certainly Think [Saddam's] Developing Nuclear Capability, Which, Fortunately, The Israelis Set Back 20 Years Ago With Their Preemptive Attack, Which, In Hindsight, Looks Pretty Darn Good.” (Fox News’ “The Big Story,” 8/27/02)

    Former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO):

    “Gephardt Said He’s Seen ‘A Large Body Of Intelligence Information Over A Long Time That He Is Working On And Has Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Before 1991, He Was Close To Having A Nuclear Device. Now, You’ll Get A Debate About Whether It’s One Year Away Or Five Or Six.” (Morton M. Kondracke, “Gephardt Pushes Consensus Action Against Iraq Threat,” Roll Call, 9/23/02)

    Former Secretary Of State Madeline Albright:

    Madeline Albright: “Iraq Is A Long Way From [Here], But What Happens There Matters A Great Deal Here, For The Risk 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, And It Is A Threat Against Which We Must And Will Stand Firm.” (“Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary Of Defense William Cohen And National Security Adviser Sandy Berger Participate In Town Hall Meeting,” Federal News Service, 2/18/98)

    Entry from David’s Blog – http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/

    Comment by Marie Jon' — November 6, 2005 @ 4:29 pm

  15. #14-Marie: OK, OK. These quotes look different and are on topic. Thanks, a bunch (really), but that’s enough.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 6, 2005 @ 6:20 pm

  16. Larry Elder

    On WMDS — what did the Dems say?

    http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Did Saddam Hussein and his interest in weapons of mass destruction pose a threat to the United States? Just ask the Democrats.

    Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean (D), appearing on “Face the Nation” in September 2002, said, “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.” In February 2003, during an address at Drake University, Dean said, “I agree with President Bush — he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. (Hussein) is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given.”

    Dean, on “Meet the Press” in March 2003, said he believed that Iraq “is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons.” Yet, in his now familiar flip-flop style, candidate Dean later declared, “I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States.”

    In the left-leaning New Republic, Ryan Lizza wrote: “Did Howard Dean actually support a war resolution giving Bush authority to attack Iraq? The answer is: pretty much.

    . . . Dean himself admitted . . . that he did indeed support (the Biden-Lugar resolution). . . . According to Biden-Lugar, all Bush had to do was ‘make available to the speaker of the House of Representatives and the president pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary, notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution.’ Isn’t this exactly what happened?”

    Gen. Wesley Clark, before he became an anti-war Democratic presidential candidate, testified on Sept. 26, 2002, before the House Armed Services Committee: “There’s no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self-defense. . . . Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He’s done so without multilateral support if necessary. He’s done so in advance of conflict if necessary. . . . When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval. . . . There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.

    “. . . I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as pre-emptive. . . . This is a problem that’s longstanding. It’s been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this. . . . There’s no question that . . . there have been such contacts (between Iraq and al Qaeda). It’s normal. It’s natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They’re going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That’s inevitable in this region, and I think it’s clear that, regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections, that Saddam Hussein is a threat.”

    Former President Bill Clinton, more recently, visited Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso in October 2003. The prime minister said, “When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime.”

    John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, said on Oct. 10, 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.”

    So, forget President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the pro-war “neo-cons.” Just listen to the Democrats. On the issue of the “unilateral” invasion of Iraq, they make a pretty strong case.

    Comment by Marie Jon' — November 11, 2005 @ 7:45 pm

  17. “Remember a September Day Like No Other and Urge Roger Ailes to Remind Americans Why We Have the Patriot Act.”

    By Marie Jon’

    Given Congress’ shameless failure to extend for more than a few weeks key provisions of The Patriot Act, as initially urged by President Bush, before it adjourned this month, it is useful to recall that not all the heartbreaking scenes of death and destruction filmed on that horrendous day known as September 11, 2001 were ever shown to the American public. And to demand that the news media show us the entire footage depicting how so many lives were taken in a cruel and cowardly fashion.

    The biased alphabet networks that constantly undermine America’s efforts in the War on Terror (ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC) are unlikely to do that. But Fox, the “fair and balanced” network, may do so with some encouragement. So, I urge you, please join me in asking Roger Ailes of Fox News to have Fox News do a special on the need to renew those soon-to-expire provisions, by emailing a copy of this article to Mr. Ailes at Roger.Ailes@foxnews.com. together with your own words of urgency and encouragement!

    http://renewamerica.us/columns/jon/051226

    Comment by Marie Jon' — December 28, 2005 @ 5:46 pm

  18. The Dean’s List – Documenting Howard Dean’s Lunacy

    I don’t think it’s any secret that Howard Dean has a few screws loose, and he seems to constantly top himself when it comes to thinking of ridiculous things to say… But why is it, whenever we want to slap…

    Trackback by RightWinged.com — January 7, 2006 @ 4:28 am

  19. How much is the war costing us compared to the cost of the unreformed social security?
    We are the country that invented and has used nuclear weapons. If Iraq had them, why didn’t they use them on us coming in? Fox news loves the Bush adminstration, so does, Rush, Bill, Sean, Michael Savage, etc. I’ve yet to see or hear any of them talk about the munitions you state are there/here. Poland said we “lied” to them to get them to go in. If these munition dumps are so obvious, why did other countries decline going in with us?
    Now we have Saddam, why are we building permanent bases and Bush says furture presidents will deal with withdrawl from Iraq?

