« Mum's The Word | Main | Justice delayed, but not denied »

WMD In Iraq

One day the story of WMD in Iraq will be known, at least partially. For now, the information is coming out in bits and pieces. Bottom line -- those who said there was no WMD in Iraq were wrong. (Using the definition and standard they set for President Bush, I guess that means they were lying, right?)

Jay at Stop the ACLU has a great roundup of blogosphere reaction to the latest from Pete Hoekstra and Rick Santorum:

U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, joined Congressman Peter Hoekstra, (R-MI-2), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, today to make a major announcement regarding the release of newly declassified information that proves the existence of chemical munitions in Iraq since 2003. The information was released by the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, and contained an unclassified summary of analysis conducted by the National Ground Intelligence Center. In March, Senator Santorum began advocating for the release of these documents to the American public.

"The information released today proves that weapons of mass destruction are, in fact, in Iraq," said Senator Santorum. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq. I will continue to advocate for the complete declassification of this report so we can more fully understand the complete WMD picture inside Iraq."

The following are the six key points contained in the unclassified overview:

• Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

• Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.

• Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for Coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out.

• The most likely munitions remaining are sarin and mustard-filled projectiles.

• The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.

• It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.

I have not checked in at the major liberal blogs to get reaction. My guess is that the conventional wisdom is still that Bush lied about WMD and that there was none in Iraq. (I will update later if I find this not to be the case.) What I find absolutely amazing is that many of those who believe Bush had something to do with the Twin Towers collapsing and who believe that John Kerry really won in Ohio find it impossible to believe that Saddam had WMD -- even though Bill Clinton, the UN, France and dozens of Democrat politicians said he did over and over again.

Over two years ago, I found Ken Timmerman's report of WMD found in Iraq quite compelling, but no one ever seemed to pay much attention to it. (Be sure to read it if you aren't already familiar with it .) Maybe eventually all the information found will be compiled and we will have a comprehensive picture of everything that has been found. Maybe the media will even decide to report it.

UPDATE: From A Real Ugly American (via Flopping Aces' excellent, must read post):

General Tom Mcinerney is reporting on Fox Hannity and Colmes right now that that the administration has been keeping this low profile to avoid exposing 3 of the 5 members of the UN Security council; Russia, China, and France. McInerney says these weapons will be traced to these countries, and asserts it is well known that Russia helped Saddam move most of his WMD stockpiles out of Iraq before the war.
I have on several occasions speculated about why the President would not be touting the information we have about WMD found in Iraq and had come to a similar conclusion. My theory was that if the public knew that certain other countries had been involved with moving WMD, they would demand action that we did not want to, or were not able to, take.

Check out Pajamas Media's WMD Files for previous blogging on the subject. Just for the record, I never doubted.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WMD In Iraq:

» Flopping Aces linked with Didn’t The Democrats Say There Was No WMD?

» Church and State linked with Will Lib's Take Their Words Back?

» Oblogatory Anecdotes linked with Report: Hundred's of WMD's Found In Iraq.

» Danny Carlton -- alias "Jack Lewis" linked with Even more MWD found in Iraq

» Assorted Babble by Suzie linked with WMD in Iraq Documents Prove it

» Radioactive Liberty linked with WMD in Iraq

» reverse_vampyr linked with There are no WMDs... in Liberal fantasyland

Comments (456)

Don't expect much of a reac... (Below threshold)
wave_man:

Don't expect much of a reaction from the left. After all, we've been told thousands of times that Bush lied, there are no WMDs. It's been said so many times, it's now true, right?

A few hundred shells != a W... (Below threshold)

A few hundred shells != a WMD program that was ongoing and being re-constituted. I am by no means a member of Team Lefty, but you can't point to a few hundred shells as a proper justification for making the WMD claim.

Are they Chemical weapons, yes, but this is not the level of WMD we were told about. You need to be honest with yourselves and say does this rise to the level of WMD acceptable to go to war for (yes I know WMD wasn't the only reason we went to Iraq, but its the Administrations fault for making it appear to be the primary one) and because of that, when stockpiles are not found, when operational centrifuges, mobile weapons labs, and drones equiped to delver airial agents are still not discovered, it doesn't bolster your position to play the WMD card.

This focus on WMDs is conti... (Below threshold)
McCain:

This focus on WMDs is continuing to confound me. The war is right whether or not we were lied to, whether or not some facts were wrong, and whether or not it is more difficult than some expected.

The war is right because a dictator who is responsible for so much carnage in the world (some 2,000,000 dead) was removed from power. And as a correlary benefit, we have a historic opportunity to spread freedom and democracy in the world. The spread of democracy will eventually mean the end of war, since democracies never war against each other.

The suffering inflicted by Saddam Hussein on mankind were almost entirely from bullets of mass destruction. So some Senator grasping for attention announces that old WMDs were found? Okay duh, but it does not matter in the final analysis, and I thought we already knew it. Focus on this issue entirely misses the morality of our historic effort.

Gabriel,Move the g... (Below threshold)
JB:

Gabriel,

Move the goal posts any way you want. The "Saddam had no WMD" meme is officially dead.

Pre-1991 remnants = WMDs?</... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Pre-1991 remnants = WMDs?

Nope.

You guys are getting desperate. What a pleasure to watch the conservative movement self-destruct hip-deep in your own spew of mis-informationl.

Huzzah! and good riddance.

"Okay duh, but it does not ... (Below threshold)
JB:

"Okay duh, but it does not matter in the final analysis, and I thought we already knew it. Focus on this issue entirely misses the morality of our historic effort."

Huh? The only ones who miss "the morality" of this effort are the same crowd who think BushLied (tm).

Downplaying this plays right into their hands.

Quashing their potential "BushLied about Iraq, how can we trust him on Iran?" meme is priority A-1 at the moment.

Ah, yes. One half of the li... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Ah, yes. One half of the liberal template is that Bush is incredibly dumb and incompetant, yet he can steal two elections and con the entie world into believing that Saddam had WMD, thus leading the USA into a war for oil and Hailburton.

The other half is sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "lalalalala I can't hear you because you're stupid and I don't want to even consider a damn word you say lalalalala!"

Makes perfect sense to a dunderheaded Kossite.

Lee, your schtick is so 2004. You need new material, dude.

Gabriel Chapman at June 22,... (Below threshold)
wave_man:

Gabriel Chapman at June 22, 2006 12:56 AM

A few hundred shells != a WMD program that was ongoing and being re-constituted. I am by no means a member of Team Lefty, but you can't point to a few hundred shells as a proper justification for making the WMD claim.

Ok, pulled from the above mentioned FloppingAces post:

Let's see...assuming each projectile is equivalent to a 155-mm GB (Sarin) round uploaded with 6.5 pounds of GB, that would be approximately 1477 kg (1.6 tons) of GB Agent. The LD50 for Sarin is about 100 mg percutaneous per 70 kg man, for a total of 14,770,000 lethal doses to the skin, at 50% fatality. That's more than enough Sarin to kill 7,385,000 people, or the population of Los Angeles, Chicago AND Houston.

How much WMD constitutes WMDs to you people? I suspect your answer would come out like Dr. Evil looking over his shoulder at Number Two... One [pause] Hundred [pause] Bill-ion [pause] Tons! as Number Two nods his approval.

The. left. lied. By their own standard.

HAHAHAHAHA! So true Big Mo!... (Below threshold)
ANGELA:

HAHAHAHAHA! So true Big Mo! It seems more like the left is drowning in its own stupidity and are already on high alert to cover it up! I have checked all major online papers, NYTimes, LA Times, ect. NOTHING ON THE WMD'S. If its not that significant, they would be all over themselves to say so. Their silence is our pleasure. However I see plenty in the blogs and on Fox News. Hee Hee. Can't wait to see what the idiot John Kerry says! oh wait I already know! "I belived Saddam had WMD's before I didn't believe it". HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ask the Kurds what they thi... (Below threshold)
jeff1999:

Ask the Kurds what they think of the argument that these shells aren't dangerous.

Sorry JB, what Santorum ann... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Sorry JB, what Santorum announced isn't that exciting. They are some old weapons lying around. We've seen reports about them already, a shell here, a stash there. Fine, okay, be happy I guess, but they matter not to righteousness of our heroic effort.

I really don't give a rats ass about quashing anyone's partisan political points. I'll leave that pointless activity to the knee-jerk party people. Liberalism is a mental disorder, so I'm not sure that refuting their foolishness is a reasonable use of time.

If this were news, by the way, it wouldn't be Rick Santorum announcing it.

Umm, it wasn't just him. It... (Below threshold)
ANGELA:

Umm, it wasn't just him. It broke on the Sean Hannity radio show.

What's news is that it look... (Below threshold)
Lee:

What's news is that it looks like Santorum and... what's his name -- themselves don't believe what they were saying -- that they know it's a lie. You could hear their lips smacking from their nervousness.

I wonder if George will give them a cookie for their performance.

Oh -- Sean Hannity's radio ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Oh -- Sean Hannity's radio show? That makes it legitimate?

Man, are you guys well trained....

It seems more like the l... (Below threshold)
mantis:

It seems more like the left is drowning in its own stupidity and are already on high alert to cover it up! I have checked all major online papers, NYTimes, LA Times, ect. NOTHING ON THE WMD'S.

Well, you missed the Washington Post:

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.

...

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

You remember the Deulfer Report, right?

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

Lol, some guy didn't just c... (Below threshold)
ANGELA:

Lol, some guy didn't just come on his show you moron. It was news. Breaking news.

McCain, above, states: ... (Below threshold)
ted:

McCain, above, states: This focus on WMDs is continuing to confound me. The war is right whether or not we were lied to, whether or not some facts were wrong, and whether or not it is more difficult than some expected.

McCain, you are correct that the war is right either way. However, the focus on the WMDs IS part of the War Against the Dems (and the MSM), which IS a crucial part of the Global War On Terrorism!

Yes Mantis, The Washington ... (Below threshold)
ANGELA:

Yes Mantis, The Washington Post does have it, I stand corrected. HOWEVER, you have to SEARCH for the damn article. It is by no means a top story in their piece of trash paper.

Lorie B, I reread your "jus... (Below threshold)
ted:

Lorie B, I reread your "just for the record", above, from polipundit, and I never doubted your keen observation, then and now! You are always right on!

You DON'T need TO search, i... (Below threshold)
MANTIS:

You DON'T need TO search, it's on the front PAGE.

Hey, randomly typing words wasn't as fun as it looked. Guess you have to be crazy.

Mantis, most of these weapo... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Mantis, most of these weapons were discovered after the Deufler report was issued. The declassified report Santorum was talking about were about weapons discovered after May 2004 thru now. The Deufler report was issued in September 2004 so it is mostly irrelevant. These weapons still aren't very important, but at least come to the table with facts rather than your cute liberal disinformation.

Here is the Santorum doc:
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/NEGRPONTELETTER.pdf

Remember the SIX MONTHS it ... (Below threshold)

Remember the SIX MONTHS it took for the U.S. to get a UN go-ahead for Gulf War Part II? Do you really think Saddam didn't use them to hide WMD's? Wanna buy a bridge?

"The burden of proof was on Saddam, not the United States. George Bush did not have the burden of proving that Saddam [still] had WMDs. Saddam Hussein had the burden of proving he didn't have them [any more]. Saddam failed to meet the burden of proof ... and paid the price." -- Neal Boortz

It doesn't matter when the ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

It doesn't matter when the WMD was made. It was there and the U.N. and it's million dollar inspectors didn't find it. What else didn't they find? I'll bet they found lots and lots of money when the left. Someone probably stuffed it in their luggage while they were out and they didn't see it.. Every day the U.N proves to be more and more of a joke.

I expect the airways to be fully of apologies tomorrow. Several hundred democrats should sit down for a full serving of crow, and then go jump off the tallest building in D.C. They are a sham and a disgrace to the country.

Now everyone should demand the release of everything the CIA is hiding to protect the U.N., (our enemies) Germany, France, Russia, China and evidently the hapless CIA themselves. Time to level with the American people, or was this supposed to be an october surpri'z'e?

Just noticed this hilarious... (Below threshold)
AJR:

Just noticed this hilarious site because of a search on the Santorum "news".
You have GOT to be kidding. If you're going to tout 15 year old degraded sarin shells as the reason to spend 2500 lives....20,000 limbs and assorted body parts...tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis...and likely a trillion dollars...you will be known forever as the most desperate partisans in history.
Never mind...you've got that designation sewn up.

Wow. You people are genuine... (Below threshold)
grh:

Wow. You people are genuinely insane.

On the one hand it's terrifying, but on the other, I assume part of America has always been this nuts, and the internet has just made you more visible.

AJR, again, the WMD issue i... (Below threshold)
ted:

AJR, again, the WMD issue is NOT for the importance of the War in Iraq or Global War on Terrorism (which would have been correct either way for other reasons), but the WMD issue IS imporant in the War Againts the Dems (and the MSM) since the Dems and the MSM are allies and supporters of the enemies of the USA in the GWOT!

Mantis, most of these we... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Mantis, most of these weapons were discovered after the Deufler report was issued.

How do you know that?

The declassified report Santorum was talking about were about weapons discovered after May 2004 thru now. The Deufler report was issued in September 2004 so it is mostly irrelevant.

Ah, I see. You know they didn't find these weapons before September 2004. How, exactly?

These weapons still aren't very important, but at least come to the table with facts rather than your cute liberal disinformation.

Which part was disinformation? The ISG acknowledged finding some abandoned, pre-1991 chemical munitions. They also note that they didn't look at everything and that more would probably be found. So maybe these were already seen by the ISG, maybe they were found afterwards. Either way...oh I'll just let Fox News tell it:

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Well Mantis just how many s... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Well Mantis just how many sarin-filled artillery shell does it take to count as a WMD? 501? 1000? Or a million? And if Saddam unilaterally destroyed his stockpiles why did they find FIVE HUNDRED ROUNDS of this stuff?

What is this Mantis? The IS... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

What is this Mantis? The ISG acknowledged finding pre-gulf war chemical munitions? I thought there were no WMD,NONE AT ALL! BUSH LIED US INTO WAR!!! Now you tell me there were WMD after all,and everybody already knew it because of the Duelfer report? So I guess that makes it old news right-move along, nothing to see here... Well no actually this torpedoes the entire Democratic case against the war...Sorry!

Xennady, you're an idiot. ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Xennady, you're an idiot. Everyone knew Saddam had chemical weapons in the 1980s and that he used them on the Kurds and Iranians. That some of them were not destroyed and were forgotten about was predicted and small amounts were found here and there, according to the Duelfer report. So what? They're not worth anything militarily. This is old news being pulled out by a desperate politician who's getting killed in the polls.

If we had found weapons that were actually useful and you know, supported the case for war, don't you think the White House might announce it?

Oh I'm an idiot am I? Well,... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Oh I'm an idiot am I? Well, Mantis, allow me to retort.The line from the left for the last THREE YEARS has been that there were NO WMD in Iraq and thus Bush lied us into war.This discovery disproves that forever and all time.Now you claim that several thousand pounds of Sarin is useless militarily.To whom? Terrorists? Are you really saying that all this Sarin-which if you are correct-is useless as an artillery shell would be useless to Al-Queada? No-this is EXACTLY the reason why we SHOULD have invaded Iraq.Sorry,but I don't think I'm the idiot here.And maybe George Bush has more important things to worry about than convincing every last opponent that the war was justified after it is already being fought.For example,collecting loose Sarin-filled artillery rounds before terrorists get them?

If there was usable sarin a... (Below threshold)
Shadowhawk:

If there was usable sarin and mustard gas shells, don't you think the insurgents would've used them against our troops by now? The Baahists had 3 years, plus the tech and know-how to use them, so why haven't they?

Apparantly they have not. That's the bottom line, isn't it?

Did anyone here bother to read the actual fax released by Negroponte? Judging by the comments here, it sure don't look it. But hey, that's righties for ya; complex info analysis is beyond their skill. They should stick to watching men in in underwear grope each other in front of the TV and leave the proper discussion to those who can think and read.

Now you claim that sever... (Below threshold)
grh:

Now you claim that several thousand pounds of Sarin is useless militarily.

Yes.

To whom? Terrorists? Are you really saying that all this Sarin-which if you are correct-is useless as an artillery shell would be useless to Al-Queada?

Yes.

Dear god America has a lot of stupid people. It's enough to make you despair for the concept of democracy.

mantis, I think you're the ... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

mantis, I think you're the most relatively sane leftist here, so I'm going to address you -- the others are beyond reason and, possibly, beyond hope.

1) Yes, the weapons appear to predate the first Gulf War. That puts them in the category of ones Saddam was supposed to have reported and destroyed under international supervision, by the terms of his surrender. He did not do so, therefore the agreement that ended that war is null and void. Renewal of hositilities may commence.

2) The most likely explanation for why the terrorists haven't used these weapons is that they didn't know where they were. Saddam hid them quite well.

3) This single announced discovery amounts to over a ton and a half of poison gas. That's the weight of a small-to-medium car, in gas form. And 500 shells -- imagine 500 bullets. Now blow those bullets up until they're 6" in diameter -- that's a 155mm artillery shell, roughly.