    Comment by Rebecca Ferrell — April 3, 2006 @ 4:06 pm

  20. My response to you on WMD is this: Only one of the sources is Fox. The others are less “tainted” by your definition.

    If you’re going to refute the NO WMD claim, you’re going to have to refute each and every SOURCED item above.

    No, I cannot explain why no one is picking these thing up. That doesn’t make them less true (again, unless you can refute them).

    I’m not feeling as bad about staying there with a base as you are. We haven’t left Japan or Germany for 60-plus years, or Korea for 50, etc., and nobody seems too concerned. And, nobody can credibly claim that we dominate the policies of those governments.

    Oh, and we haven’t left Kosovo in 10 years either.

    Social Security reform could and should be done with or without involvement in Iraq.

    Comment by TBlumer — April 3, 2006 @ 4:20 pm

  21. A small point about those 1.77 metric tons of uranium…

    This is from the very press release that you link to as evidence:

    “The nuclear research complex, now under the responsibility of the Iraq Ministry of Science and Technology, was once a central institution for Iraq’s nuclear weapons program BEFORE BEING DISMANTLED IN THE EARLY 1990S, following the first Gulf War.” (emphasis added)

    It seems a bit disingenuous to me to suggest that Saddam had uranium-enrichment programs, when your own evidence notes that those very programs have been inactive for 10 years.

    Comment by MisterMind — May 16, 2006 @ 1:22 pm

  22. I think I’ll just keep going down your list. The first claim was debunked by the very “evidence” you site. And now, about the 1,500 gallons of chemicals, this is from the WashPost article you site:

    “Boylan said THE SUSPECTED LAB WAS NEW, dating from some time AFTER the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein’s government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. NO SUCH WEAPONS OR FACTORIES WERE FOUND.” (emphasis added)

    Am I going to find the same thing for every other piece of “evidence” you mention? I sure hope not, because that would indicate either a level of disingenousness that is just despicable or a level of carelessness that is unforgivable.

    Comment by MisterMind — May 16, 2006 @ 1:27 pm

  23. About those 17 chemical warheads…

    From the very article you site:

    “Polish troops had been searching for munitions as part of their regular mission in south-central Iraq when they were told by an informant in May that terrorists had made a bid to buy the chemical weapons, WHICH DATE BACK TO SADDAM HUSSEIN’S WAR WITH IRAN IN THE 1980s, Gen. Marek Dukaczewski told reporters in Warsaw…”

    “At the time, OFFICIALS STOPPED SHORT OF CLAIMING THE MUNITION WAS DEFINITE EVIDENCE of a large weapons stockpile in prewar Iraq or evidence of recent production by Saddam’s regime.”

    So we’ve got some 20-year old missiles that officials won’t say indicates “recent production” of WMDs. This is the third debunking in a row. I’m getting very worried for your case. Either post some evidence that actually supports your claims, or stop misleading people, please.

    Comment by MisterMind — May 16, 2006 @ 1:35 pm

  24. #22 and #23 MM:

    You’ve debunked nothing.

    The left’s “Bush Lied” claim is that there were NO WMDs. No qualifiers, no fine print, no discussion as to the status of WMD programs.

    Saddam was required by the various inspection regimes he was under to POSSESS NO WMDs. Any and existing stockpiles were supposed to have been destroyed.

    The WMDs have been found. That’s all that matters, because that’s the Left’s claim, and is independent of any proof relating to the status of WMD development programs.

    Comment by TBlumer — May 16, 2006 @ 1:40 pm

  25. About those “1,000 radioactive materials”…

    These materials were recovered in the EXACT SAME operation as the 1.77 tons of uranium you mention. Your claims about both groups of these materials are debunked by the very press release you site as “evidence.” See comment #21 above.

    Your “linked proof” has completely debunked the first four of your claims. Will the last claim remain your sole evidence of Saddam’s supposed pre-war WMD programs? Or will your claim be debunked by the very articles you site, just like the first four claims?

    Comment by MisterMind — May 16, 2006 @ 1:43 pm

  26. #25, see comment #24 above. You’re changing the subject from “existence of WMDs,” which is the topic of this post (because that’s what the Left’s “Bush Lied” claim is) to active WMD programs (which is an attempt to extend what I’ve said).

    Nice try, no sale. By acknowledging the existence of the WMDs and the media reports about their EXISTENCE, you’re validating this post. Thanks.

    Comment by TBlumer — May 16, 2006 @ 1:57 pm

  27. Tell you what: I’ll grant you the fifth point. We found precisely TWO shells with gas that Saddam should have gotten rid of but didn’t. (Neither of the shells were newly produced, both dating back to pre-Gulf War days.)

    If you ask me, two shells with nerve gas is some pretty slim evidence on which to base a major justification for a war. But that’s just me.

    In reference to your comment #24, you’re right that many on the left have made plenty of statements without qualification, and shame on them for that. That’s exactly what President Bush did to the American people, and it’s one of the things the left has criticized him about for years.

    So how’s this for a nuanced claim: We have found no evidence that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs and thus posed an imminent threat. Can we agree on this?

    Comment by MisterMind — May 16, 2006 @ 2:02 pm

  28. #27, The Administration never claimed that the threat was imminent, despite several MSM attempts to put words in their mouths and pretend that the administration said something it never did. So agreeing that there was no imminent threat is easy, because nobody ever claimed it was.

    And of course you’re not going to find evidence of “reconstituted” WMD programs. Saddam had 6 or so months to take down any evidence of activity, and for that matter to move out a large percentage of his WMDs, while we wasted our time dithering at the UN. The only reason we found anything at all is probably due to lack of efficiency or adequate tracking on Saddam’s part.

    The central question is whether if he had been left alone if he could have reconstituted them quickly (within a few months) after knowing the heat was off. I believe the answer to that is yes.

    Which of course gets back to the central point: If the WMDs existed (which you concede), and if WMD programs could be reconstituted quickly if Saddam were left alone (which I believe is the consensus), and, once reconstituted, they would pose a threat to his neighbors, Israel, and perhaps beyond, BINGO–you have the justification for the war.

    Oh, and he had a clearly stated intent to use whatever WMDs he could develop.

    Comment by TBlumer — May 16, 2006 @ 2:13 pm

  29. First, to address your claim that the administration never said Iraq was an imminenet threat (note that I did not use quotes there), I’ll direct you to this list of DOZENS of statements pressing the urgency of the threat that Iraq supposedly posed:

    http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

    Some highlights:

    “The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.”
    • President Bush, 10/2/02

    “Well, of course he is.”
    • White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

    “Absolutely.”
    • White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03

    And besides, isn’t it strange for you to claim that Iraq did NOT pose an “imminent threat”? If Iraq did not pose an “imminent threat” (as you admit) then why was going to war the only option?

    As to the rest of your argument, you base your claims on the idea that IF Saddam was “left alone” THEN he COULD reconstitute his WMDs quickly. It seems pretty silly to me to claim that Saddam would EVER be “left alone.” We never stopped bombing the guy’s country for ten years; he had weapons inspectors crawling all over the place until Bush decided they’d been there long enough; and the UN (as ineffective as they can often be) was paying attention to Iraq (they just weren’t on Bush’s timetable for war).

    Comment by MisterMind — May 16, 2006 @ 2:26 pm

  30. Damn, this is tiresome. “Imminent” means “about to happen.”

    Bush’s comment doesn’t communicate that.

    Bartlett’s comment is about “a threat to US interests,” which isn’t limited to WMD attacks. It could be intimidations, blockades, or any number of things.

    Fleischer’s is the only outlier, and I don’t know the context. If it was the same as Bartlett’s, big whoop.

    The fact is, after the inspectors were kicked out, and after the Clinton bombing campaign of 1998, we didn’t do any kind of significant bombing except perhaps in the no-fly zone. The rest of the country was left alone. The idea that “we never stopped bombing for 10 years” is absurd.

    Weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 when they had a semblance of a handle on things because cooperation had ground to a halt:
    http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/11/iraq.02/

    Inspectors were allowed into Iraq in 2002, but only as a fig leaf to hold off war during the runup to it. For the most part, Saddam played diversionary games with the inspectors during that time.

    By the time the UN proved that its umpteenth resolution promising to enforce its demands with force were not supported by any willpower, the US had to decide whether to leave Saddam alone or take him out. Leaving him alone at that point would have left him untouchable, a hero in the Arab terorrist world for facing down the Great Satan; kicking out the inspectors would have been an easy formality. He would then have been free to reconstitute his WMD programs without outside interference. Invasion was preferable; a bunch of other countries agreeed.

    Comment by TBlumer — May 16, 2006 @ 2:42 pm

  31. I’m willing to let go of my use of the word imminent (note that I never used quotes when attributing the sentiment to administration officials) because it’s not that important to what I said earlier.

    I’ll modify my claim from post #27 (which sidetracked us onto the “imminent” issue) thus: We have found no evidence that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs. Surely we can agree on this?

    You admit as much when you say that the threat was that Saddam’s WMD programs “could be reconstituted quickly if Saddam were left alone.” But that’s a heck of a lot different than saying that Saddam had WMDs.

    All sides in this debate need to be willing to reconsider their positions, modify them if necessary, and be accurate in what they say. I invite you to do the same.

    Comment by MisterMind — May 16, 2006 @ 3:18 pm

  32. We have found no evidence that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs. Surely we can agree on this?

    Well of course. He was never going to do that until the coast was clear.

    It’s totally separate from whether Saddam had WMDs. The five sources cited indicated that he had them. That’s what this post was all about, and as such this post stands.

    I’ll get less picky about this when I hear Howard Dean, Dianne Feinstein and the rest get more specific with their language. I don’t see it happening. The whole impeachment dream is built around how “Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction.” He simply did not.

    Comment by TBlumer — May 16, 2006 @ 3:29 pm

  33. If we’re being REALLY honest, we could modify your five points that begin this page down to two: the 17 warheads and the 2 roadside bombs. (The other three aren’t WMDs; they’re materials that COULD be used to make WMDs. But then, as you admit, we have no evidence that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD programs.) Also, I think it would be COMPLETELY honest to note with those two bullet points that they’re both dated to pre-Gulf War days.