4) WMDs are clearly defined as NBCs: Nuclear, Biological, Chemical. Poison gas is defined as a chemical weapon, and therefore a WMD. 500 artillery shells containing 1.6 TONS of poison gas is a lot of WMD.

J.

I think Jay Tea has summed ... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

I think Jay Tea has summed up why this matters much more clearly than I can-but since the previous two comments referenced what I wrote I would like to respond.First Shadowhawk:Captured documents show that Baathists and Al-Quaeda in Iraq know they are fighting a media driven war much like Vietnam.One of the key arguments made by the anti-war crowd is that Bush lied about WMD and thus lied us into war.Using Sarin on American troops refutes that pretty convincingly. Now grh:WOW! I mean just wow, unfreakin' believable! Did you know that other people can see what you type here? Yes, America does have a lot of stupid people doesn't it?

Now I think I've seen anyth... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Now I think I've seen anything ...

A ton of Sarin - and the Left yawns!

Jesus Christ. No wonder we'... (Below threshold)
grh:

Jesus Christ. No wonder we're losing this war, when we're suffering from people on the U.S. side who are this unbelievably stupid.

Here's a suggestion: if you're so sure this is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, go ask George W. Bush to speak out about it in public. Ask him to tell the entire world about STAGGERING IMPORTANCE of this.

...what? You mean he hasn't said anything, and won't?

Wow! I wonder what that means?

Seriously, if you ever wonder why we will never win this war, you should go look in a mirror. You'll find the awful truth there.

Hmmmm.1. Well at l... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

1. Well at least this pushed Kerry onto the back-burner. Anything to avoid more "Hatted in Cambodia". I think I speak for both sides of the aisle here:

Less Kerry is More Happy.


2. Frankly this whole sudden Democratic requirement over numbers of munitions is pretty ridiculous. A single chemical artillery shell would be extremely dangerous in the hands of a terrorist. Which is one of the reasons we went into Iraq. So it doesn't matter if there's 1 or 500. One (1) is more than sufficient because these things are too dangerous to let some people have possession of.

Let's face facts here. If one chemical weapon was detonated in a shopping mall where *your* family was shopping, this one weapon would be a very very big deal. So no mucking about.


3. What I find curious, and very interesting, about all of this is the rapidly escalating disconnect between President Bush and most of the Republican party. A lot of Republicans have been hammered repeatedly, particularly in the 2004 election cycle, about the lack of found WMDs in Iraq.

Over and above a multitude of issues where the White House is going one way and the many in the GOP are heading in another, such as immigration, this points to a Bush administration that is less isolated and possibly more adversarial in it's relationship with the GOP and the base.

It's a somewhat odd thing to have happen.

[email protected] grh<... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

@ grh

Here's a suggestion: if you're so sure this is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, go ask George W. Bush to speak out about it in public. Ask him to tell the entire world about STAGGERING IMPORTANCE of this.

RTFA

The report was just declassified.

Well grh-We aren't losing t... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Well grh-We aren't losing this war despite the unbelievable stupidity of people that think a ton and a half of nerve gas is useless to Al-Quaeda.Here's a suggestion:Consider that what you or I consider to be of EXTREME IMPORTANCE may differ from what the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES considers to be of EXTREME IMPORTANCE.George Bush has spoken many times about the war and what is at stake.I wonder why he did that...hmmmm...maybe because a ton and a half of nerve gas would be REALLY BAD if Al-Quaeda got ahold of it.Maybe he thinks that preventing that is what is of EXTREME IMPORTANCE, not arguing with nitwits about whether or not Sarin is militarily useful.And that's the awful truth.

The report was just decl... (Below threshold)
grh:

The report was just declassified.

...and the sigificance of this is?

Think carefully, now.

Maybe he thinks that pre... (Below threshold)
grh:

Maybe he thinks that preventing that is what is of EXTREME IMPORTANCE, not arguing with nitwits about whether or not Sarin is militarily useful.

And...and...and maybe he really caught Osama single-handed, but he just didn't say anything about it because he's so modest and didn't want to take credit!

Keep on clapping, and Tinkerbell may live.

Since nerve gas shells made... (Below threshold)
docjim505:

Since nerve gas shells made before 1991 are not WMD, does this mean we can stop destroying our stockpiles (most of which were made back in the '50s and '60s)?

grh:I'm not surprised someo... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

grh:I'm not surprised someone so incapabable of rational argument thinks we are losing the war.Seriously-was that supposed to be a rational response? You are making me pity you.Lay off the Disney cartoons and read a book or two-and I don't mean a comic book.

"That some of them were ... (Below threshold)

"That some of them were not destroyed and were forgotten about was predicted..."

Forgotten about? Forgotten about?

So Saddam just forgot he had them. "Oh yeah, gosh. I've been looking all over for those."
=======================
i>"...what? You mean he hasn't said anything, and won't?

Wow! I wonder what that means?"

It means he'll get exactly what we're seeing here. It's not enough. It's never enough.

How much is enough when the issue of "stockpiles" comes up and the response from the left is "A few hundred doesn't constitute enough for concern." When the issue of "equipment" comes up and the response from the left is "It was dual use." When the issue of "mobile weapons labs" comes up and the response from the left is "Those units were clean." Even though they were too clean. When the issue of Salman Pak comes up and the response from the left is "It was an ANTI-terror training camp. Saddam said so."

Never mind the Migs found buried in the sand. Never mind the Russian "diplomatic delegation" that was shot at leaving Baghdad mere days after it fell when the Russians shouldn't even have been there. Never mind Saddam's own residence situated right outside Salman Pak. Never mind actual meetings recorded and confirmed between Iraqi agents and al Qaeda agents. Never mind Abu Nidal's sudden "suicide" in August 2002 after living freely and openly in Iraq since '99.

To say that the Administration made WMD appear to be the primary reason for going to war is dishonest. The media focused on WMD, with pinpoint accuracy and almost to the exclusion of all else. It's all we heard about. And when at every White House press conference every reporter asked questions about WMD with little or no thought about the many other points for going to war, well then, it seems like it was the only reason we went into Iraq. I can't believe some people actually can't see past all that even after over three years.

How much is enough? How many times will the left raise the bar?

Jesus Christ. No wonder... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
    Jesus Christ. No wonder we're losing this war ...

First of all; We?

Second; losing?

And considering that one of the major concerns expressed many times prior to the war by both Democrats and Republicans was the very real possiblity that Saddam could hand just a Thermos sized cannister of Sarin and VX to some terrorist organization, the Left's newfound ability to scoff at a ton of chemical weapons is ... interesting, to say the least.

    In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now, a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
    - President Bill Clinton [02/17/2008]

I'd also like to point out that when the UN demanded in resolution 1441 that Saddam come clean about his WMDs and comply with the 17 previous resolutions he had hitherto ignored, I am very certain that no exceptions were made for chemical weapons produced prior to the 1991 Gulf War.

Anyways, I look forward to grh, Lee, etc. careful reasoning to support their contention that still potent nerve gas produced before 1991 is not WMD.

And some wonder how you guy... (Below threshold)
Davebo:

And some wonder how you guys were gullible enough to fall for it in the first place.

Next thing you know Wizbang will have found that non existant IAEA report and the circle will be complete.

Tinkerbell indeed.

davebo and grh <br /... (Below threshold)
Tony:

davebo and grh

It must really hurt to believe in the losing side of history : )

I think Jim Henley said it ... (Below threshold)
Davebo:

I think Jim Henley said it best.

"just giving the people who want to believe a reason to keep going. "

And Tony, I'm not hurting at all.

But then I'm not part of the 6 percenters.

Swallow hard dude. It's worked just swell for you up to this point, if less so than for several hundred of my fellow vets.

The left will continue to r... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

The left will continue to raise the bar as long as their 3 year old talking points continue to be challenged. I say challeneged, not destroyed.
We are so set in our partisan ways that whatever either side finds, the other side will rationalize it away.

I think the compilation of information that shows a significant amount of MWDs in Iraq is important. How could it no be.

grh:

You're hinging your argument against the importance of this on whether or not Bush gives a speech about it? That's reaching. Bush would never do anything else other than give speeches if he were to call a press conference every time something important happened regarding Iraq.

As far as your comments about how stupid Americans are, well that sort of attack is typically made out of desperation. When you no longer have a political or factual leg to stand on, just insult your opponent.
If you think we're losing this war, fine that's your opinion, but don't attribute it to American stupidity.

Davebo:So let's ge... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Davebo:

So let's get this straight, you are saying, that 500 artillary shells of mustard and sarin gas is not MWD? If not, can you tell we what is and who set that benchmark?

grh,You may want t... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

grh,

You may want to check the update in the article before you spout off anymore. You can only shove your foot so far into your mouth.

*sigh*

Making you libtards look like fools is hardly even sporting any longer. I demand UBER-trolls!

Oh, and grh?... "Blood for Odin".

For years, leading up to th... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

For years, leading up to the Iraq war, and in fact since the end of the Gulf War, the intelligence community, the press, the UN, and the Bush administration argued over whether reconstituted weapons and weapons programs existed in Iraq. This distinction was made in virtually ever instance that the issue was discussed. It was such a common, well-understood, universally recognized distinction that the average 7th-grader probably could have held forth at some length on the difference between the impotent, rusting remnants of a destroyed WMD program and reconstituted weapons and programs.

They. Are. Two. Different. Things.

They. Always. Were.

Everybody. Knows. This.

And here comes Senator Man-on-Dog Santorum with a "Major Announcement" on the discovery of...remnants! Of a destroyed program! That everybody's known about for TWENTY YEARS!

And the wingers and snake-jugglers eat it up. It's almost like this is somehow news to you, a revelation of something you hadn't already heard discussed thirty million times over the past 15 years.

Are you kidding me? Are you all honestly going to pretend you don't understand the difference between remnants of a destroyed program and reconstituted weapons?

If this is the best you've got, you are in serious trouble in the midterms. This should embarrass you. Look at how you've debased yourselves by pretending that the "discovery" of remnant chemical weapons is somehow a surprise, when these very weapons were explicitly excluded from the Bush administrations case against Iraq, when they posed no threat, and when they represented no reconsitited program. And now you're concocting truly bizarre theories about why the Bush administration is too shy and coy about this to say anything about it.

Keep waiting, suckers.

From the Washington Post:</... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

From the Washington Post:

Neither the military nor the White
House nor the CIA considered the shells to be
evidence of what was alleged by the Bush
administration to be a current Iraqi program to
make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

Now, the knee-jerk winger reaction to unhelpful facts is to engage in ad hominem. But to score points here, you can't just scream that the Washington Post is librul. You have to disprove their facts, do original reporting, or cite other sources of authority that contradict their reporting. Anything short of that is meaningless.

Pete.Fosse.Periods... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Pete.Fosse.

Periods.Do.Not.Make.Your.Point.Any.Stronger.
These.Are.STILL.WMD.

Sorry.

Pete Fosse:So..500... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Pete Fosse:

So..500 Shells of sarin and mustard gas is not WMD? Really? that's a relief, because I heard that stuff could kill people.

I also heard that sarin and mustard gas can kill people regardless of distinctions made about it's creation.

Davebo,Good for yo... (Below threshold)
Tony:

Davebo,

Good for you buddy, a positive mental attitude is key.

You say you're a vet? Then you should understand that when nations go to war, like they did in 1991's Gulf War, the losing side has to lose--either by being destroyed or by surrender. Iraq surrendered. Part of that surrender is that the winner gets to set some terms that the loser must follow. The winner in the gulf war--the UN-led coalition--set some rules for the loser, Iraq.(you with me so far? good!) Part of those rules was that the shells we have found should have been destroyed by Iraq under the purview of the UN inspectors. This didn't happen, so the US finally added some backbone to the UN resolutions and we went in and removed Saddam.

That shouldn't be too hard for a vet to understand, considering that you've been closer to an actual battle than I will have ever been. Yet, you don't seem to acknowledge or care that this is what has happened on the planet Earth. That's your problem, bro.

I'm perfectly happy to let you have the perceived rhetorical win on wizbang.com. I'm also perfectly content to see my rhetorical argument justified by history. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose...

Pete Fosse, my above post c... (Below threshold)
Tony:

Pete Fosse, my above post can apply to you too.

Or, let's make things even ... (Below threshold)
Tony:

Or, let's make things even simpler for our oh-so-nuanced lefty friends:

If Saddam would have destroyed shells like these in front of U.N inspectors, we wouldn't have had to go in there in the first place.

Get it yet?

What was declassified was a... (Below threshold)
JP:

What was declassified was a small portion of a much larger document!!! They are furious at negraonte for not releasing all of it, apparently he is keeping the parts classified related to the rest of the WMD's that Russia/china helped them move from the public

Ok, you're not addressing a... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

Ok, you're not addressing any of my questions. Point out where I said that degraded, impotent chemical weapons "are not WMD." You're really getting into the Clintonian hair-splitting here if you want to debate whether degraded sarin is sarin. Depends on the defintion of "is".

From Fox News:

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

What I said in clear English just a few inches up the page is that everybody knew about WMD remnants in Iraq, and they had nothing to do with the war because they weren't a meaningful threat to anybody. The issue was whether Saddam had reconstituted his WMD program.

In 2003 the DoD issued a press release stating that all known legacy WMD sites had been secured. Remember this??? Anybody?? Bueller? Bueller? This was in 2003. Now, ask youselves, why in 2003 would the DoD release such a curious statement if these WMDs had just been "discovered"? What, exactly, would they have been referring to?

Hmmm. That's some mystery.

I'll give a gold star to the first nutter who can answer that question.

Have we all forgotten that ... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Have we all forgotten that Zarqawi was days away from a massive chemical attack in Jordan involving nerve gas an other chemical agents that could have killed 20,000 to 80,000 people in April 2004?

That plot was thankfully busted by the Jordanians only a few days before it was to be carried out against the Jordanian government and the American embassy in Amman.

Had these Muslim butchers gotten hold of these sarin-filled shells before we did, THEY WOULD HAVE USED THEM.

What is so damn difficult for you Bush-hating liberals to understand about that?

So what you're saying is th... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

So what you're saying is that Bush is furious at Negroponte, who works for Bush, for not declassifying a document that would totally exonerate Bush on the whole WMD issue, because Negroponte wants to protect the Chinese, the Russians, and the French. Yeahhhh. If you believe that, you will truly believe anything.

Big Mo -Don't you ... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

Big Mo -

Don't you think the chaos of war, and our failure to secure all legacy WMD sites (as evidenced by this recent "discovery"), made it more likely that those sites could be looted by extremists?

Pete Fosse - that's a good ... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Pete Fosse - that's a good point.

Predictions: Histo... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Predictions:

History will remember this ploy as "Santorum's Folly".

It will end his political career.

Pete - I meant what you sai... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Pete - I meant what you said at 9:07. It seems that he hadn't reconstituted his programs, but was waiting for the world's attention to be removed, so he could start again.

I think ol' Zark man got his chems from one of those sites. I posted my comment above before all the other comments were out there about how those shells were so degraded to be unusable, so i fell a little silly now.

What seems to be the real truth of the matter is that Saddam and his good played the ultimate shell game, but picked the wrong man to play it with, and lost.

He DID have to be taken out, because he DID FAIL to comply with the UN over the course of a decade concerning those WMD and programs. If the UN is tro mean anything, then its word has to have teeth.

If the inspections farce had been allowed to continue its natural course, no WMD would have been found, of course, we may have stood down, our troops may have been withdran, and Saddam would have skirted scot-free--to reconstitute his programs without any interferance. That's what the Dulfer, etc. reports concluded.

So, in essence, searching for WMDs in Iraq that don't exist or may have been removed to another country pre-2003 is really counterproductive (and I jumped into the fray without thinking (damn knee-jerk reaction!).

"Now, the knee-jerk winger ... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

"Now, the knee-jerk winger reaction to unhelpful facts is to engage in ad hominem."
--Pete Fosse

"I'll give a gold star to the first nutter who can answer that question."
--Pete Fosse

God, how I LOVE the smell of unhinged moonbat in the morning!

>>>Predictions:>>His... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

>>>Predictions:
>>History will remember this ploy as "Santorum's Folly".
>>>It will end his political career.
--Lee

Your prediction seems about as accurate as any of those election predictions from the KOssacks.

Pete Fosse:I thoug... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Pete Fosse:

I thought that distinction was important. The right has been beaten bloody with the "NO MWD" bat for 3 years. 500 shells of degraded sarin and mustard gas has been compiled now and we get the Obi wan Kanobee "these are not the WMD you're looking for" as if the date of their creation suddenly removes what they are, and where they are.

What I'm seeing now is these really weren't the ones that were referred to pre-war. If what "a senior defense department official" says is true, and they are degraded to the point of being useless, then the right needs to realize that this isn't a political victory. We'll see how the situation evolves, and I hope you stick around here because you can actually construct a salient point, which is nice for a change.

As far as terrorists not looting legacy WMD sites, would they have even knew what they were?

What's it really all about?... (Below threshold)
Davebo:

What's it really all about?

"Pennsylvania voters give Democratic State Treasurer Robert Casey Jr. a 52 - 34 percent lead over incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, with 12 percent undecided, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today."


It's called desperation folks. Just like this post and most of the comments.