    We get a very different (and more accurate) picture of WMDs in Iraq when it’s put that way.

    It’s the way you have presented your evidence that I most disagree with. It’s every bit as imprecise and misleading as the left’s claims of “No WMDs” that you (rightly) complain about.

    I understand you’re trying to combat the generalizations and simplifications of the left, but the solution is not to commit the same sins.

    Comment by MisterMind — May 16, 2006 @ 3:41 pm

  34. #33, I’m not conceding that enriched uranium is not a WMD, esp after all the BS over Joe Wilson, Niger, and Valerie Plame.

    The other two you excluded are also considered WMDs by Mr. Miniter who wrote the book, and is the person who originally “presented the evidence.” I would not be in a position to dispute his classification, and you are the first person to try to dispute the classification, which appears to be nitpicking at an absurd level. I would question whether you are more expert than Mr. Miniter.

    Comment by TBlumer — May 16, 2006 @ 4:03 pm

  35. Granting you that point (which seems to me to be an important distinction), plus four of your five bullet points (one of which was post-Saddam and therefore irrelevant) then at least we can agree that the number of WMDs (or at least potentially WMD-related materials) that we’ve discovered in Iraq has turned out to be much less than what we were all led to believe we’d find, right?

    I’d like to build on the common ground we’ve found so far. (We already agree that SOME WMDs have been found in Iraq, but that NONE of those suggest Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs.)

    Comment by MisterMind — May 16, 2006 @ 4:23 pm

  36. #35, ah, but you didn’t get as far as you needed to in my comment 2 — disprove them all or the central premise of this post, that the claim of “No WMDs” is a lie, stands.

    If we discovered less, it’s because, as noted before, he had 6 or so months to move them. And again, it is outside the scope of this post, which was to show that the claim of “No WMDs” is a lie, and the central point of this post stands.

    And of course, we haven’t even tried to get into the 1998 claims of various folks in the Clinton Administration who said exactly what the Bush Admin said about the presence of WMD, all of which would bolster the claim that they went elsewhere while the UN dithered.

    And this post never claimed that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs, only that he could do so very quickly once the coast was clear.

    The next person who thinks he has “disproven” one, two, three, or four, will be told “no posting until you think you’ve knocked down all 5; don’t come around until you have,” as comment 2 originally intended. It will save me future grief and diversion.

    But it was a useful exercise in reconstructing the case for the war, which remains as valid now as it was then.

    Comment by TBlumer — May 16, 2006 @ 5:47 pm

  37. I was hoping we could find our way to some more common ground, but it seems from your last post (36) that you’re not very interested in doing that, only in winning a minor point in the argument.

    I at the very least hope that you’ll remove the “1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents” from your list, since (as the Washington Post article you cite as evidence indicates) they were post-Saddam.

    Demand honesty of others, and demand it of yourself in turn.

    Comment by MisterMind — May 17, 2006 @ 3:49 pm

  38. #37, Before I budge, I will wait and see what Mr. Miniter has to say on all of this. I have been in contact with him and asked him to weigh in here, which I believe he’ll be able to do within about a week.

    Comment by TBlumer — May 17, 2006 @ 4:11 pm

  39. I’ll check back. Thanks for your willingness to reconsider.

    Comment by MisterMind — May 17, 2006 @ 4:16 pm

  40. [...] s (here’s a fellow blogger with a well-documented list as to what we’ve found: WMDs found in Iraq) and you can’t say he lied when we have uncovered Saddam’s documen [...]

    Pingback by Steve the Pirate » Blog Archive » It’s Our Fault? — May 30, 2006 @ 8:48 am

  41. There are no WMDs… in Liberal fantasyland

    Over and over, we keep finding proof that Saddam DID still have weapons of mass destruction (the new declassified fax is here), he DID have ties to al Qaeda, and Bush’s policy in Iraq is winning, not losing. It seems that the Left, for all its claims…

    Trackback by reverse_vampyr — June 22, 2006 @ 2:14 pm

  42. Hey bud, try reading your post before posting it. Either than being a clear right wing hysteria monger you should also have the basic wherewithal to realize a couple flaws in your argument. #1 there’s no valid link to your so called enriched uranium news story, so i can only assume it doesn’t exist. #2, your next link on chemical weapons says right in the story that the facility that was found was set up AFTER the illegal invasion of us forces:

    “….the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein’s government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. NO SUCH WAPONS OR FACTORIES WERE FOUND.”

    Try to be not too ‘sick and bleeping tired’ to read your information before actually posting it. you’ll make yourself look a lot better. And perhaps more convincing. If you’re going to run a site based on lies, being convincing should be prime concern of yours.

    Comment by odiyya — July 31, 2006 @ 5:43 pm

  43. #42, there was a valid link to the enriched uranium story (first item). In case it moved, I saved the content, and I have changed the link accordingly:
    http://www.bizzyblog.com/DOEuranium_jul08_04.html

    I have also replaced the link in the original post because of that. Thanks for pointing it out. :–>

    Re the 2nd item, I am willing to concede that the LAB was new, but NOT the chemicals. And even if the chemicals are new, they were manufactured with capabilities that existed before the invasion and were carried over into the insurgency.

    In typical MSM misreporting, The WaPo piece deliberately misstates what the administration claimed. The admin DID NOT claim that manufacturing was currently taking place, only that manfacturing capability existed, and that it could be ramped up quickly. Sorry — WaPo is wrong, and you are mistaken in relying on it.

    I stand by what I have posted, and have seen no reason to back off in the 9 months it has been up. And to refute it, you have to refute EVERY story supplied, because the claim of The Left is that *there were NO WMD*. That claim is patently false.

    You now look very foolish accusing me of *running a site based on lies*, I would say. An *I was wrong, I am sorry* would be appropriate.

    Comment by TBlumer — August 1, 2006 @ 9:32 am

  44. TB, why even respond to someone who says “illegal invasion”? No real reason to go any further as they obviously are clueless and will offer no fact-based arguments, only emotional-based brainless ones.

    Comment by kevin — August 6, 2006 @ 8:02 am

  45. #44, Oh, I had to respond to the substantive complaint that a link didn’t work (because it had been moved), and let him now that I had saved the content and linked to what I had saved. Then I felt the need to debunk what WaPo said at the second item, which I hadn’t done before. Otherwise you are right about the nature of the comment.

    Comment by TBlumer — August 6, 2006 @ 12:52 pm

  46. With regards to the nuclear material found:

    The 1.77 tons of uranium had been kept under IAEA seals in a known location since 1991. The IAEA site says this about the material:

    “Most of the nuclear and other radioactive material at Iraq’s Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Centre is stored near the main complex in the three buildings which are known as “Location C.” It contains nuclear material, covered by Iraq’s Safeguards Agreement under the NPT, that the Agency was not required by the U.N. Security Council to remove after the Gulf war in 1991 because it could not be used directly for nuclear weapons purposes.”

    In short – it was so non-threatening that it was not required to be removed from Iraq by the inspectors.

    And the 1000 radioactive sources that you choose to describe as ‘in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas’ – the very link you provide says this: ‘They had been used in Iraq for a range of medical and industrial purposes, such as testing oil wells and pipelines. ‘ I think the suggestion that these were in some way ready for terrorist use is entirely your own fabrication.

    Comment by Brennan — August 12, 2006 @ 6:48 pm

  47. Even if I acknowledge that you may be right on these two items (I do not believe Mr. Miniter would, so I will not until you convince him) you still have the other 3, the Santorum-Hoekstra items, and the translated docs covered in subsequent posts to refute.

    Based on my *rules*, (only full refutations allowed, I should not even have let your post through. But I am feeling generous today. :–>

    Comment by TBlumer — August 12, 2006 @ 7:12 pm

  48. 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents: From a lab that post-dates the invasion, the spokesman who announced this said “the materials did not appear to be linked to Saddam Hussein’s ousted regime.” from http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/13/224902.shtml – it also goes on to describe a number of other places where post-invasion CW factories had been found.

    The 17 Cyclosarin shells? 2 of them tested positve for Sarin “Due to the deteriorated state of the rounds and small quantity of remaining agent, these rounds were determined to have limited to no impact if used by insurgents ”

    “The source led Soldiers to 16 more 122mm rockets over a period from June 23 – 26, 2004. Those 16 rounds were all EMPTY (my emphasis) and tested negative for any type of chemicals. ” From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/07/mil-040702-centcom01.htm

    As to the IEDs – as with the example above – and the Hoeskstre/Santorum claims, these were all discardeed relics from before 1991. All these old munitions do not constitute evidence of the Iraqi military having stockpiles of WMD. The ISG itself said that it was not surprised that finds of old weapons keep turning up. These do not count as Iraqi WMD for a couple of reasons: 1) They are all past their sell by date (sure they may be toxic but then so is the ant-spray in your shed) 2)The Iraqi military didn’t even know of their existence: the ISG concluded after all that Iraq had “unilaterlly destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991″. These piecemeal finds of lost, misplaced and abandoned munitions from the Iran/Iraq war are litter not WMDs.

    Comment by Brennan — August 12, 2006 @ 8:38 pm

  49. You, sir, are trying to move the goalposts by changing the topic to “stockpiles of WMDs.” Not around here. Sorry, the claim on the left was, has been, and still is NO WMDs (zero, zip, nada), and these items, though perhaps from your perspective not impressive in quantity or sufficiently pristine in quality, are nevertheless WMDs.

    Game: above.
    Tell Miniter these aren’t WMDs. He would disagree.

    Set: Santorum-Hoekstra:
    http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=2457

    S-H revelations are anything but harmless items:
    http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=2502
    http://www.radioblogger.com/archives/june06.html#001709

    Match: Docs revealing shipments of WMDs to Syria:
    http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014835.php
    http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=2698

    The arguments have got you coming, going, and everywhere in between. Game, over.