Mo -I don't find m... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

Mo -

I don't find much to disagree with there. There were a lot of good reasons for taking Saddam out. I voted for Bush in 2000 and supported the war. There were no easy solutions to this problem, but it's quite obvious to me that what's happened there since the war began has been a disaster. Hopefully we will recover from it.

However, the importance of Santorum's stunt hinges on the case that Saddam had WMD. This was a fact of which the administration assured us with absolute certainty. In the buildup to the war they even said they had irrefutable classified evidence that they could not share - but trust us, we know he has them ("them" being reconstituted WMD).

Well, he did not. Bush is paying the price for that now. Had Saddam had those weapons, he'd be reaping the benefits. That's how it goes. Life's tough when you're president. But today's announcement signifies nothing, because the first thing the Army did when they landed was attempt to secure the known WMD sites. So it's quite obvious, to anybody paying the slightest bit of attention to this war, that we knew WMD sites existed.

And really, I'd expect this war's biggest boosters (the smart folks on this page) to be familiar with basic information like this. It's really unseemly to act like a bunch of cheerleaders for the war but not even be aware of how the game is played and what's happened so far.

Peter Fosse ... Last I chec... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Peter Fosse ... Last I checked, Saddam was ordered to reveal all his weapons. There were no exceptions and/or caveats that allowed him to hide and keep weapons manufactured pre-1991.

    For years, leading up to the Iraq war, and in fact since the end of the Gulf War, the intelligence community, the press, the UN, and the Bush administration argued over whether reconstituted weapons and weapons programs existed in Iraq.

You do remember that there was a two-term Administration that ran the Executive Branch during that intervening period, don't you? What did that Administration say?

Let's look at this by President Clinton himself; he delivered this speech at the Pentagon to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the 17th of February, 1998 ...

    Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

    The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

    [...]

    In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

    Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

    It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

    And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

    [...]

    UNSCOM ... [has] uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

    This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.

    [...]

    The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

    [...]

Neither do I remember the focus on WMD during the long debates in Congress and at the UN prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom being strictly limited to "reconstituted" weapons. If this distinction is so well-known, as you assert, then you must have a link to something credible that proves your point.

And finally, I do not accept your contention that these weapons are so degraded that they are incapable of causing any damage. These things, well and expertly deployed, can still kill thousands of people. So that's just you begging the question.

What disturbs me here is the fact that y'all on the Left have actually motorized the goal posts. Saddam Hussein was ordered to disclose the location of all his WMDs and allow unfettered inspections.

He did not.

American troops subsequently find over a ton of chemical weapons and your response is that nerve gas is not a WMD ... and, apparently, even if you do concede that these finds are WMDs, these are the "wrong" set of WMDs!

500 shells of nerve gas representing over a ton of still very deadly chemical weapons are a serious issue, are they not? Yes or no?

Heralder -Thanks.<... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

Heralder -

Thanks.

Bush himself really hasn't ... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Bush himself really hasn't pushed WMDs in iraq for a long time. He knows he paid a huge price for the f-ed up intelligence, but he also knows that 1) the WMD issue wasn't the only reason, and 2) it's a back-burner issue now as far as Iraq's present and immediate future are concerned.

Most of the American public has long since made up their minds on this issue. They fall into one of two camps: 1) Bush lied (which is a crock) or 2) our intelligence was f-ed up (which is the truth). Not much is going to change that.

Martin:Unfortunate... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Martin:

Unfortunately, all we have to work with is a single MSM news report, and in it:

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

So it's not an independent assertion. I think this finding as a whole is important, but not perhaps the way we were thinking it was.

We'll see what more information we get.

via Powerline,: Michael Le... (Below threshold)
jp:

via Powerline,: Michael Ledeen writes:

Please point out to your readers that Negroponte only declassified a few fragments of a much bigger document. Read the press conference and you will see that Santorum and Hoekstra were furious at the meager declassification. They will push for more, and we all must do that. I am told that there is a lot more in the full document, which CIA is desperate to protect, since it shows the miserable job they did looking for WMDs in Iraq. "
------------------------------------------------

This is the same geo-political problem they had getting Project harmony docs released, which finally happened in March and still being translated.........have to think about the geo-politics of the public finding out about Russia/china/France helping out Saddam behind out backs.

Heh - Jonah Goldberg at NRO... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Heh - Jonah Goldberg at NRO's The Corner echoes me:

"I'm still reading up, but my guess is that this story will not change the conventional wisdom much because peoples' minds are made up and while I think this story is significant it's just not enough to change minds. Part of the blame falls on the Bush White House which clearly decided a long time ago to stop aggressively defending this aspect of the decision to go to war. This always struck me as proof -- contra the Bush-bashers -- that he went to war in good faith. If it had all been a conspiracy, the evil neo-cabal would have protected their cover story a lot better.

"Regardless, the White House clearly made the decision that WMDs aren't part of the story any more. And you'd need to find more than this to change that."

EXACTLY! If Bush lied, don't you think he'd have at least planted some evidence to cover his tracks? ;^)

LEE "History wi... (Below threshold)
914:

LEE

"History will record this as Santorums coming of age"

His political career has been justified.

These were missiles that we... (Below threshold)

These were missiles that were buried in the Desert during the Iran-Iraq war, before 1988.

It is false to assert that they could be sold or used on the black market, perhaps by terrorists. Under ideal conditions these agents degrade within five years to useless sludge.

These old shells were a threat to no one. Bush told America that Iraq was a threat sometimes more than a dozen times in a single speech.

A DoD official has already disavowed this.

Dear Human,
Dear Lorie Byrd,
Greetings Citizen,

Please wake up. Whatever your feelings about the war, know that Santorum and Hoekstra knew that these were not WMD when they made their announcment. They were attempting to play Americans for fools.

I will never be proved wrong about this, because there are no facts on Earth to prove me wrong.

Someday you will be proved wrong, and on that day, when the Pentagon clearly and unequivocally denies that these shells qualify as WMD what will you do?

Feel free to contact me.

914 - Were that the case, w... (Below threshold)
Lee:

914 - Were that the case, we'd really have something to worry about. This is a political ploy from a desperate politician who is way behind in the polls. Only the IQ-challenged are falling for this nonsense.

The question was never whet... (Below threshold)
trrll:

The question was never whether there might be some remnants of Saddam's WMD stocks around somewhere (it would be truly amazing if there were not)--the question was whether there was an imminent WMD threat that required a "pre-emptive" invasion with only limited international support, with American troops suffering the bulk of the casualties and American taxpayers bearing the bulk of the financial burden.

Since rumsfeld was actually... (Below threshold)
madmatt:

Since rumsfeld was actually involved in selling the sarin to iraq I can see why they might not want to broadcast that fax. Also since another branch of the rethugnican govt is calling hoekstra and santorum liars, shich should we believe?

"Offering the official admi... (Below threshold)
ProudLefty:

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions. "This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

500 shell of deadly ... (Below threshold)
914:

500 shell of deadly gas, is that all? c,mon that'll only kill 7/8 million people? You got to be able to find the factory warehouse with thousands of tons with each shell labled for disbursement by which terrorist organization and to which U.S. city and shopping mall they are destined..then you will have proof. of course you would still need to get by the ACLU and the libs ( same thing ) to prosecute the manufacturers because they have rights yknow.

This has got to be someone else's universe,cause I dont recognize it anymore..

Martin A Knight,Th... (Below threshold)

Martin A Knight,

There is no way 15+ year old mustard gas could kill anyone unless they drowned in it, and there are certainly easier ways to drown people. This is chemistry, not politics.

Big MO,

It doesn't really make look Bush better to say "At least he didn't plant fake WMD in Iraq" it is reassuring that he didn't. He's done a couple other decent things. A nice ban on certain motorized equipment in Yellowstone. He banned Margaret Thatcher's son from entering the United States because of Mark's role in the racist mercenary coup to topple the government of Equatorial Guinea, and it looks like this Hawaii thing might be good for Earth in the long term.

Heralder ... You're right.<... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Heralder ... You're right.

We should wait and see, though I find it hard to believe that the sarin within the shells had become so degraded that it cannot still kill huge amounts of people.

[email protected] grh... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmmm.

@ grh

...and the sigificance of this is?

Think carefully, now.

sigh.

Because there hasn't been enough **TIME** for the White House to assemble a public position on this subject yet?

Most administrations wait until something like this fully shakes out before they come out with a public position on it. And this administration is even worse than most.

A) There's no talking sense... (Below threshold)
Candy:

A) There's no talking sense to these Leftist idiots.
B) If Saddam is so good at hiding things that weren't supposed to exist - I'm pretty concerned with how many OTHER pounds, tons, kilos, tablespoons or thimblefuls of nonexistent stuff he has hidden beneath the sand.
C) There's no talking sense to these Leftist idiots.
D) Give Bush some credit for not shouting it from the rooftops. If it were Kerry's administration, he'd have to put the Swiftboat and Purple Heart crap on the back burner long enough to holler about "I found Weapons of Mass Destruction! Told ya so!"
E) grh - leave Jesus out of this.
F) And Son of the Godfather - BFO!!! (LOL)

Researching a little furthe... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Researching a little further I found this:

Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials.

Oddly, I can't find a definitive shelf life for mustard gas...the general consensus seems to be about 10 years.

Hey Iraq war lovers, how do... (Below threshold)
Fred:

Hey Iraq war lovers, how do you like the part about how Iraqs that kill Americans will be given amnesty? And these are the people you want Americans to die for? And by the way, if you support this war so much but aren't over there you are a coward. Too bad we can't confiscate your bank accounts to pay for this stupidity, now THAT would be justice.

What about Sarin, Maury?</p... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

What about Sarin, Maury?

PS: trrll, Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat. He said the world should not wait until the threat is imminent.

Maybe We should bring one o... (Below threshold)
914:

Maybe We should bring one of those shells home, just one mind You and demonstrate its usefulness right in the Capitol Hill Rotunda and see how ineffective it is or is not? well even let all occupants wear gas masks if they wish, but why would they ?its harmless and they can prove their points to the American people right?
if they live and dont become violently ill then the Dems are right. But if they drop dead then the weapons are validated and We cleaned up the government all in one fail swoop. sounds like a win win..and the Dems get to prove how patriotic they all are and take one for the country..

Fred:And by the... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Fred:

And by the way, if you support this war so much but aren't over there you are a coward.

Contrary to popular belief, the US armed forces does not just accept anyone that applies. I applied before college but they wouldn't take me because of my knees. They wouldn't take my sister because she had flat feet.

You can support an action without taking part. Some people realize the need for action, but also realize they are not fit for the rigors of war. Cowardice has nothing to do with it. However, if you are to follow that line of thought Fred, if you're so against us being there, why aren't you fighting with the insurgents to eject us from the country, are you a coward?

Hmmmm.So ... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

So let's get this straight, you are saying, that 500 artillary shells of mustard and sarin gas is not MWD? If not, can you tell we what is and who set that benchmark?

Ahh but the operative word is "mustard"! They're not WMDs! They're *condiments*!

As for "sarin". That's obviously a brand of Columbian coffee.

What we have here aren't WMDs at all. It's a stockpile of groceries. Those Iraqis are damned amazing. Who would have thought they'd have such an overwhelming taste for mustard and coffee?

(joke)

914,No demonstrati... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

914,

No demonstration is needed. If sarin has a short shelf life it has a short shelf life. Frankly, the fact these weapons are useless is a relief to me...the thought that someone could have gotten their hands on old stocks of active sarin and used it against our troops and Iraqi civilians is a scary thought.

The mustard gas however, may still be chemically active.

Josh Narisn - my point is t... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Josh Narisn - my point is that the whole "Bush lied" meme of the left has never made any sense. No lefty has ever offered a logical or rational explanation of why Bush would lie to get us into Iraq, particularly using WMD as a big reason for it when it could be easily disporven when we got there.

Even if we find a huge stoc... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Even if we find a huge stockpile of WMDs today, the left would shrug it off as no big deal. Just like Zarquawi was a big deal (ie. a failure of US military) when we didn't get him. Now he is not. So predictable.

Have any of you ever seen s... (Below threshold)

Have any of you ever seen so many Bush haters admit so readily, even eagerly, that, 'hey, of course we all knew Iraq still had WMDs all over the place, now let us explain how this doesn't mean Bush didn't lie and how whatever WMDs we find that we knew were there all along aren't really WMDs because, well, they were misplaced and old...so they're like, MWMDs (Misplaced WMDs), which were never a threat to anyone anyway you stupid Bush slaves that can't do anything but insult people, you stupid morons' at one time before?

I'm thinking there are precious few straws left to to grasp at.

Hmmmm.Hey... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

Hey Iraq war lovers, how do you like the part about how Iraqs that kill Americans will be given amnesty? And these are the people you want Americans to die for? And by the way, if you support this war so much but aren't over there you are a coward. Too bad we can't confiscate your bank accounts to pay for this stupidity, now THAT would be justice.

1. Amnesty: Personally I'm rather sanguine about that. IMHO people tend to revert to type and rarely ever really reform. This is why the IRA has had such a hard time letting go, it's core set of terrorists just cannot give up the lifestyle because it means becoming Mr. Average Joe. I.e. becoming a nobody and having to get a job.

I figure this amnesty doesn't mean anything because these guys will revert to type and either continue their hand at organized crime or they'll find some excuse to restart their terrorism. IMHO I think, to a terrorist, the only thing worse than death is becoming irrelevant.

And so there will be future opportunities to deal with them. And it'll be even easier the second time around because they'll universally take this amnesty opportunity to boast about their actions. So cataloging them will be very easy.

2. Iraq, "coward": Well I have ESRD, End Stage Renal Disease, and require dialysis three times a week so I'm not even able to go as a civilian worker.

But you Fred, you can change that. Donate one of your kidneys to me and I'll head right on over.

So how about it Fred? Put your kidney where you big fat mouth is ok?

rofl.

The question is whether or ... (Below threshold)
failureman:

The question is whether or not these weapons verify any part of the public case that the WH made about WMDS. Lets compare wthe evidence vs. the claims made by the administration and in Powell's speech before the UN:

What was found: 500 shells "None in operating condition" scattered about Iraq.

Administrations claims:
Iraq had truck and train Mobile Biological labs: Still False
Iraq tried to acquire Uranium from Niger: Still false
Iraq bought Aluminum tubes for Centrifuges: Still False
Those tubes could be adapted for centrifuges: Still false
Rocket launchers and warheads with BioWeapons were distributed in Western Iraq: Still False
Iraq had 25000 liters of anthrax: Still false
Iraq had UAV capable of distributing BioWeapons: Still false.
Iraq had VX: Still false
Iraq had 100-500 tons (16,000 warheads) of Chem Weapons produced after 91: Sill false

As you can see these 500 unusable weapons do not do anything to validate the administration claims .

Hmmmm.So ... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

So how about it Fred? Put your kidney where you big fat mouth is ok?

You know this particular angle is so vastly amusing to me that I think I'm going to use it from now on as a response to the whole liberal "chickenhawk" nonsense.

Re: Mustard GasMusta... (Below threshold)
failureman:

Re: Mustard Gas
Mustard gas stored in a weapon turns to a thick goo over time as it polymerizes. Mustard gas in shells from before 91 would almost certainly be unusable.

jp hit the nail exactly on ... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

jp hit the nail exactly on the head. thinking back over the years,I remember the same arguments were made over the butchery going on in Stalinist Russia.Pulling out of Viet Nam was supposed to make peace,how many died after this solution.If the Devil sent his emmisaries into this world,He sent them disguised as DemoRats.

I seem to remember that the... (Below threshold)
John Gillnitz:

I seem to remember that the insurgents did try to use one of these shells as an IED thinking it was a normal artillery round. Nothing happened meaning this so called WMD is even less of a hazard then a conventional weapon. Shells filled with chemicals that haven't been active for over ten years are not WMDs. Sen. Man-on-Dog is just trying to inflate his pathetic poll numbers. What is more pathetic is that some of ya'll swallow every morsel of misinformation fed to you and ask for more.

Hmmmm.I often wond... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

I often wonder if the continuous revisionism that goes on with Democrats is an accident or intentional. Like that whole "plastic turkey" nonsense that simply gets regurgitated every couple weeks. And of course the whole "imminent" issue that never was.

A little bit interesting, but not overwhelmingly so.

They won't be WMD until the... (Below threshold)
Brad:

They won't be WMD until they can be scanned at the local Walmart producing a recipt that says: "WMD."

Big MO,No "lefty" ... (Below threshold)

Big MO,

No "lefty" ever had to say why Bush used WMD as the main focus, Paul Wolfowitz spelled it out for everyone.

Long story short, neither the UK nor Australia would sign onto a war for "regime change," but they would join the Coalition of the focus was disarming Saddam.

What Wolfowitz said, in this context, was "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." (Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003)

The Bush administration wanted "regime change." Colin Powell wanted to punish Saddam for his invasion of Kuwait (the same logic that pushes Powell to want to punish North Korea). I imagine that, in the grand scheme of things, some people did think about oil, and some about defense contracts, and some about Israel, and some about terrorism. Maybe some in the media wanted ratings, and some of the troops wanted medals and promotions. There were lots of reasons to do it. That didn't make it a good idea.