    Comment by TBlumer — August 13, 2006 @ 2:48 am

  50. So weapons the Iraqis didn’t know were there count as Iraqi WMD?

    Ok hows about we start by pointing out that Senator Santorum admits in your third (new) link that “75% of these 500 or so weapons were in fact filled”. Why then did he, and subsequently you, claim there were 500 CW weapons when in fact there were only 375? Anything to conflate the figures eh? I notice that he pointedly refuses to comment on how large these ‘stashes’ of weapons are – but given what we have seen of the cyclosarin finds it would seem that many of these ‘stashes’ consist of just a handful of rusty old shells – perfectly consistent with them being lost items.

    New source #4 (did you even check these?) The ‘document’ in question comes not from the Iraqi or Syrian military but in fact from an opposition group based in Syria. It is pure hearsay and supposition (from a questionable source) and contains zero factual material.

    Link #5 appears to redirect to the same material as #4.

    Tell you what, I will happily agree that there were a few old chemical weapons shells lying around Iraq if you will agree that the Iraqis didn’t even know they were there. (Some threat to the civilised world that is).

    Desperate attempts to claim that Iraqi weapons were diverted to Syria will be ignored until you provide evidence.

    Comment by Brennan — August 13, 2006 @ 8:11 am

  51. #50, So weapons..?

    You do not know that.

    Santorum and the 500 v. 375. I feel so much better knowing that the number of FILLED shells is lower. 375 is 75 handsful, at least on my hands.

    The Syrian doc in question was found as Project Harmony, which relates to translating *documents captured in Afghanistan or Iraq during Operations Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Iraqi Freedom* –

    HERE

    The fact that they were captured in (most likely) Iraq is evidence that Iraq was concerned with what was known.

    Since we are on PH, I will throw this in too, to show how active chem production plans were:
    http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007412.php

    I concede nothing, and the desperation is all yours.

    Comment by TBlumer — August 13, 2006 @ 11:49 am

  52. Hey Brennan:

    You just spared me the grief of even thinking about dealing with your latest comment.

    You have no credibility if you argue that there have been 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq:
    http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/

    That debunked *estimate* was watered down to 8,000 to 30,000.

    The Iraq Body Count reports a current range of 40,000 – 44,600:

    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

    Even to buy into that number, you have to abdicate any and all notion of who is responsible for civilian deaths: Is it our troops for just being there, or suicide bombers/cowards who have turned to killing civilians (and using them as human shields) because getting at our guys has become less and less successful? Doh. If we pulled out today, would those deaths stop? Nope. Then it is obvious we are almost never responsible, even indirectly, for them.
    You poor lost soul — perhaps you are confusing that 100,000 with the approximate number of additional people Saddam and his regime would have killed had we not invaded (that would 30,000 per year at roughly his previous rate).

    Per AP in 2003, the number believed murdered by Saddam and his regime is *at least 300,000.*
    Another Mass Grave Found in Iraq

    None of your WMD arguments are deserving of any further exposure here. So I am enforcing the *complete refutation* requirement I should have enforced at the start, because even giving ALL of your arguments the benefits of the doubt (ROTFLMAO), you are STILL not there.

    Comment by TBlumer — August 13, 2006 @ 1:31 pm

  53. God Bless ya Tblumer…finally, someone with the brains to do what I didn’t….keep the proof while it was available…not realizing the lefty loonies would actually try to deny it later.

    Comment by Lyn Beckwith — September 25, 2006 @ 9:47 pm

  54. #53, thanks. It would be nice to do it as a routine thing, but that would be a time-consuming pain. I try to limit it to the really contentious stuff like what’s in this post.

    One thing I HAVE learned: NEVER use Yahoo! news as a link if you think it has long-term significance of any kind. They always remove their material within a few months.

    Comment by TBlumer — September 25, 2006 @ 10:21 pm

  55. Well, I seem to be late for the joust… however…

    President Bush’s dilemma was, after more than a dozen UN Resolutions and 12 years, shall the USA and whatever allies remove Saddam Hussein from power?

    The President’s words were, we don’t know if Saddam Hussein has a nuclear weapon, and we don’t want the first clear evidence to be a mushroom cloud that destroys a city.

    Saddam Hussein projected the image of having WMDs and wanting more WMDs, especially nuclear.

    Saddam Hussein presented as a willing nuke buyer and a willing nuke user in a region that has willing nuke sellers and willing nuke proliferators.

    Bush faced not a trifecta but a five-fecta:

    1. 9/11
    2. Pakistan nuclear capability
    3. North Korea known nuclear activity
    4. China known nuclear proliferation
    5. Iran known nuclear activity

    Bush’s decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq allowed U.S. and Coalition forces to:

    1. Take down Saddam Hussein as a state actor and kleptocrat.
    2. Enlist Pakistan in the war on terror as an ally.
    3. Contain Iran by placing forces to the east and west at the same time.
    4. Announce the penalties for defying the U.S. as Saddam Hussein has done.
    5. Better seek out al-Qaeda members by acting on two fronts and removing potential safe havens.
    6. Search for and remove WMDs (these include the long-range missiles, dual-use factories, technical knowledge of WMD generation, and so forth).
    7. Reveal and collapse the phony U.N. Oil-For-Food scam.
    8. End the suffering of the Iraqi people caused by Saddam Hussein and the sanctions.
    9. Explore the concept of a democratic Iraq.
    10. Rebuild the crushed infrastructure of Iraq.

    Certainly these 10 goals were part of the administration’s punchlist. These are good and worthy goals and I believe these were mostly laid out for the U.S. public.

    The Democrats have rolled out phony arguments – “no WMDs were found,” and “Bush lied about WMDs” that have no bearing on the situation at hand.

    Which action better serves the U.S. – leaving Saddam Hussein in power indefinitely, or taking him down now?

    Taking down Saddam Hussein was much more defensible than leaving him in power where he might cause a problem.

    Allowing more carnage, more suffering, and more riches to go to Saddam Hussein has no upside.

    Best wishes, folks…

    Comment by Jesse McKay — January 9, 2007 @ 9:18 am

  56. #55, Good analysis. I’ll remember this, and may be referring to it later. Thanks

    Comment by TBlumer — January 9, 2007 @ 9:52 am

  57. Commander in Chief
    Responsible for Budget Size Structure/organization/readiness Basing Mission Use Budget How much is enough? Too much? What sends the budget up? And down? What to spend for? Size How many divisions, ships, planes Of what kinds? Structure/The force mix The services; the varied functions Active, Reserve Basing How many here at home? And abroad—from S. Korea to Europe to the Middle East Mission—What are forces for? From humanitarian relief to peace keeping, to prevention, to fighting Continuing questions— Whether to intervene and why? What are our interests How to intervenue? Economically, politically, militarily Alone or in alliance? Covertly or overtly? By air, sea, land? When to intervene? Early or too late? And a word about intelligence

    This past November the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated that was a mandate from the people on the Bush Admistrations handling of Iraq. With the 08 Presidential Elections coming up many of the candidates have made it openly to question the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq, saying that it was a mistake based on faulty assumption that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

    Contrary to ongoing reports by mainstream media outlets, WMDs have been found in Iraq, Consider these shocking facts: Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas Found: 1,000 radioactive materials–ideal for radioactive dirty bombs Found: 17 chemical warheads–some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin.

    At the end of the Gulf War the last war that was etherized by Congress that the war ended when Iraq under Sad am agreed to disarm and destroy his WMD’s program and destroy all WMD weapons and this would be supervised by a United Nations inspectors. Sad am would let them in and kick them out and let them in. And how many United Nations Resolutions were broken.

    Know the United Nations is at the same time is running a program called Oil for Food that the United Nations would sell Iraqi Oil for Food that these proceeds were to go to the people of Iraq. The United Nations makes a another resolution that the use of force would be etherized by the United Nations. Turn back the clock to Secretary of State Collin Powell brought all this information of Iraqis WMD program. But France ;Germany and Russia all opposed the use of force that they once agreed to enforce.

    Then it came out the Oil for Food scandal that raise that Sad am was giving kick back to France; Germany and Russia. So they are not about to support a resolution that they once supported and all it would of taken is one of them to vote no and the resolution would not make it in front of the whole United Nations.

    H.R.4655, Iraq Liberation Act
    Al Qaeda announced after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States that it was looking into acquiring biological, radiological and chemical weapons. We have Iraq with Sad am Husan who used WMD’s against the Iraqi people. During the Gulf War they may or may not of used them but there is also a large number of Gulf War Veterans that have come down with the so called Gulf War Illness.

    At the end of the Gulf War the last war that was etherized by Congress that the war ended when Iraq under Sad am agreed to disarm and destroy his WMD’s program and destroy all WMD weapons and this would be supervised by a United Nations inspectors. Sad am would let them in and kick them out and let them in. And how many United Nations Resolutions were broken.

    Know the United Nations is at the same time is running a program called Oil for Food that the United Nations would sell Iraqi Oil for Food that these proceeds were to go to the people of Iraq. The United Nations makes a another resolution that the use of force would be etherized by the United Nations. Turn back the clock to Secretary of State Collin Powell brought all this information of Iraqis WMD program. But France ;Germany and Russia all opposed the use of force that they once agreed to enforce.

    Then it came out the Oil for Food scandal that raise that Sad am was giving kick back to France; Germany and Russia. So they are not about to support a resolution that they once supported and all it would of taken is one of them to vote no and the resolution would not make it in front of the whole

    But the mounting evidence of scandal that has been uncovered in the U.N. Oil For Food program suggests that there was never a serious possibility of getting Security Council support for military action because influential people in Russia and France were getting paid off by Saddam. After the fall of Baghdad last spring, France and Russia tried to delay the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and continue the Oil for Food program. That’s because France and Russia profited from it: The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003.

    Iraqi oil to pay for food and medicine for the Iraqi people, who were suffering due to sanctions. Instead, vouchers were doled out as gifts or as payment for goods imported into the country in violation of U.N. sanctions. The recipient would then turn the voucher over to one of a number of firms operating in the United Arab Emirates, in exchange for commissions ranging anywhere from 5 cents to 30 cents per barrel, depending on market conditions. (This translates into a profit of $50,000 on the low end and $300,000 on the high end for every 1 million barrels worth of oil vouchers.)

    The beneficiary list (found in the archives of the Iraqi Oil Ministry and translated into English by the Middle East Media Research Institute) should be deeply embarrassing to many prominent people. In the United States, those listed include Iraqi American businessman Shaker Al-Khaffaji, who put up $400,000 to produce a film by ex-U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, which aimed to discredit weapons inspections in Iraq.