Now, at that point, it became vital to prove the story about WMD, to hold the coalition together. Zealous people, like Feith and Luti [who I'd argue are just like the supposed lefties you hate, since they will believe anything bad about Saddam, even from a drunk psychotic named "Curveball" in a German jail, and never believe anything contradictory] made the case as strongly as they could. They cut corners. They cherry-picked. They left out key, key, key parts of the story (for example, American's top nuclear scientists at Oak Ridge Nat'l Labs knew the aluminum tubes could not be used for enrichment).

Which wars we fight as a nation is far more important than who pays taxes, or whether gays can get married.

By the way, as far as I can tell, "regime change" is another word for killing anyone you don't like because you can.

No lefty needed to lie. Paul Wolfowitz flat out said why we focussed on WMD.

This collection of leaked documents from the UK fills in the story more fully (6 zipped PDFs).

read the rest of the articl... (Below threshold)
thinkingman:

read the rest of the article.

these weapons were pre-1991. in other words, the agents have degraded to the point that, if deployed, would cause minimal damage.

so these weapons are pre-1991; that would mean thet were acquired during... let's see... oh yeah, the Reagan administration when Hussein was supposedly a friend and ally. be sure to mention that, willya?

failureman"as Y... (Below threshold)
914:

failureman

"as You can see 500 unusable weapons do nothing to validate the administations claims"

Great, then You can sign up for the " Rotunda experiment " and show us all what You already know?

I'll tell you how the liber... (Below threshold)
Paul Linebarger:

I'll tell you how the liberals reacted: we read the rest of the freakin' report, the parts which invalidated all your claims. See today's Daou Report; have a nice day.

Hmmmm.I s... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

I seem to remember that the insurgents did try to use one of these shells as an IED thinking it was a normal artillery round. Nothing happened meaning this so called WMD is even less of a hazard then a conventional weapon. Shells filled with chemicals that haven't been active for over ten years are not WMDs.

Actually they're not that completely useless are they? After all the delivery mechanism is still intact even if the active agents have degraded. And sarin isn't impossible for groups with access to graduate chemical engineers, money and facilities. Look at Aum Shinrikyo's attack on the Japanese subway system.

In such an attack isn't the biggest problem the delivery of the chemical agents and not the manufacture of those agents? Wouldn't a stash of 155mm chemical artillery shells reloaded with active sarin agent be pretty damn useful?

I know that, were I planning a chemical weapon attack on say NYC I'd like to be far away when these things go off. A few stolen Iraqi 155mm howitzers secured to the deck of a freighter would be a pretty efficient way to deliver a saturation bombardment on lower Manhattan.

*shrug* but that's me.

So they found 500 leftover ... (Below threshold)
Great Ceasars Ghost:

So they found 500 leftover forgotten chemical munitions from the iraq/iran war over a three year timespan.

That means they just need to find "over 25,000 liters of anthrax, more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas, and VX nerve agents, about [29,500 more] munitions capable of delivering chemical weapons and several mobile biological weapons laboratories designed to produce germ warfare agents" and they will have found THE WMD as described by the White House, rather than just SOME UNUSABLE SHELLS long forgotten.

So far, nobody has accepted... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

So far, nobody has accepted my challenge. One gold star goes unclaimed.

To repeat, here's the challenge: In 2003, just after the occupation and reconstruction began, the DoD issued a statement that they had secured all known legacy WMD storage sites.

The challenge is for you nutters to offer an explanation for why the DoD would say this THREE YEARS AGO if Santorum were really announcing a new "discovery."

I'm still waiting for a response.

PS:

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

The game is over on this, folks. Why are you defending the administration on a point the administration itself has completely given up on? This is what's called blind, stupid loyalty.

Josh - we focused on WMD be... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Josh - we focused on WMD because Powell convinced Bush to go the route of the United Nations. We --and the UN -- were in a suspended state of war with Iraq since 1991. The war didn't end then, it only halted, pending Saddam's compliance with UN demands. Saddam and his goods failed to comply with those demands. Bush and Powell thought--incorrectly, it turns out--that they could gte the UN to follow through on its own words.

But sorry, "regime change" does not mean "killing anyone you don't like because you can." That's just plain stupid and shame on you for saying it. Saddam Hussein was an avowed enemy of this nation, and was a primary cause for instability in the Middle East. Before 9/11, before Bush, President Clinton -- remember him? -- rightly and justly made "regime change" in Iraq official U.S. policy.

When Bush came to office, he took that policyy at face value, and probably sought ways to carry it out. After 9/11, however, Iraq moved from being a problem to being a serious threat, based on its history and the fact that Saddam had dicked around for 10 years in failing to comply with UN demands.

The thought of a terrorist-supporting state giving WMD to terrorists to use was unthinkable and unacceptible to Bush. Libs accuse him of failing to connect the dots on 9/11. Well, he connected the dots on Iraq based on all of the available intelligence and it scared the hell out of him.

THAT'S why WMD became a big issue, and why Bush and Powell went to the UN, and why Wolfowitz said WMD was the issue everyone could agree on.

So I don't beleive he lied, I don't believe there was a con job, I don't think there was any foul.

Just really bad intel.

Pete - don't I get the gold... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Pete - don't I get the gold star? I'm not defending the WMD claim :)

Gabriel Chapman, Lee, manti... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Gabriel Chapman, Lee, mantis, AJR, mantis, Shadowhawk, grh, Davebo, Pete Fosse, Josh "Maury" Narins, trrll, madmatt, ProudLefty, Fred, failureman, Great Caesars Ghost, Paul Linebarger, thinkingman, & John Gillnitz:

If they weren't so evil, your attempts to spin, downplay, and minimize these facts would almost be laugh-out-loud hilarious.

I'm sure al Qaeda, Kim Jung Il, & Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appreciate your efforts.

Hillary Clinton: "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic."

It is one thing to debate and disagree. It is quite another to lie, spin, and propagandize for the enemy. That is un-patriotic. Maybe those named above see it differently. It really just depends on who you hope wins this war.

Interesting, no WMDs has no... (Below threshold)
914:

Interesting, no WMDs has now morphed into old and useless WMDs..
Perhaps Saddam in His glowering wisdom simply shipped out the freshest most useful WMDs to Syria via plane,convoy before the invasion. some went to Khadafi some Iran, what a stretch to think a country hellbent against the civilized world to produce nuclear weapons (Iran) would ever consider Saddams free gifts off limits and report it to the security council.

Bottom line is WMDs were there! and are spread out all across the mideast. Quit trying to rewrite reality to fit Your agendas leftists.

I wonder what we would have... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

I wonder what we would have uncovered had we just went in and said the hell with the UN, e.g., 14 months earlier than we did. You know, that whole "rush to war" period.

Bunyan:I work for ... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

Bunyan:

I work for the United States Air Force, you coward.

Talking about grasping at s... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Talking about grasping at straws. Even the Defense Department disavowed Santorum's claim. And seriously, if the Bush Administration had any evidence of WMD discoveries, do you really believe they would be silent about it?

Hey Heralder, freddy doesn'... (Below threshold)
moseby:

Hey Heralder, freddy doesn't need to leave the comfort of his double-wide to kill American soldiers. Every traitorous anti-American word out of his and the rest of these liberal scumbags (murtha, clinton, fag-kerry, kennedy, biden, etc) mouths emboldens the insurgents to kill our troops. Hey freddy, how do you look at yourself in the morning?

A) The munitions (weapons) ... (Below threshold)

A) The munitions (weapons) that were found could be used to kill thousands, if not millions of people. That many people would be considered a "mass" of people.

B) They were found in Iraq.

c) The comment by the DOD was that "these weren't the WMD we were looking for." (Shades of Obiwan Kenobi.) This is called "downplaying" the discovery. In other words, "we found some WMD, but not the right ones."

D) Doing it the way the Liberals want us to can get us killed. I'm against that.

Regardless of the Administration's position on these discoveries, they are still weapons that could have caused consternation to Americans if they hadd wound up in the wrong hands.

I have to disagree with my ... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

I have to disagree with my fellow conservatives here. This is old news. The DoD says so, and the Administration isn't crowing about this.

Yes, these shells fit the definition of WMD. Some may still work. But so what? We secured them some time ago. What does it really matter now?

I'm serious. I'm not siding with the regular Bush-haters who infest this board, I just hestitate to put too much stock in this.


Big MoExactly! tha... (Below threshold)
914:

Big Mo

Exactly! thats always gnawed at Me, that We did not go in immediately and catch Him redhanded..perhaps the military was worried about the use of these being unleashed on our troops in large quantities? I dont know the reasons but it sure would have uncovered a lot more of what was really going on in there. Maybe Bush was giving cover to the U.N. to mitigate their ties to Saddam via Oil for food scandal? seems plausible to Me..or maybe there is a big surprise yet to be released.

I'm with Mo here. I'm a co... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I'm with Mo here. I'm a conservative, but it doesn't mean I can't read. As of yet this is a non-issue.

914:

With all due respect, alot of what you're saying is plausible, but still falls under the lable of conjecture. Let's not fall into the same trap of rewriting history. Things will come clear in time, and people will either feel validated in the postitions they held, or embarassed.

Bunyan, if your goal was to... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

Bunyan, if your goal was to get under my skin, it worked. Against my better judgement, I let that happen.

Now you listen here, tough man. My obligation is to defend and protect the security interests of the United States, and I take that job VERY seriously.

My point here was to educate you on a very elementary fact that the case for war was based on the idea that Saddam had RECONSTITUTED his WMD program, NOT that there were some leftover shells filled with mustard gas and the like. This is incontrovertible. There is NO debate about that. On this point you are simply wrong, as the administration willingly, freely, publicly states. Concede.

It does the United States armed forces NO good at all to be ordered into combat based on a case for war that FALLS APART halfway through the mission. Men and women are serving and dying over there for a war most people now oppose, and that's a tragedy. It breaks my heart, and it makes me very angry, as well. Those warriors deserve the support of all Americans, and they deserve a mission that stands up over time. No matter how you reconstruct this problem, and how you shift the blame, and the end of the day we are in a war most Americans do not support, and that's a BIG problem that lies at the feet of the Administration. They are responsible for maintaining support, one way or the other, and that's not happening.

I speak only for myself, personally, not for the Air Force or any other organization. But you need to know that the person you are calling a traitor almost certainly has more experience working with the US military than you ever did or will. And I am telling you, man to sniveling coward, that you're a fool if you don't know the difference between known, legacy shells and a reconstituted program. You're a fool for thinking that the FACTS that I marshall as I patiently explain this to you, AGAIN, means I don't support this country. Facts are facts. They exist. They are not yours to change or ignore. The case for war was built around a reconstituted WMD program that has ALWAYS been differentiated from legacy weapons decaying in storage. Period. Deal with it.

We are fortunate that popular opposition to the war, so far, has not translated into lack of support for the military. Most Americans are capable of making this critically important distinction, even if you're too stupid to do so yourself. To its immense and everlasting credit, the US military adheres with total dedication to the idea of civilian control, and it does what it's told to do the best it possibly can. The best we can hope for is civilian leadership that's worthy of that dedication and obedience. Enough said, I think, on THAT point.

My personal email address is above. You email me if you wish to discuss my commitment to my country face to face, because I WILL take you up on that offer, son.

Why would Bush lie to get u... (Below threshold)
Ultra2K:

Why would Bush lie to get us into Iraq?

Well, possibly because if sanctions were ever lifted on him, Saddam could have flooded the oil market and driven the price of a barrel of oil through the floor. If that had happened Cheney's buddies in the oil business could have never have been able to claim that shortages caused the steep increase in raise prices. Record profits show that the oil companies were lying.

Saddam was planning to use the euro to trade oil.

The neo-cons saw Iraq as a potentially large unregulated market where everything could be bought by up by US corporations and everything could be privatized.

Yeah, I know it's kind of banal, but the real reason we went to war is for money.

Rick Santorum's association... (Below threshold)
robert lewis:

Rick Santorum's association with this bogus and discredited story is proof positive the frothy Senator from Pennsylvania is getting desperate about trailing Casey in the polls 55%-35%. He may have to go to work for a living.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon responds with a senior Defense Department official pointing out that the chemical weapons were not in useable condition:

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Give it up, nancy-boys.

Big Mo and Herlader are cat... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Big Mo and Herlader are catching on... for the rest of yammering parrots:

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions. "This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

...the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."


Pete - relax. Trust me. The... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Pete - relax. Trust me. These idiots aren't worth the perspiration....

Pete Fosse,My comm... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Pete Fosse,

My comment wasn't directed specifically at you, but at everyone on the left who have been trying so hard to destroy the credability of the United States and to delegitimize this war.

As you say facts are fact. It is a fact much of what the left/MSM has said since the beginning of this war help the terrorists, Iran, and North Korea, and the rest of America's enemies.

Spin away, propagandize all you want. Just be aware of which side you're fighting for.

Where I referred to this as... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Where I referred to this as new information (if I did, I didn't go back to check) I should have said newly released. I am not arguing that any of this info is new, just that it is not being brought to the public in an prominent way. The piece I referenced and linked from Timmerman was enough for me, but there have been many other discoveries documented, plus the WMD found on its way to Jordan from Syria, plus the documented links between Saddam and terrorists...

If all the information that has been documented was found all at once and presented as one big package it would have been a bombshell (pardon the pun). Instead, as often is the case in reality, things have come out in dribs and drabs, rather than with a dramatic bang.

Heralder You are o... (Below threshold)
914:

Heralder

You are of course right, it was conjecture. This waiting for the truth to come out is a slow painful process that is tearing our country apart and it is very hard to watch it happen.

Robby Lewis

The story itself is bogus? they did not find 500 shells? please.

OK, so WMD were found, nev... (Below threshold)
moonbat:

OK, so WMD were found, never mind they haven't been useable for at least a decade and half, and that the reason the wingers were so sure they were there was because GHWB's administration gave them to Saddam. It's an election year, what matters is we're (GOP?) right you're(Dems) wrong. See the war was/is worth it. Add to that the mutilated bodies of two American Soldiers (gosh one was Hispanic) that can now be cannonized in the press and used to justify anything other American Soldiers might do( it is that which cheapens the horror that these young men went though)and it is a sure win. That is if the rest of America buys it.

Jay,1) Yes, the... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Jay,

1) Yes, the weapons appear to predate the first Gulf War. That puts them in the category of ones Saddam was supposed to have reported and destroyed under international supervision, by the terms of his surrender. He did not do so, therefore the agreement that ended that war is null and void. Renewal of hositilities may commence.

Granted, he did not abide by the agreement ending the Gulf War, in this and other ways. I've never argued that he did, but no matter. Let me ask you a question, though. If, before the war, we did know about these chemical weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq War and not destroyed, and we also positively knew that he had not reconstituted any weapons programs, would the war have been worth it, from a WMD standpoint?

2) The most likely explanation for why the terrorists haven't used these weapons is that they didn't know where they were. Saddam hid them quite well.

So you're saying that if we hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam would have given these presumably useless weapons to the terrorists that weren't there so they could use them against us even though we weren't there either?

3) This single announced discovery amounts to over a ton and a half of poison gas. That's the weight of a small-to-medium car, in gas form. And 500 shells -- imagine 500 bullets. Now blow those bullets up until they're 6" in diameter -- that's a 155mm artillery shell, roughly.

4) WMDs are clearly defined as NBCs: Nuclear, Biological, Chemical. Poison gas is defined as a chemical weapon, and therefore a WMD. 500 artillery shells containing 1.6 TONS of poison gas is a lot of WMD.

I don't know about your math, but assuming it's right, so what? 1.6 tons of useless sludge is a lot of sludge.

Anyway, if I can figure this correctly, the main reason we went to war has now become so we could secure any remnants of Saddam's weapons from the 1980s so the terrorists attracted to Iraq by that same war couldn't get them and use them against us, even though they are useless. Is that about right or am I missing something?

Bunyan,Funny, like... (Below threshold)

Bunyan,

Funny, like Pete, I also served, at least a little. I went back to a recruiter last week to ask about getting in again.

Pete Fosse,

I thought the way you put things at post 11:13AM was perfect, thank you.

Big Mo,

First you said you had no explanation, then when I give the explanation (to get the UK and Australia to sign onto the war, because they would not go to war for "regime change") you say the reason was really Colin Powell?

Read the Leaks Brief, Mo.

Please don't bring the UN into this. The Bush administration planned to bring up a resolution to go into Iraq and they realized they didn't have the votes so they withdrew the motion and then claimed the first motion (1441, was it?) was all they needed. If that was all they needed, why did they try the second motion?

No offense meant, Mo, but you seem to be shifting the lines of debate.

And it is certainly a fact that some people tried to con us. Whether or not the President knew about the con is not even that important, he is accountable, he is responsible.

Pete Fosse said:T... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Pete Fosse said:
To repeat, here's the challenge: In 2003, just after the occupation and reconstruction began, the DoD issued a statement that they had secured all known legacy WMD storage sites.

The challenge is for you nutters to offer an explanation for why the DoD would say this THREE YEARS AGO if Santorum were really announcing a new "discovery."

Well to answer that, let's look at the actual report from John Negroponte which says:
"Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent"

So the answer is, no this is not a new discovery. It's new news in that the CIA has finally admitted to the fact that they did find some WMDs since 2003.

"The story itself is bogus?... (Below threshold)
robert lewis:

"The story itself is bogus? they did not find 500 shells? please."

The story that they found 500 shells isn't bogus - idiot - but the claim that they represent "weapons of mass destruction" IS - according to the DoD.

For all of the people who c... (Below threshold)
Eric:

For all of the people who claim this is not big deal and that these were old, degraded and useless chemicals please explain how the following quotes from the CIA report don't apply.

"The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.

It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons."

John Negroponte
Director of National Intelligence

Eric -So what you'... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

Eric -

So what you're saying is, in 2003 the DoD publicly secured known legacy WMD sites and issues a press release saying so. Today, Santorum announces that WMD were found at the known WMD sites secured in 2003. And this, you call news. Your definition of "news" differs from mine.

Pete, I agree I remember th... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Pete, I agree I remember them claiming in 2003 that they secured sites. But I don't remember them announcing that they found 500 munitions filled with mustard and sarin. Do you remember them including that little detail?

If not, then this fact is indeed NEW!

Some on the left are anti-A... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

Some on the left are anti-American, as are many on the far right. That's old news. The MSM most certainly is not anti-American, and the fact that you feel they are is testament to your delusions and victimization fantasies. Let me tell you, those of us with actual responsibilities in this field cannot afford such flights of fancy.

A free press was recognized by our founders as essential to the operation of a democracy. Too bad you feel otherwise.

Your definition of "news" d... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Your definition of "news" differs from mine.
---------------------------------------------
Peter,
I wonder why the left and the Dems who have known these intelligence data since 2003 willingly trot out the myth of "no WMD".

It 's good that we can agree that the left 's definition of news differed from objective reporting.

Ok, well I don't know what ... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

Ok, well I don't know what else I would have expected at known legacy WMD sites, other than legacy WMD. What were you expecting - crates full of kittens? Boxes of Jolly Ranchers?

The whole regime was a weap... (Below threshold)
914:

The whole regime was a weapon of mass destruction (2,000,000 dead) including what we know about the 5,000 kurds being "peacefully euthanized" draws the conclusion..

The regime was a WMD.

Hmmmm.So ... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

So far, nobody has accepted my challenge. One gold star goes unclaimed.

Maybe nobody wants your "gold star"?

The challenge is for you nutters to offer an explanation for why the DoD would say this THREE YEARS AGO if Santorum were really announcing a new "discovery."

Maybe because these weapons were not found *in* "all known legacy WMD storage sites."?

I'm still waiting for a response.

That's ok. I forgive you.

Sorry guys - I've read the ... (Below threshold)
Indrid_Cold:

Sorry guys - I've read the release. All the weapons we've found so far are PRE-GULF WAR, and nobody ever doubted we'd find a bunch of defunct weapons.

If the CCM (corrupt corporate media) won't report on this, then too bad.

Big Mo et al<... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Big Mo et al

BigMo, you posted: "Well, he (Bush)connected the dots on Iraq based on all of the available intelligence and it scared the hell out of him."

Not quite. An inexperienced & unqualified president was victim of Cheney's manipulation of intelligence about Iraq. Or Bush knew what he was doing, notwithstanding Cheney's crafting of intelligence & policy and deliberately participated in false claims to manipulate public opinion. The record is clear.

Did you see Frontline, The Dark Side, Tuesday night? It makes it quite clear that the inexperienced Bush was the captive of Cheney & his cabal who were determined from Day One of the Bush Administration to invade Iraq. It shows clearly how the arguments for invasion were crafted from less than certain intelligence & how Administration claims about Iraq were developed thru pressure on intelligence analysts & with deceitful manipulation.

Lest you resort to an ad hominem about PBS or Frontline, this report was replete w/ comments & interviews from a panoply of former CIA analysts & government officials, not to mention innumerable public statements made by most of the participants in the build-up to the Iraqi War.

For like the 12th time, the... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

For like the 12th time, the case for war was built around whether Saddam had a reconstituted WMD program, NOT whether he had had one in the past that was dismantled or destroyed. Everybody - and here I mean every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth - knew he had had them in the past, and used them on Kurds and Iranians.

So for you nutters to suddenly act shocked that the legacy WMD everybody on the planet knew about have been found here and there. Well, it's almost poignant. Your naivity and ignorance is so total, my anger at being called a traitor is morphing into kind of a mild pity. This war you all support, you really don't know anything about it. You don't even know that the two top objectives after the fall of Saddam's forces were securing the oil infrastructure and securing known legacy WMD sites. You don't know this. Amazing.

Just doing some Duelfer rea... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Just doing some Duelfer reading, and found this assessment of the usefulness of these chemicals to the insurgents (Annex F):

16 May 2004: 152mm Binary Chemical
Improvised Explosive Device

A military unit near Baghdad Airport reported a suspect IED along the main road between the airport and the Green Zone (see figure 2). The munitions were remotely detonated and the remaining liquid tested positive in ISG fi eld labs for the nerve agent Sarin and a key Sarin degradation product.
The partially detonated IED was an old prototype binary nerve agent munitions of the type Iraq declared it had field tested in the late 1980s. The munitions bear no markings, much like the sulfur mustard round reported on 2 May (see Figure 3). Insurgents may have looted or purchased the rounds believing they were conventional high explosive 155mm rounds. The use of this type of round as an IED does not allow sufficient time for mixing of the binary compounds and release in an effective manner, thus limiting the dispersal area of the chemicals.

Ed -So you're sayi... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

Ed -

So you're saying this is news, because even though we knew all along about multiple legacy WMD storage or dumping sites, we discovered a few unknown ones as well. Really? That's the basis for all this nonsense?

Ultra2K:You... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Ultra2K:

Your claims are ridiculous and speculatory.

Prove them.

moonbat:

"and that the reason the wingers were so sure they were there was because GHWB's administration gave them to Saddam"

As I said above, prove it. The onus is on you who is making the claim.

Eric:

If these munitions are indeed from pre-1991, than pure science will disprove the claim that they are dangerous still. As I said above, the shelf-life for sarin is extremely short, and it seems for mustard gas, about 10 years. Sure, it can be argued the sludge that's left over from degraded mustard and sarin can be harmful, but unless the insurgency starts spiking our soldier's drinks with it, we shouldn't have to worry about this particular set of munitions. There may, of course be other unfound munitions that are still dangerous.

Ah, yes. One half of the... (Below threshold)
Indrid_Cold:

Ah, yes. One half of the liberal template is that Bush is incredibly dumb and incompetant, yet he can steal two elections and con the entie world into believing that Saddam had WMD, thus leading the USA into a war for oil and Hailburton.

Pathetic attempt at building a straw man. Yeah, that's what "we" think: Bush himself, orchestrated a huge voter disenfranchisement campaign in FL, OH, etc. Is that really your argument? Idiot.
And contrary to your pathetic kool-aid drinking beliefs, the "entire world" did not think that Saddam had an active WMD program, and knew that it was likely there were OLD WMDs which were left over from previous years. Guess whose hands we need to keep them out of now. Yep, the "insurgents" that the power vacuum we created allowed to come into existence.

Peter Fosse:Wha... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Peter Fosse:

What were you expecting - crates full of kittens? Boxes of Jolly Ranchers?

I don't know, if you crate up a bunch of kittens in the desert heat for a decade, you're going to have some ornery felines on your hands when you open that box. I wouldn't want to be there.

And Jolly Ranchers can safely be considered WTD (Weapons of Tooth Destruction) so don't be so quick to call them harmless.

On another note, thanks for your service. You as well Josh.

Indrid_Cold:tha... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Indrid_Cold:

that the power vacuum we created allowed to come into existence.

I think it's safe to say we've gone far to fill that vacuum.

Isn't Indrid Cold from the Mothman Prophecies?

I would suggest to everyone... (Below threshold)
914:

I would suggest to everyone that the terrorist jihadists are indeed on a practicing learning curve for WMDs use&production and given enough time in Saddams playfields i.e. Salmon Pak they would and will soon aquire the proper technical know how to inflict major damage with WMDs.

I don't want to turn into t... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

I don't want to turn into the hall monitor, but a couple facts on "my" side need corrected.

We did not give any meaningful WMD to Saddam. Public record. That claim is false as Heralder said.

Also, most of the world DID believe Saddam was attempting to reconstitute his WMD programs. Again, facts are facts and this is public record. We were not alone in believing he problem had them.

We WERE alone in spending half a trillion dollars and 2500 American lives going to war over it, when the evidence was contradictory and unclear. Further, the evidence for truly scary bio and nuke programs was very week (for chemical, the case was a little stronger, but chemical weapons aren't remotely as dangerous as nuke or bio weapons).

I very clearly remember Cheney and others saying, "There's additional classified information we have that proves beyond a doubt that Saddam is working on a nuclear program. We can't share it, but trust us." And I did, and they were dead wrong, and now we're paying for that.

Guys, I'm not a winger. What I've describes is, I believe, an honest encapsulation of the history of the lead-up to this war. The resulting low approval ratings for Bush were inevitable.

We did not give any mean... (Below threshold)
KC:

We did not give any meaningful WMD to Saddam. Public record. That claim is false as Heralder said.


From CJR

The gulf war began shortly after, on January 16, 1991, and the media went wild. But when it ended six weeks later, most Americans knew little more about the war's root causes then they did before.

There would, however, be more to the story. Within hours after hostilities ceased on February 27 -- and nine-teen months after the FBI had raided BNL -- the government indicted Drogoul, painting him as a lone-wolf financier of the Iraqi war machine. He was charged with defrauding his Rome employers of billions of dollars.

Nightline, which had been looking at Iraqgate for some time, hooked up with the Financial Times in an unusual and productive arrangement. On May 2, 1991, the team reported the secret minutes of the President's National Advisory Council, at which, despite earlier reports of abuses, an undersecretary of state declared that terminating Iraqi loans would be "contrary to the president's intentions."

Nightline/Financial Times also cited intelligence reports that Iraq was using U.S. government farm credits to procure military technology. On July 3, 1991, the Financial Times reported that a Florida company run by an Iraqi national had produced cyanide -- some of which went to Iraq for use in chemical weapons -- and had shipped it via a CIA contractor.

Regarding insurgents gettin... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

Regarding insurgents getting ahold of legacy WMDs.

I keep beginning my post by saying, "Lemme get this straight," and I will now, too.

Lemme get this straight. You're saying the fact that insurgents got ahold of legacy WMD as a result of the chaos of war is/was a reason to go to war in the first place? How can you write things like that and not get dizzy from the circular logic?

The tiny (and, so far, totally harmless) amounts that have been used by insurgents only fell into their hands because of the chaos of wartime Iraq. Saddam never handed that stuff out to them voluntarily because he wanted a monopoly on that kind of technology, naturally.

Iraq had only minor and mainly incidental ties to terrorism prior to the war. The centrality of Iraq to the WOT now is mainly a result of our having made it so ourselves.

Geez Mantis, there you go a... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Geez Mantis, there you go again with the Duelfer report. I already explained to you that most of these weapons were found after the Duelfer report was issued, and certainly all of them were found after the Duelfer report began circulating for comment. You asked earlier how I know that, as if your question is somehow a rebuttal. The answer is that I actually bothered to read the memo to Santorum.

"Purpose: This summary provides an unclassified overview of chemical munitions recovered in Iraq since May 2004."

Stop quoting the Duelfer report. It is irrelevant to the weapons we are talking about, and in fact serves as a direct rebuttal to the Duelfer report. It would be cause to reassess the Duelfer report's conclusions.

KC - you're going to have t... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

KC - you're going to have to do better than that. I could make that stuff from a cherry tree and a pot of boiling water in 30 minutes. You can't claim this was US policy, approved, or material, or that it continued or received any funding or support from the US govt. That claim has been debunked.

WMD only 'count' with these... (Below threshold)
LJD:

WMD only 'count' with these people when they cause the horrible death of some of our troops. But hey, they 'support' the troops, right?

LJD, once you read above an... (Below threshold)
Pete Fosse:

LJD, once you read above and educate yourself on this debate, you will regret posting that.

Geez Mantis, there you g... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Geez Mantis, there you go again with the Duelfer report.

Well, it's relevant.

I already explained to you that most of these weapons were found after the Duelfer report was issued, and certainly all of them were found after the Duelfer report began circulating for comment. You asked earlier how I know that, as if your question is somehow a rebuttal. The answer is that I actually bothered to read the memo to Santorum.

Yeah, I read it too. Where exactly did it claim that these discoveries were all made after the Duelfer report? Nowhere? Ok, got it. The Duelfer Report details the findings of the ISG thru the end of Sept. '04. May is before September still, isn't it? I asked how you knew that the ISG wasn't talking about any of these weapons. You don't. And I explained why it was still relevant, as the ISG discussed old chemical weapon leftovers from the 1980s, predicted more would be found, and discussed their usefulness.

Stop quoting the Duelfer report.

No.

It is irrelevant to the weapons we are talking about, and in fact serves as a direct rebuttal to the Duelfer report. It would be cause to reassess the Duelfer report's conclusions.

You didn't read the Duelfer report or you wouldn't believe that these findings are somehow a "direct rebuttal". Furthermore, the portion I just quoted above concerns the usefulness of old sarin munitions in IEDs, and is thus relevant to the discussion of these munitions and their use by terrorists.

From FoxNews website:... (Below threshold)
oxo808oxo:

From FoxNews website:

A senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

What part of this statement from Rummy's Department of Defence don't you people understand?

I see Mantis, you are going... (Below threshold)
McCain:

I see Mantis, you are going to hypothesize with a straight face that the weapons we are talking about were discovered between June 2004 and September 2004 when the Duelfer report was issued after a time-consuming process of international vetting? I'm admiring your liberal logic, however, the burden is now on you to prove that ridiculous idea. Let's not let the facts interfere with your theories.

Josh Narin - huh? I'm not s... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Josh Narin - huh? I'm not sure what you're saying about what I wrote. I said I had no explaination?

And what "facts" of a con do you have? an unimpeachable source for this?

Anyway, we're going around in circles, so let's leave it at that.

What's interesting about th... (Below threshold)
peteathome:

What's interesting about the Saddam regime is how organized and relatively efficient it was. They had built up a huge stock pile of chemical, and possible some biological, weapons during the Iran/Iraq war.

Yet he was able to apparently destroy the entire stockpile under threat from the UN. So far, only 500 shells from that period have been found. I doubt the USA could have been as efficient. Saddam was obviously trying to comply with the UN at some point.

I had expected much larger cache of these old weapons to be found after we invaded Iraq. The fact that almost none have been found implies that the Iraqi record keeping and tracking system must have been incredibly efficient. In a way, that makes Saddam's regime scarier than I had appreciated. Sort of like the Germans in WW2.

Of course these few leftover weapons have nothing to do with our stated purpose for invading Iraq. The threat being touted was that he had an active program, or a program that could become quickly active, and that he had the capability to make advanced chemical and possibly nuclear weapons that were compact enough that they could be delivered via his links with terrorists to the USA. None of this was true at all.

As to faulty intelligence being the reason for the above beliefs, that's ridiculous. The Adminstration cut off the various agencies that were supplying intelligence and instead started their own intelligence stream of raw, unfiltered, unanlyzed intelligence that was cherry-picked to justify the war. Cheny had his "1% theory" that even if the evidence was only likely to have a 1% probability of being accurate, that was enough to act on.

It's too bad that al... (Below threshold)
SUH:


It's too bad that almost all media sources are biased in some way or another. If you right wingers thing Hannity and Colmes delivers the truth or you lefties think everything Keith Olberman says is fact (let's not even talk about Bill O'Reilly) then we have a serious problem here. Get your facts from as many places as you possibly can USE YOUR OWN BRAIN to make an opinion. Righties WANT to believe Republican crap so they do. Lefties do the same.
Personally Rick Santorum has a long way to go to impress me but that's my opinion.

If you want to call each other stupid and idiotic because you both have a different set of 'facts' then right on, but realize you will be getting nowhere. The truth about all this crap won't surface for another 50 years anyway. Just do your best to educate yourself and for god's sakes have an open mind. Isn't that what America is about? You may be wrong in some places, but have the guts to admit it. If you are right, don't be an arrogant jerk.

From everything I've read, old WMDs were found in 2004. That's about all I can gather before right and lefts went to battle over stupid semanitics. Keep it up all, you're really getting somewhere.

I see Mantis, you are go... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I see Mantis, you are going to hypothesize with a straight face that the weapons we are talking about were discovered between June 2004 and September 2004 when the Duelfer report was issued after a time-consuming process of international vetting? I'm admiring your liberal logic, however, the burden is now on you to prove that ridiculous idea. Let's not let the facts interfere with your theories.

You are focused only on the question I asked you about whether the ISG considered any of these weapons, which you cannot say because you don't know. But forget that question, operating on the assumption that none of these weapons were seen by the ISG, so what? They did see munitions of the same type, discussed their presence, their condition, and their usefulness both militarily and to terrorists.