    Contrary to ongoing reports by mainstream media outlets, WMDs have been found in Iraq, Consider these shocking facts: Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas Found: 1,000 radioactive materials–ideal for radioactive dirty bombs Found: 17 chemical warheads–some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin.

    With the 08 Presidential Elections coming up many of the candidates have made it openly to question the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq, saying that it was a mistake based on faulty assumption that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Much of the information was also based on information that the Clinton Administration had. So did this so called conspiracy start with Bush. – President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 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 Securiity 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 Sens. 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 invigorated 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.” But was Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi given false information December 16, 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.” The speaker of the House must of made this comments based on false information but how could of this of happened Clinton was President at that time.

    SADDAM HUSSEIN’S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons. The Iraqi regime suspended its support–temporarily, it seems–after high-profile kidnappings, including of Americans, focused international attention on the terrorist group.

    Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 – Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

    Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.
    Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President’s criteria. Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

    Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq’s transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq’s foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime.

    (1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
    (2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.

    (3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.
    (4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait’s oil wells ablaze upon retreat.
    (5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
    (6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.
    (7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.
    (8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.
    (9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
    (10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
    (11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.’.
    (12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.

    It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

    Consistent with section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138), House Concurrent Resolution 137, 105th Congress (approved by the House of Representatives on November 13, 1997), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, 105th Congress (approved by the Senate on March 13, 1998), the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

    With the 08 Presidental Elections coming up many of the candidates have made it openly to question the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq, saying that it was a mistake based on faulty assumption that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Much of the information was also based on information that the Clinton Administration had. So did this so called conspiracy start with Bush.

    But was Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi given false information December 16, 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.” The speaker of the House must of made this comments based on false information but how could of this of happened Clinton was President at that time.

    Gen. David H. Petraeus was just overwhelming confirmed by the Senate to take over as Commander in Iraq. But the same pollutions that commended him are apposed to his battle plans.

    Since the start of start of Operation Iraqi Freedom many have made the statements that this is another Vietnam. In many ways this is more true since know it is politically correct to have 535 Commanders and Chiefs. If Americas military has been micro managed its going to get even worse with today’s politics.

    More Hypocrisy With all of this hard evidence, why are the liberals still calling President Bush a liar? ANSWER: They want him out of Washington, and they don’t care how dirty they have to play to get it done. They’ll gladly compromise the safety of our troops AND the citizens at home (that would be you and me) to accomplish their goal. Maybe it’s just me… but compromising the safety of our nation to satisfy a political agenda seems just a bit like treason.

    Pollutions need to stop playing with the military like pons in chest and let them due their jobs with out having their hands tied. Yes this could be just like Vietnam that we win all the battles and lose the war

    Comment by Dennis G Beaudoin Jr — February 26, 2007 @ 8:16 pm

  58. #57 Dennis, I violated my self-determined “no long posts” rule to make sure your info is captured here for posterity. Thank you.

    Comment by TBlumer — February 26, 2007 @ 8:48 pm

  59. If Iraq actually had these weapons, why in Allah’s name didn’t they use them against the U.S.

    What of the nuclear warhead equipped missiles trained on Europe that could arrive there in minutes? I haven’t heard, or read of any evidence that they actually existed. Most of this stuff (if it actually existed at all) is obsolete WWII vintage material.

    I suppose the terrorists got what they wanted….Terrified Americans.

    Comment by Gumby — March 18, 2007 @ 5:51 pm

  60. #59, after all the evidence presented here, going back to the mid- and late-1990s and attested to by Dems and GOP, libs and conservatives, that is a pretty weak straw man argument.

    Nobody claimed Iraq had working nukes, only that they had been working on them, and could rapidly resume doing so if the threat of invasion went away. That has not been disproven.

    The items presented here have never been debunked. There have only been attempts to minimize their significance by people who really do not know that such is the case, and who in my opinion have failed to prove their case.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 18, 2007 @ 5:58 pm

  61. You said: “Nobody claimed Iraq had working nukes,…”

    It was implied. Don’t forget “Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” and the rest of that silly, silly speech

    What evidence or lack thereof would convince you that Iraq had not been working on nukes?

    Why do you suppose Iraq did not use all these WMD against Coalition forces?

    I fail to see any logic here?

    Comment by Gumby — March 18, 2007 @ 11:33 pm

  62. #61, Nobody “implied” that Iraq had working nukes either. Working on them or able to resume work on them? Yes. Actually operational? No one was even in the same zip code as that claim.

    The fear of being blown back into the 7th century had they used any of them would have been relevant to a decision by Saddam not to use whatever WMDs might have been available. Instead it would appear that Saddam, hoping vainly that an insurgency might put him back in power someday, shipped many of them to Syria while Colin Powell made his futile case to the UN and lost us at least 4 months.

    The “silly speech” you referred to, was, in essence, a rehash of speeches made in 1998 through 2002 by members of both parties. There’s a contingent of hundreds of “sillies,” and it’s incredibly stupid to single out one and pretend the others never existed.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 19, 2007 @ 12:27 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.