SUH, you are staking out th... (Below threshold)
McCain:

SUH, you are staking out the Rodney King ground in this thread. I guess it would be nice if we all just got along, but no, that is not what American is all about. If you want everyone to get along, there is place for you in Japanese culture. What makes us a great nation is the passion behind our principles, our belief in good and evil, our determination to sacrifice for principle, and our belief in individual freedom and the rights of man. Tom DeLay's parting speech was actually excellent on this topic.

And by the way I did not in... (Below threshold)
mantis:

And by the way I did not in any way hypothesize that the weapons were discovered between June 2004 and September 2004. I asked you how you could know none of them were.

Mantis, I agree with you on... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Mantis, I agree with you on your last point, which will hopefully pacify SUH. I believe that these 500 old weapons are largely irrelevant as I said way up at the top of the thread. But others will legitimately differ and are reasonable to call for a reaccounting of the Duelfer report's conclusions. And that is because any reaonable person will conclude they were discovered after the Duelfer report was vetted.

Saddam Hussein is largely responsible for 2,000,000 dead people in the world. Most of these died from bullets and grenades of mass destruction, not WMD. So to me, whether WMDs are new or old, whether they are 500 or 5000, is irrelevant to this just war.

Oops, there you go again. ... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Oops, there you go again. The understanding of probability theory, Mantis, requires an understanding of mathematical constructs that are generally beyond the average liberal. So I'll try to make this easy. There are 22 months between September 2004 and June 2006. OK so far? There are 5 months between May 2004 and September 2006. Right? There is, therefore, roughly an 80% chance that the vast majority of these weapons were discovered in the 22 months since the Duelfer report was issued. (That isn't quite right, but I'm simplifying for you in simple English).

And that ignores the reality that the report was vetted. It is more likely that the data was gathered thru early summer. I'm guessing the data was gathered thru May, which would explain why Santorum asked for a report of WMD discovered after May 2004.

This debate is ridiculous.<... (Below threshold)

This debate is ridiculous.

If the DEA kicks down your door because they know for sure that you are operating a meth-lab, and they fail to find a meth-lab or any drugs until they go through some fifteen year-old boxes of stuff in your attic and find a bag of pot that you hid in 1990 when you were high and paranoid and subsequently lost track of.

Is that justification for raiding your house?

Does anyone here know anything about chemistry? Sarin loses it's effectiveness after six months.
Under ideal conditions mustard gas still retains some effectiveness for up to ten years, but the stuff that Saddam was producing was not particularly well made, and those were probably not particulary ideal storage conditions.

The rotunda test proposed by mr 914 would be a bit of a disappointment to him.

A chemist can make better poision gas with pool cleaning products.

A chemist can make anthrax with little more than some culture jars and a dead cow.

The Iraqi government beauracracy was about as efficient as any other third world despot nation's. I'm sure they lost all sorts of things. I wouldn't worry about a bunch of dead shells full of what once were Chemical Weapons. I'd worry about the depleted uranium dust that our soldiers have been breathing for the last few years. (and the thousands of nuclear warheads floating around in the balkans)

Sure saddam had WMD's. Large fragmentation bombs are WMD's. Tanks are WMD's. A 747 with a full tank of jet fuel is a WMD.

The term "Weapon of Mass Distruction" is a rather vague term, and should not be the lynchpin of any argument for or against the invasion of a sovereign country.

Did bush lie? Well, it's possible to be dishonest without lying, so that's a pretty worthless turn of a phrase to tout or rebut as well.

The key issue is this: Was Iraq a credible and significant threat to the US?

With a secondary question: If yes, did we act appropriately?

And a tertiary query: What do we do with the mess we have now?

You can play gotcha all you want from the left or from the right and you will NEVER SOLVE ANYTHING.

SUH has a point though. Di... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

SUH has a point though. Discussions have become so bi-partisan that people are making decisions based soley on party affiliation as opposed to accurate information. Debate becomes difficult when most of the conversation disintegrates into name calling.

This particular thread took a turn for the better though, and I dare say people on both sides are learning something. Even if not learning, thinking, and that's good too.

Wow, that's not what I said... (Below threshold)
suh:

Wow, that's not what I said at all. There isn't a place in the world where everyone gets along and that's the price humans pay for having emotion and thought. If you think that's how Japanese think then you are severely mistaken. What makes our nation great is in a belief in good and evil? What? No other country believes in that? Has principles? Sacrifices? Roughly 10% of Americans have passports, and since 90% of this country hasn't traveled ANYWHERE ELSE they are led to believe Americans are better than the world. This type of arrogance is not only dangerous, but it's really going to hurt us when WE need help. If you don't think that day will come, then China is laughing at you. Maybe everything in your house was made in the USA, who knows...

But anyway that's off topic, I was just alarmed by people thinking they saw something on Fox News or conversely CNN and considered it 'fact'. I was merely suggesting that people gather as much info as they can from different sources, not just the ones they are most 'comfortable' with. The more educated people are the more open minded they are, and while they never agree on everything, God forbid we can reach a compromise that seems reasonable. It's how succesful marraiges, companies, communities, etc work. But if people want to call each other morons all day that's fine. I'm just failing to see the productiveness of it.

Maybe if you all agreed on certain 'facts' you could go from there. Is that possible? If not then whatever, i was just trying to help. I do find circular angst to nowhere amusing.

And that is because any ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

And that is because any reaonable person will conclude they were discovered after the Duelfer report was vetted.

Incorrect. If you read Annex F of the Chemical weapons section of the report, you'll find it starts:

Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components.

It then details a few examples from May, June, and July of 2004. Annex H begins:

As of 27 July 2004, 9,758 Iraqi munitions caches had been found and scheduled for destruction.

We had found quite a lot of Iraqi munitions by the time the Duelfer report was written, and some of those (53 to be exact), were chemical in nature. Your assumption that the report couldn't have been written and vetted after May 2004 and therefore couldn't possibly include any of Santorum's munitions is just that, an assumption. And a wrong one at that.

Oh, you commented again:

There is, therefore, roughly an 80% chance that the vast majority of these weapons were discovered in the 22 months since the Duelfer report was issued.

As I noted above, 53 chemical munitions were found at the time of the report. If these are part of the weapons from Santorum's report, than they represent only 10% of those. Fine by me. How exactly does this make the Duelfer report irrelevant? Are the weapons discovered after the report super special chemical weapons that don't degrade over time or are in some other way different from those discussed in the report?

I'm guessing the data was gathered thru May, which would explain why Santorum asked for a report of WMD discovered after May 2004.

Well, you're guessing anyway, despite the fact that the relevant information is at your disposal.

McCain: "Saddam Hussein is ... (Below threshold)
robert lewis:

McCain: "Saddam Hussein is largely responsible for 2,000,000 dead people in the world. Most of these died from bullets and grenades of mass destruction, not WMD."

If you are referring to the Iraq/Iran war, please keep in mind that our favorite Mid-East bullyboy was waging that war at the behest of and with the aid of Don Rumsfeld et alii.

"So to me, whether WMDs are new or old, whether they are 500 or 5000, is irrelevant to this just war."

Just war? 100,00-200,000 innocent Iraqis dead is just? Saddam Hussein sits around getting three squares a day and sporting Armani suits - while peasants get pulverized, lack electricity and drinking water - all so draft-dodging chickenshit George Bush can wage his vanity war? Just war? Buncha hooey!

The understanding of pro... (Below threshold)
mantis:

The understanding of probability theory, Mantis, requires an understanding of mathematical constructs that are generally beyond the average liberal.

And actually using probability theory to arrive at useful results requires that you actually have the correct data, which it seems the average conservative will do anything to avoid.

robert lewis:Ju... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

robert lewis:

Just war? 100,00-200,000 innocent Iraqis dead is just?

Where did this information come from? It's over-inflated by about 200% - 300%.

all so draft dodging chi... (Below threshold)
914:

all so draft dodging chickenshit George Bush can wage His vanity war?just war? phooey.

So He is so vane as to invade two countries as a chickenhawk? but so chicken hearted that He flew fighter jets in the national guard..

What the hell, makes sense to Me!!

Lee snorted: "Pete - relax.... (Below threshold)

Lee snorted: "Pete - relax. Trust me. These idiots aren't worth the perspiration...."

This is a joke, right? What with you posting more than anybody else I've seen on this site...seems like several comments on just about every thread 'aren't worth' your sweat, eh?

Thanks for providing the da... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Thanks for providing the data, Mantis, which proves my point. 90% of the weapons were discovered after the report was issued, just as probability theory should have told you earlier. Certainly that is cause to discount the Duefler report since they had found very little WMD at the time.

SUH, America's resolve to support and fight for liberty is one of the important aspects of the American character. We sacrifice. And no, the "old" Eurpean countries for example don't have this characteristic to the same degree. The Iraq War is a PRIME example of the distinction between both cultures. It is interesting to me that the "new European" nations DID participate in this war, reflecting a higher appreciation for their newfound freedom from Soviet oppression.

The liberal subculture in America, but the way, doesn't value freedom either, which puts their arguments against the war in a useful context. They have a different risk/reward calculation in their heads.

Certainly that is cause ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Certainly that is cause to discount the Duefler report since they had found very little WMD at the time.

Discount what exactly? Why don't you read the report and tell me what needs to be discounted, especially concerning the points I raised.

"While a small number of... (Below threshold)
McCain:

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991" --Mantis quoting the Duelfer report.

You chose to highlight this passage in bold letters yourself, Mantis. It is discounted through your own research since we know 90% of the weapons have been discovered since the report was issued. And if they were so wrong on the numbers, which you thought so important to highlight, might you consider they are equally wrong on other points and conclusions? For example, it is reasonable now to reassess whether or not Iraqis intentionally tried to destroy their weapons or whether they tried to hide them instead. We just don't know now.

Folks, before you get your ... (Below threshold)
Tom:

Folks, before you get your panties in a bunch, the DOD has already shot down your "good news" about WMD. There ARE NONE! There were none and there will never be any found. Please stop drinking the Kool-aid. Hanging on to a figment of your collective imaginations is not doing our great country any good. Dear leader is toast. He will go down in history as the WORST PRESIDENT EVER. You folks are partly to blame for the awful state of our country. Mr Bush was to be a uniter. Well he has united most of the world against us. Do you feel any safer? I didn't think so. God Bless America...

Tom:You folks a... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Tom:

You folks are partly to blame for the awful state of our country. Mr Bush was to be a uniter. Well he has united most of the world against us. Do you feel any safer? I didn't think so. God Bless America...

If us "folks" are partly to blame for the "awful state of our country" than your folks are the other part of the blame. Besides which, what awful state are you referring to? California? :P Things are fine here in NYC. All my civil liberties are intact.

And as a matter of fact, taking into consideration our enemy, yes I do feel safer. Thanks for asking, even though you tried to answer for me.

Falze said: Lee s... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Falze said:
Lee snorted: "Pete - relax. Trust me. These idiots aren't worth the perspiration...."

This is a joke, right? What with you posting more than anybody else I've seen on this site...seems like several comments on just about every thread 'aren't worth' your sweat, eh?
----------

No sweat here pal. I'm having a wonderful time, and if my words ever give you the impression that I'm angry or upset, rest easy. I am smiling all the way. You guys make it easy.

Here does this help? :^)

I'll go back to what I said last night at the top of the thread -- the part Lorie Byrd left out of her post, but the FACT that blew away this whole cloud of red smoke.

Pre-1991 remnants = WMDs?

Nope.

You guys are getting desperate. What a pleasure to watch the conservative movement self-destruct hip-deep in your own spew of mis-information.

Huzzah! and good riddance.

and I mean Huzzah! in the nicest, happiest way. :^)

You chose to highlight t... (Below threshold)
mantis:

You chose to highlight this passage in bold letters yourself, Mantis.

I was copying it from the report, where it is bolded. Have you looked at the report?

It is discounted through your own research since we know 90% of the weapons have been discovered since the report was issued. And if they were so wrong on the numbers, which you thought so important to highlight, might you consider they are equally wrong on other points and conclusions?

How were they wrong on the numbers? They found some, they said more will probably be found. What numbers were they wrong about? Have you even looked at the report?

Well, let's look at the report again and see if that assessment is accurate:

Iraq Unilateral Weapons Destruction in 1991
Iraq completed the destruction of its pre-1991 stockpile of CW by the end of 1991, with most items destroyed in July of that year. ISG judges that Iraq destroyed almost all prohibited weapons at that time.

Yes, the report says that there may have been a "small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions" left, but the vast majority were destroyed. So is 500 a small number (we already know they're old and abandoned)?

The war with Iran ended in August 1988. By this time, seven UN specialist missions had documented repeated use of chemicals in the war. According to Iraq, it consumed almost 19,500 chemical bombs, over 54,000 chemical artillery shells and 27,000 short-range chemical rockets between 1983 and 1988. Iraq declared it consumed about 1,800 tons of mustard gas, 140 tons of Tabun, and over 600 tons of Sarin. Almost two-thirds of the CW weapons were used in the last 18 months of the war.

Wow, 500 shells seems like small potatoes after what they used in the Iran war, let alone all the munitions that were destroyed afterward. And note:

Iraq declared in its 1996 Full, Final, and Complete Declaration (FFCD) that it produced 68,000 155mm sulfur mustard-filled rounds between 1981 and 1990. Of those produced, Iraq has not been able to account for the location or destruction of 550 155 mm shells. The bulk of 155mm destruction occurred between 1993 and 1994 and many of the log entries show that the mustard was partly polymerized, which is consistent with our findings in the recent sulfur mustard rounds.

There were 550 mustard shells that were never accounted for, out of 68,000, and some were probably among those discovered by the ISG. So the report acknowledges that almost all of them were destroyed, acknowledges that a few were unaccounted for, and implies that some of those have been found. I suppose you could make the argument that they were hiding 550 mustard shells instead of destroying them, even though they are now long past their useful life and still unused (what were they saving them for?). Even if that argument was made, it can't be proved at this time, and it certainly doesn't discount the Duelfer report, which you obviously can't be bothered to read.

It seems the argument that ... (Below threshold)
Regilla3000:

It seems the argument that a lot of people are making here is: We found poison gas, therefore bush did not lie to get us into Iraq. Let's review the lies shall we?

How many times was the phrase "mushroom cloud" uttered by Rice and Bush?

What was the evidence to support that claim?

1) Aluminum tubes
ONE JUNIOR RESEARCHER at the CIA believed these were at all appropriate for centrifuges. More senior analysts at the CIA believed what we can see now as the obvious truth that they were only appropriate for conventional weapons. The state department also came to this obvious conclusion.

2) Yellowcake from niger
The evidence that supported this claim was thin enough to be transparent. Three different reports refuted this claim for a host of reasons.

This was cherry-picking of the highest order. What was presented to the american public was far, far from the truth of the intelligence.

If you guys really believe that the American Public would have gone along with this fiasco without the nuclear threat; if you really believe that the American public would have gone along with this war over some Sarin gas, I want some of what you're smoking.

KC - you're going to hav... (Below threshold)
KC:

KC - you're going to have to do better than that. I could make that stuff from a cherry tree and a pot of boiling water in 30 minutes. You can't claim this was US policy, approved, or material, or that it continued or received any funding or support from the US govt. That claim has been debunked.


Simply saying it has been debunked is great. I could make it from a cherry tree and a pot of boiling water in 30 seconds.

Link please.

Mantis, their definition of... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Mantis, their definition of "small" was 53 bombs but there are actually 500 and counting. That is the point. Change small to "large" and it is reasonable to ask to have the conclusion reassessed, as well as suspect all of their other data since they were so wrong on this point.

Geez, I really hate to link... (Below threshold)
KC:

Geez, I really hate to link to a page that has something to do with (gasp!) Iran, but here's a chronology:

Arming Iraq

More

Please, if you're going to claim that these claims have been debunked - offer some proof.

I'm open to a second opinion.

Arming Iraq: A Chronology o... (Below threshold)
Indrid_Cold:

Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
By: John King, March 2003

What follows is an accurate chronology of United States involvement in the arming of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war 1980-88. It is a powerful indictment of the president Bush administration attempt to sell war as a component of his war on terrorism. It reveals US ambitions in Iraq to be just another chapter in the attempt to regain a foothold in the Mideast following the fall of the Shah of Iran.

rming Iraq and the Path to War
A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no exception. Below are some relevant dates.

September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]

November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]

Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan's Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]

July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]

August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]

July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]

August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]

June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." [5]

July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]

August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]

This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.

References:
Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986
Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. www.gendercide.com

Carter LeBlanc beat me to t... (Below threshold)
Fencer X:

Carter LeBlanc beat me to the point I was going to make. Sarin has a very short shelf life. 15 year old sarin munitions are going to be completely worthless as a weapon to anyone so they should most certainly not be classified as weapons of mass destruction anymore and no one should worry about terrorists getting ahold of them other than the fact that they may be useful for building IEDs from the casings.

Mantis, their definition... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Mantis, their definition of "small" was 53 bombs but there are actually 500 and counting. That is the point. Change small to "large" and it is reasonable to ask to have the conclusion reassessed, as well as suspect all of their other data since they were so wrong on this point.

Bullshit, read the report. They never claim that the 53 shells they had examined were all that existed, in fact they repeatedly speculate that more will be found, as I have pointed out to you numerous times. Small is defined as relative to what Iraq had at one time (not to mention as far as military efficacy). 50 or 500, still small. Those 500 shells are less than 1% of the total mustard shells Iraq produced, if they were all mustard. Since they weren't, add in the other chemical weapons produced and the percentage will shrink.

The right, as usual, is smo... (Below threshold)
Greeny:

The right, as usual, is smoking mushroom clouds.

... explain how the followi... (Below threshold)
John Gillnitz:

... explain how the following quotes from the CIA report don't apply.
"While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal."
Posted by: Eric at June 22, 2006 12:35 PM

There is a difference between huffing on an artillery shell like a bong and it being viable weapon. These shells weren't WMDs or even weapons. They are industrial waste.

As you say facts are fac... (Below threshold)
Bonnie:

As you say facts are fact. It is a fact much of what the left/MSM has said since the beginning of this war help the terrorists, Iran, and North Korea, and the rest of America's enemies.

P. Bunyan: here's the problem with that, and everyone else who uses the "aid and comfort" argument to stifle criticism. The administration acts in our name, and it's our duty to try to redirect its actions if we feel they are not in the best interests of the country. The main mechanism most of have to hold our government accountable is... various forms of speech.

If dissent is unpatriotic, then how do you propose we keep our leaders accountable? Elections roll around too rarely.

I'm sure that nobody in the present administration or its political supporters would stoop to misusing this argument just to silence its political opposition. But hey, some future, evil political coalition just might. So, we may as well not set the precedent.

But to address the question of whether speech helps the enemy: it doesn't matter. Because the enemy can cherry-pick whatever it wants to bolster its cause, no matter what we say. What if we just all zipped our lips and had parades, chanting "We love whatever George W. Bush does!"

I don't think Ossama would see this and go "Aw, shucks, I guess we'd better call it a day."

If I were in charge, and I wanted to pursue a policy that I didn't want questioned, it would sure be convenient if I could spin dissent as not only unpatriotic but tantamount to painting a target on the back of Jessica Lynch.

But as I said, I'm sure it's not about that.

Hmmmm.So ... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

So you're saying this is news, because even though we knew all along about multiple legacy WMD storage or dumping sites, we discovered a few unknown ones as well. Really? That's the basis for all this nonsense?

Yup.

Just because they're not the WMDs that you want doesn't matter. They're WMDs and that's pretty much good enough.

Don't like it? Don't care.

Hate to spoil the party, bo... (Below threshold)
marty:

Hate to spoil the party, boys, BUT:

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions. "This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

You can go back to sniffing Bush's ass now.

And I'm still waiting to he... (Below threshold)
kc:

And I'm still waiting to hear how the fact that we actively supplied or allowed supplies to reach Iraq with chemical weapons has been debunked.

Heralder - I welcome the de... (Below threshold)
Tom:

Heralder - I welcome the debate. It is silly to assert that your liberties are intact. The Cheney adminstration is destroying your (and mine) liberties every single day. I fiqure that some of the big, strong right wingers are simply afraid. I mean whatever happened to live free or die, give me liberty or give me death. Those sayings used to mean that we are much stronger than the enemy. Most progressives think we are stronger than all this and that we will surely survive (as we have survived much greater challenges). The world is watching how we go about "spreading democracy" and they don't like it. It is not the America that most of us know and love. America has been taken over by a group of campaigners. They don't know how to govern. They only know how to win elections (fraud). These are not leaders you should be bragging about. Folks such as yourself have such a weak grasp on global issues, it really scares me. We could be looking at WWIII. due to the cheney administrations unlawfull actions. Please know that it will take +/- 50 years for America to get back the pride and positive world opinion which was trashed by the neocons and the PNAC folks. Please do yourself (and the country) a favor and read about these groups. They do not have your (or your families) best interests at heart. They do not. You are hanging onto a failed presidency. I think you know that, but backbone is sometimes hard to find, isn't it? Please stop drinking the kool-aid. And remember, the folks who are tracking your phone calls and credit habits are looking at yours also - not just folks on the "left". You are as much a target as anybody else. i would think a strong American would be bothered by that. Oh yeah, I forgot your scared. I'm sorry to hear that. I thought wingers were braver than that. my bad. Cheers.

Arming Iraq.<p... (Below threshold)
robert lewis:

Arming Iraq.

One item overlooked: Ten months prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, George H.W. Bush signed National Security Directive 26, providing $1 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees which would allow the Iraqi government to continue the development of its weapons. At this time all international banks had cut off any loans to Iraq.

Thanks a lot, Bush 41!

[email protected] Pete Fosse... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

@ Pete Fosse

My point here was to educate you on a very elementary fact that the case for war was based on the idea that Saddam had RECONSTITUTED his WMD program, NOT that there were some leftover shells filled with mustard gas and the like. This is incontrovertible. There is NO debate about that. On this point you are simply wrong, as the administration willingly, freely, publicly states. Concede.

Completely false.

The argument for invading Iraq was that Saddam did NOT COMPLY WITH THE UN RESOLUTIONS REQUIRING HIM TO PROVE THAT HE HAD FULLY DEMOLISHED HIS WMD PROGRAMS.

It was not predicated on him having *already* revived his WMD program but that we couldn't independently verify that he had demolished his WMD program and Saddam refused to offer sufficient evidence that he had.

The argument was that we couldn't take the chance that Saddam would, at some point in the future, reconstitute his weapons programs and thereby become a threat. Then there was Saddam's wide associations with terrorist groups which also offer the specter of WMDs in the hands of terrorist groups that could give Saddam plausible deniability should a WMD be used against America by terrorists.

So you're totally wrong on "a very elementary fact".

Hmmmm.And... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmmm.

And I'm still waiting to hear how the fact that we actively supplied or allowed supplies to reach Iraq with chemical weapons has been debunked.

sigh.

1. Here's a clue for you. Cyanide is also heavily used in industry. An example is industrial strength chlorine gas which is used in water purification & sewage treatment facilities all over America. So shipping cyanide doesn't make it a chemical weapon you blithering ass.


2. Much of what you purport to show as evidence is largely bullshit. When Iran and Iraq fought a war it was Iran that was our enemy while Iraq was more of a non-entity.

In small words: Iraq wasn't our enemy and weren't under international sanctions.


3. A lot of the crap in those "evidence" links are simply regurgitating of events in the Iran Iraq War. Which is frankly completely fucking irrelevant because those specific events didn't involve America.


4. A lot of the "testimony" is from Democratic politicians looking to score political points, not experts. If you think some testimony from "Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas" is going to impress me, then you've got a screw loose.


5. You want to claim America sent chemical weapons to Iraq or sold such shit. Then prove America shipped VX or Sarin or mustard gas.

Otherwise you're full of shit.

$300b, 2500 soldiers, and c... (Below threshold)
j.:

$300b, 2500 soldiers, and counting for some degraded nerve gas over ten years old? that was the grave and growing threat? i hate to resort to personal attacks but only idiots still support this president.

[email protected] robert lewi... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

@ robert lewis

One item overlooked: Ten months prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, George H.W. Bush signed National Security Directive 26, providing $1 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees which would allow the Iraqi government to continue the development of its weapons. At this time all international banks had cut off any loans to Iraq.

HEY DUMBASS!

Did you actually read "National Security Directive 26" or are you just spewing some crap you read elsewhere?

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsd/nsd26.pdf

Hmmm.$300... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

$300b, 2500 soldiers, and counting for some degraded nerve gas over ten years old? that was the grave and growing threat? i hate to resort to personal attacks but only idiots still support this president.

Actually you're the fucking idiot.

The supporting arguments for invading Iraq have been posted a thousand times. You're fucking wrong. You're a fucking idiot.

Read the fucking archives and don't waste my time.

I need a break. The idiot-i-meter has redlined.

Ed - you do need a break; f... (Below threshold)
KC:

Ed - you do need a break; from drinking the Kool-Aid.


What is your well spun take on the Riegle Report?

You're a fucking idiot.


How about weapons grade botulism? What about anthrax?

Are you really that fucking stupid?

A lot of the crap in tho... (Below threshold)
KC:

A lot of the crap in those "evidence" links are simply regurgitating of events in the Iran Iraq War. Which is frankly completely fucking irrelevant because those specific events didn't involve America.

Through the looking glass, I guess. What is it going to take to get you to pull your proverbial (or real) head out of your ass and actually read the links provided?

Didn't Involve America:

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.
Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.
Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002

I won't bother to paste any more of "indrid's" list b/c it's available in the link I provided. I also won't post any links to alternet, et al because you pathetic Kool Aid drinkers think you can dismiss them with a wave of the hand.

The supporting arguments... (Below threshold)
KC:

The supporting arguments for invading Iraq have been posted a thousand times. You're fucking wrong. You're a fucking idiot.

Read the fucking archives and don't waste my time.

And the goalposts have been moved a thousand times. The dingbat neocons here have yet to (and never will) admit that:

1) The Reagan/Bush administration played a large part in arming the damn Iraqis with WMDs, and at best looked the other way as they used chemical weapons on the Kurds and Iranians.
2) The DoD itself already deflated the over-stated relevance of the latest news release - which still doesn't stop wingers from spouting off at the mouth. Where's the press conference from Bush? Wouldn't they be trumpeting any REAL WMD finds far and wide?


Finally, where are the links, Kool Aid drinkers? Ed can spew garbage out of his pie hole all he wants, and cite the authoratitive "archives" 'till the cows come home, but I guess providing links is just too much work.

Again, to anyone other than Ed, who would prefer to have any dialogue degenerate into name calling and denials without proof, please give me some links to rebut the assertions/facts in the post by "indrid" and myself, and spare me the talking points.

As I said - I'm always willing to consider a second opinion with backing facts.

Taken directly from the Rie... (Below threshold)
Indrid_Cold:

Taken directly from the Riegle report:

U.S. Exports of Biological Materials to Iraq

The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs has oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act. Pursuant to the Act, Committee staff contacted the U.S. Department of Commerce and requested information on the export of biological materials during the years prior to the Gulf War. After receiving this information, we contacted a principal supplier of these materials to determine what, if any, materials were exported to Iraq which might have contributed to an offensive or defensive biological warfare program. Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Records prior to 1985 were not available, according to the supplier. These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction. According to the Department of Defense's own Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, released in April 1992: "By the time of the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had developed biological weapons. It's advanced and aggressive biological warfare program was the most advanced in the Arab world... The program probably began late in the 1970's and concentrated on the development of two agents, botulinum toxin and anthrax bacteria... Large scale production of these agents began in 1989 at four facilities in Baghdad. Delivery means for biological agents ranged from simple aerial bombs and artillery rockets to surface-to-surface missiles."

Included in the approved sales are the following biological materials (which have been considered by various nations for use in war), with their associated disease symptoms:

Bacillus Anthracis: anthrax is a disease producing bacteria identified by the Department of Defense in The Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Contress, as being a major component in the Iraqi biological warfare program.

Anthrax is an often fatal infectious disease due to ingestion of spores. It begins abruptly with high fever, difficulty in breathing, and chest pain. The disease eventually results in septicemia (blood poisoning), and the mortality is high. Once septicemia is advanced, antibiotic therapy may prove useless, probably because the exotoxins remain, despite the death of the bacteria.

Clostridium Botulinum: A bacterial source of botulinum toxin, which causes vomiting, constipation, thirst, general weakness, headache, fever, dizziness, double vision, dilation of the pupils and paralysis of the muscles involving swallowing. It is often fatal.

Histoplasma Capsulatum: causes a disease superfically resembling tuberculosis that may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and spleen, anemia, an influenza like illness and an acute inflammatory skin disease marked by tender red nodules, usually on the shins. Reactivated infection usually involves the lungs, the brain, spinal membranes, heart, peritoneum, and the adrenals.

Brucella Melitensis: a bacteria which can cause chronic fatique, loss of appetite, profuse sweating when at rest, pain in joints and muscles, insomnia, nausea, and damage to major organs.

Clostridium Perfringens: a highly toxic bateria which causes gas gangrene. The bacteria produce toxins that move along muscle bundles in the body killing cells and producing necrotic tissue that is then favorable for further growth of the bacteria itself. Eventually, these toxins and bacteria enter the bloodstream and cause a systemic illness.

In addition, several shipments of Escherichia Coli (E. Coli) and genetic materials, as well as human and bacterial DNA, were shipped directly to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission.

The following is a detailed listing of biological materials, provided by the American Type Culture Collection, which were exported to agencies of the government of Iraq pursuant to the issueance of an export licensed by the U.S. Commerce Department:

Date : February 8, 1985
Sent To : Iraq Atomic Energy Agency
Materials Shipped:

Ustilago nuda (Jensen) Rostrup

Date : February 22, 1985
Sent To : Ministry of Higher Education
Materials Shipped:

Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum (ATCC 32136)
Class III pathogen

Date : July 11, 1985
Sent To : Middle and Near East Regional A
Material Shipped:

Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum (ATCC 32136)
Class III pathogen

Date : May 2, 1986
Sent To : Ministry of Higher Education
Materials Shipped:

1. Bacillus Anthracis Cohn (ATCC 10)
Batch # 08-20-82 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

2. Bacillus Subtilis (Ehrenberg) Cohn (ATCC 82)
Batch # 06-20-84 (2 each)

3. Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 3502)
Batch # 07-07-81 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

4. Clostridium perfringens (Weillon and Zuber) Hauduroy, et al (ATCC 3624)
Batch # 10-85SV (2 each)

5. Bacillus subtilis (ATCC 6051)
Batch # 12-06-84 (2 each)

6. Francisella tularensis var. tularensis Olsufiev (ATCC 6223)
Batch # 05-14-79 (2 each)
Avirulent, suitable for preparations of diagnotic antigens

7. Clostridium tetani (ATCC 9441)
Batch # 03-84 (3 each)
Highly toxigenic

8. Clostridium botulinum Type E (ATCC 9564)
Batch # 03-02-79 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

9. Clostridium tetani (ATCC 10779)
Batch # 04-24-84S (3 each)

10. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 12916)
Batch #08-14-80 (2 each)
Agglutinating type 2

11. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 13124)
Batch #07-84SV (3 each)
Type A, alpha-toxigenic, produces lecithinase C.J. Appl.

12. Bacillus Anthracis (ATCC 14185)
Batch #01-14-80 (3 each)
G.G. Wright (Fort Detrick)
V770-NP1-R. Bovine Anthrax
Class III pathogen

13. Bacillus Anthracis (ATCC 14578)
Batch #01-06-78 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

14. Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 14581)
Batch #04-18-85 (2 each)

15. Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 14945)
Batch #06-21-81 (2 each)

16. Clostridium botulinum Type E (ATCC 17855)
Batch # 06-21-71
Class III pathogen

17. Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 19213)
Batch #3-84 (2 each)

18. Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 19397)
Batch # 08-18-81 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

19. Brucella abortus Biotype 3 (ATCC 23450)
Batch # 08-02-84 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

20. Brucella abortus Biotype 9 (ATCC 23455)
Batch # 02-05-68 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

21. Brucella melitensis Biotype 1 (ATCC 23456)
Batch # 03-08-78 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

22. Brucella melitensis Biotype 3 (ATCC 23458)
Batch # 01-29-68 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

23. Clostribium botulinum Type A (ATCC 25763)
Batch # 8-83 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

24. Clostridium botulinum Type F (ATCC 35415)
Batch # 02-02-84 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

Date : August 31, 1987
Sent To : State Company for Drug Industries
Materials Shipped:

1. Saccharomyces cerevesiae (ATCC 2601)
Batch # 08-28-08 (1 each)

2. Salmonella choleraesuis subsp. choleraesuis Serotype typhi (ATCC 6539)
Batch # 06-86S (1 each)

3. Bacillus subtillus (ATCC 6633)
Batch # 10-85 (2 each)

4. Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. pneumoniae (ATCC 10031)
Batch # 08-13-80 (1 each)

5. Escherichia coli (ATCC 10536)
Batch # 04-09-80 (1 each)

6. Bacillus cereus (11778)
Batch #05-85SV (2 each)

7. Staphylococcus epidermidis (ATCC 12228)
Batch # 11-86s (1 each)

8. Bacillus pumilus (ATCC 14884)
Batch # 09-08-80 (2 each)

Date : July 11, 1988
Sent To : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
Materials Shipped

1. Escherichia coli (ATCC 11303)
Batch # 04-875
Phase host

2. Cauliflower Mosaic Caulimovirus (ATCC 45031)
Batch # 06-14-85
Plant Virus

3. Plasmid in Agrobacterium Tumefaciens (ATCC 37349)
(Ti plasmid for co-cultivation with plant integration vectors in E. Coli)
Batch # 05-28-85

Date : April 26, 1988
Sent To: : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
Materials Shipped:

1. Hulambda4x-8, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57236) Phage vector
Suggest host: E coli

2. Hulambda14-8, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57240) Phage vector
Suggested host: E coli

3. Hulambda15, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57242) Phage vector
Suggested host: E. coli

Date : August 31, 1987
Sent To : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
Materials Shipped:

1. Escherichia coli (ATCC 23846)
Batch # 07-29-83 (1 each)

2. Escherichia coli (ATCC 33694)
Batch # 05-87 (1 each)

Date : September 29, 1988
Sent To : Ministry of Trade
Materials Shipped:

1. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 240)
Batch # 05-14-63 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

2. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 938)
Batch # 1963 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

3. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 3629)
Batch # 10-23-85 (3 each)

4. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 8009)
Batch # 03-30-84 (3 each)

5. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 8705)
Batch # 06-27-62 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

6. Brucella abortus (ATCC 9014)
Batch # 05-11-66 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

7. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 10388)
Batch # 06-01-73 (3 each)

8. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 11966)
Batch #05-05-70 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

9. Clostridium botulinum Type A
Batch # 07-86 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

10. Bacillus cereus (ATCC 33018)
Batch # 04-83 (3 each)

11. Bacillus ceres (ATCC 33019)
Batch # 03-88 (3 each)

Date : January 31, 1989
Sent To : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
Materials Shipped:

1. PHPT31, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT)
Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57057)

2. Plambda500, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
pseudogene (HPRT) Chromosome(s): 5 p14-p13 (ATCC 57212)

Date : January 17, 1989
Sent To : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
Materials Shipped:

1. Hulambda4x-8, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosomes(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57237) Phage vector;
Suggested host: E. coli

2. Hulambda14, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57540), Cloned from human lymphoblast, Phase vector
Suggested host: E. coli

3. Hulambda15, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57241) Phage vector;
Suggested host: E. coli


Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control has compiled a listing of biological materials shipped to Iraq prior to the Gulf War. The listing covers the period from October 1, 1984 (when the CDC began keeping records) through October 13, 1993. The following materials with biological warfare significance were shipped to Iraq during this period.

Date : November 28, 1989
Sent To : University of Basrah, College of
Science, Department of Biology
Materials Shipped:

1. Enterococcus faecalis

2. Enterococcus faecium

3. Enterococcus avium

4. Enterococcus raffinosus

5. Enteroccus gallinarium

6. Enterococcus durans

7. Enteroccus hirae

8. Streptococcus bovis
(etiologic)

Date : April 21, 1986
Sent To : Officers City Al-Muthanna,
Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69, House 28/I,
Baghdad, Iraq
Materials Shipped:

1. 1 vial botulinum toxoid
(non-infectious)

Date : March 10, 1986
Sent To : Officers City Al-Muthanna,
Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69 House 28/I,
Baghdad, Iraq
Materials Shipped:

1. 1 vial botulinum toxoid #A2
(non-infectious)

Date : June 25, 1985
Sent To : University of Baghdad, College of
Medicine, Department of Microbiology
Materials Shipped:

1. 3 years cultures
(etiologic)
Candida sp.

Date : May 21, 1985
Sent To : Basrah, Iraq
Materials Shipped:

1. Lyophilized arbovirus seed
(etiologic)

2. West Nile Fever Virus

Date : April 26, 1985
Sent To : Minister of Health, Ministry of
Health, Baghdad, Iraq
Materials Shipped:

1. 8 vials antigen and antisera (r. rickettsii and r. typhi) to diagnose rickettsial infections (non-infectious)

"Bottom line is WMDs were t... (Below threshold)
failureman:

"Bottom line is WMDs were there! and are spread out all across the mideast. Quit trying to rewrite reality to fit Your agendas leftists"


If that is true then the bush administration's incompetence in starting a war that resulted in proliferation of these weapons has put us all in grave danger. This sort of incompetence should be punished by impeachment.

In the run up to the war th... (Below threshold)
failureman:

In the run up to the war the Bush administration identified several sites in iraq which they said were part of the WMD program. Yet, during the invasion the administration MADE NO EFFORT OR PLAN to secure these sites. What? They DID NOT SECURE SUSPECT WMD sites!

The only possible explanation of that fact is that no-one in the administration believed there were WMD's at those sites.

And again, for those idiots... (Below threshold)
KC:

And again, for those idiots who can't read:

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions. "This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

"Pulling out of Viet Nam wa... (Below threshold)
failureman:

"Pulling out of Viet Nam was supposed to make peace,how many died after this solution.If the Devil sent his emmisaries into this world,He sent them disguised as DemoRats."

It was NIXON who pulled out of vietnam, it was REAGAN who ran with his cowardly tail between his cowardly legs from Beirut. Your ignorance is stunning.

It has been reported in ... (Below threshold)
KC:

It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.

Ya don't say...


The way I see it, the pathetic display of reasoning ability that sparked this entire thread has boiled down to two things:

1. The fact that a top DoD official personally threw water on this "big find" (while talking to Faux News, no less) needs to be addressed.

2. Nobody has been able to cite the "debunking" of any of the above posted information/links which purport to tie the U.S. (Reagan/Bush) to Iraq's WMD programs. Cry all you want about the sources. I want to see when/where/how it was "debunked".

If you're like Ed, you'll put your fingers in your ears and scream "LALLALALALALALA...I can't heaaaaar yooooouuuuu!!!". If not, please provide links.

@edHEY - A^... (Below threshold)
robert lewis:

@ed

HEY - A^$%U#@ - get your tongue outa Bush's [email protected]#%* long enough to read: "National Security Directive 26" which says the US will "propose economic and political incentives" - which sounds f*(&#*g great - except what GHWB did was OK a One Billion Dollar taxpayer guaranteed loan for "agricultural chemicals" which were dual use, and were used in making chemical weapons - you ignorant #%^#.

FYI, ed, after Saddam obtained Amb. April Glaspie's tacit approval to strike Kuwait ("The US does not involve itself in intra-Arab disputes"), thus launching Gulf War I (which could have been prevented if Bush had told him to back the f*^# off), the Iraqis then defaulted on the Billion Dollar loan - so US taxpayers had to pay it off. Thanks to balless Republicans, no less.

[THIS COMMENT WAS EDITED I don't usually edit the "f" word, but since I had to clean up the comment anyway, went ahead and did that too. I let most stuff go, but this is just plain silly. -- Lorie]

CarterDo you know an... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Carter
Do you know anything about chemistry? Sarin gas weapons can last much longer then six months as long as the Sarin gas components aren't mix. Iraq had use the binary component technique in their Sarin weapons after 1989. As long as the containers are intact then the Sarin component part of the weapons are still dangerous. Once they are mix then yes it could become useless in less then six month or even less then weeks. It would be unwise to use these weapons as originally intended due to their age but one can take the chemicals out and use them or deliver them by other means. "Mustard Gas" powder can become liquid if stored in highly heated area over a length of time therefore degrading their dissemination efficiency in typical delivery system. That does not mean that the chemical is inert.

As for" In 2003 the DoD issued a press release stating that all known legacy WMD sites had been secured", the key word there is "known". That doesn't mean that there they did not find more later or that there is no more WMD.

It was NIXON who pulled out... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

It was NIXON who pulled out of vietnam, it was REAGAN who ran with his cowardly tail between his cowardly legs from Beirut. Your ignorance is stunning.
-------------------------------------------------
Failureman,
Your ignorance is really stunning. Nixon simply turned the war over to the South Vietnamse with the assumption of financial and military equipment support. The Dems cut off that funding (why? you know?). Reagan simply decided he needed to focus on fighting the bigger threat ala the Soviet Union (just like FDR sided with Stalin against Hitler).

Now can you join me in condemning the despicable Dems as represented by Murth in advocating the cut-and-run policy?

If that is true then the bu... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

If that is true then the bush administration's incompetence in starting a war that resulted in proliferation of these weapons has put us all in grave danger. This sort of incompetence should be punished by impeachment.
--------------------------------------------------
Why would the people on the left advocating the US going through the UN for 2 years and allowing time for Saddam to work with his oil-for-food partners (France, China, Russia ...) in concealing and/or spreading his WMDs?

Oh, you are saying that it is good that we didn't elect Gore or Kerry?

From today's White House Pr... (Below threshold)
Whoohoogirl1:

From today's White House Press Briefing. Makewhat you will out of it, but he seems to do an awful lot of pussyfooting around. "It is what it is." What the heck is that supposed to mean? Jesus people, the White House will not call them WMDs! Election year propoganda. Period.

Q This document that was unclassified yesterday, Republican lawmakers released it pointing toward 500 weapons dumps or munitions found in Iraq since 2003, of some chemical weapons. Do you consider this as a smoking gun of some sort, proving the WMD charge, or is this old material that is pre-Gulf War? What do you make of it?

MR. HADLEY: I think really it is what it is. There's a declassified, I think one-pager, that the intelligence community has cleared. I don't know whether that's been released to the press.

Q It has, yes, it has.

MR. HADLEY: That's really the story, I think. And I don't have a whole lot to add. It sort of, it is what it is. And I think -- I read that statement quickly last night and it's really all we can say about it. And I think people are going to have to draw their own conclusions.


Why would the people on ... (Below threshold)
KC:

Why would the people on the left advocating the US going through the UN for 2 years and allowing time for Saddam to work with his oil-for-food partners (France, China, Russia ...) in concealing and/or spreading his WMDs?

Would those be the WMDs that "we" tacitly helped Saddam develop?

Do you have any proof that Saddam was proliferating or hiding weapons? Please provide links. Spare me the links to the authoratitive "archives" on this site.

Are you saying that Saddam was working with France, China, Russia, etc. to conceal said weapons? Proof/link?

(just like FDR sided wit... (Below threshold)
KC:

(just like FDR sided with Stalin against Hitler)

Huh? Are you saying that if the Bushs (Prescott et al and their known Nazi ties) were in power in the US, we would have gone with the other side?

What point exactly are you trying to make?

Amazing! I was told for the... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Amazing! I was told for the last three years that Iraq had no WMD-NONE AT ALL!!!-and now it turns out that yes, actually Iraq did have WMD after all but they were old and don't count and anyway we knew about it so...move along BUSH EEEEVIL!!! Sorry it won't wash.And now the lefties here are going back to the 80s to blame Rumsfeld for Saddam.Ingrid:So what? Politically Santorum is in the fight of his career- do you think he will let this drop? Bush apparantly doesn't want to revisit the WMD issue-but he isn't running again.Santorum and other GOPers are.Now everytime somebody attacks the war as based on the a lie they can point out that WMD were actually found in IRAQ.I repeat:The line from the left has been that Iraq had NO WMD,NONE,ZILCH,NADA-now that is gone.Also-according to Michael Ledeen there is much more in the report that hasn't been released-what happens if the entire report gets leaked or if Mr. Desperate Santorum can get more declassified? Folks-Pete Fosse-this is an emormous story that will circulate through the body politic much like the Swiftboat story did.The entire narrative of the anti-war left-BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED-has been shattered.

Oops-an ENORMOUS story,that... (Below threshold)
xennady:

Oops-an ENORMOUS story,that is.

"Get a clue" time:<bl... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Get a clue" time:

...intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitive nature, said the weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and there is no evidence to date of chemical munitions manufactured since then. They said an assessment of the weapons concluded they are so degraded that they couldn't now be used as designed.

They probably would have been intended for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq War, said David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004.

He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

"It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.

As I said earlier, this sham marks the end of Santorum's career.

Maybe he can get a job as the boy who cried wolf. lol!

Damn, Xennady's right. Ok,... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Damn, Xennady's right. Ok, left-wing, pack it up. We've been proved wrong. All along we've all been saying the exact same thing, that Saddam never had any weapons. In fact we said he never even owned a gun, that Iraq was knife-free, and the Iran-Iraq war was fought with Nerf bats. Oh well, I guess we were wrong.

Oh btw, Xennady, HOW do you TYPE with a STRAIGHTJACKET on?

MR. HADLEY: T... (Below threshold)
Lee:

MR. HADLEY: That's really the story, I think. And I don't have a whole lot to add. It sort of, it is what it is. And I think -- I read that statement quickly last night and it's really all we can say about it. And I think people are going to have to draw their own conclusions.

Listen to that arrogant moron! Doesn't he think the American people are entitled to know the truth!

Instead he's relying on the Bullsh*t right-wing spinners on getting some Republican political mileage out of this.

These traitors should be shot.

Lorie-Appreciate y... (Below threshold)
robert lewis:

Lorie-

Appreciate your maintaining the spirit - if not the letter - of my post to Ed. One point - since you chose to edit my post - why not go back and redact the A** in Ed's post to me - or are only ignorant right wingers allowed to use "profanity"?

Well, Mantis you didn't mak... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Well, Mantis you didn't make any sense there-sorry!Try again! I repeat:The narrative of the anti-war left has been that Iraq had no WMD when invaded.Remember BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED? That is now non-operational.The new line is that these don't count,or alternatively that everybody knew about these already so its old news.It will not fly.No politician challenged about the basis of Iraq war will fail to note the actual discovery of the most-discussed reason for the war.Again-Santorum is in the fight of his career-do you think he will let this drop? By the way-John F'n Kerry surely knows about these WMD-why isn't he a liar for denying their existance?

Well Robert it depends upon... (Below threshold)
914:

Well Robert it depends upon what the meaning of the word ignorant is is..

And Xennady, great points that I agree with the issue is dead just like the lefts chances of looking anything but stupid this fall..

LeeDavid Kay was the... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Lee
David Kay was the weapons inspector that said Iraq didn't have any WMD's. He has a dog in this race so anything he says have to taken with a grain of salt. Do you have the link to what he said? You stated that someone said "an assessment of the weapons concluded they are so degraded that they couldn't now be used as designed." The key word is as design. That doesn't mean that they cannot be use by in other ways.

WayneThats a great... (Below threshold)
914:

Wayne

Thats a great point! What were they originally designed for? when they were a 100% fresh and lethal, what was the objective of these weapons? to plop harmlessly in the sand or to murder by the 1,000s?? excellent point..

Alright Mantis, you are arg... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Alright Mantis, you are arguing that 500 weapons are smaller than a break basket rather than bigger than a break basket. Fine, let's award you a semantic debating point because that is important to you.

Now back to the forest. The Iraq War is an important maorl endeavor by the United States and other countries because it furthers the principles of freedom, and it has some reasonable chance of reducting human misery in the long run. You'll agree with this sentiment as you wander around the trees, yes? This is really the crux of the matter, NOT your fixation on WMD.

XennadyYour... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Xennady

Your reasoning(?) is pathetic.

Lorie

In your effort to jump on the Sillytorum band wagon of tom-foolery, you sure opened a can of worms. Seems that these so-called WMD's have been thoroughly debunked for the foolishness they were.

And worse for you & the rest of the poll-parrot Righties, the Reagan/Bush41 cynical hand in playing footsie w/ Saddam has been thoroughly vetted in the posts above.

This entire thread shows exactly what happens when Republican right wing kooks, incompetents and neo-cons are in charge of foreign policy. All the patriotic jingoism & chest-thumping have thrown this country from the frying pan into the Middle East fire.

The key word is "design".</... (Below threshold)
Lee:

The key word is "design".

No the key word is they are not WMDs.

"It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.

Sorry - I don't have a link. I saw it on Yahoo News. As I've been told by Paul at Whizbang several times when I've challenged his quotes - Google it yourself - although Paul usually adds a few expletives.

and let me get this straigh... (Below threshold)
Lee:

and let me get this straight, Wayne. David Kay is the guy BUSH sent to Iraw to track down WMDs, and now you are challenging his opinion on this, suggesting he has a reason to lie?

Amazing.

It was your... (Below threshold)
mantis:

It was your damn semantic point in the first place. That you persisted is your own fault.

Now back to the forest.

This was a thread about the existence of WMD in Iraq, we were not exactly discussing whether the war is just.

The Iraq War is an important maorl endeavor by the United States and other countries because it furthers the principles of freedom,

That remains to be seen. I for one doubt it will, but I still have some hope.

and it has some reasonable chance of reducting human misery in the long run.

Same as above.

You'll agree with this sentiment as you wander around the trees, yes?

I'll agree that those are the goals we should be seeking, whether or not the Iraq war will achieve them is still far from certain.

This is really the crux of the matter, NOT your fixation on WMD.

I don't have a fixation. That's what this thread is about.

I'm dazzled by your brillia... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

I'm dazzled by your brilliance Mak44-NOT! Care to explain how I'm wrong? No? I thought so.Lee:Sarin filled 155mm Artillery shell are not WMD? Oh really? Let's have an election on that, buddy.We'll see if the American people think Sarin is a WMD.

Santorum Santorium Score... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Santorum Santorium Scorecard

(Home) Wizbang Ship of Fools 0

Visitors) Reasoned Intellect 100 & counting

Gee, I need to clean my toi... (Below threshold)
914:

Gee, I need to clean my toilet, anybody know where I can get Me a shell of Mustard Gas from Iraq? cause its way less harmful then all the WMDs I currently have under My kitchen sink!

You lunatics have really flown the coop!

Golly gee, Do You think tha... (Below threshold)
914:

Golly gee, Do You think that the feds may be caving in My door any second? i've got at least fifty pounds of Weapons grade cleaning chemicals in My pantry and I hate the way the rest of the world talks about My country and My president! So maybe I will just run down/drive down to the nearest Starbucks and detonate My Ajax bomb and say Halleulah..and end it all.

MAKS MANIACAL MENTAL... (Below threshold)
914:

MAKS MANIACAL MENTAL scorecard

(HOME) Yeahs 86

(Insurgents) nags 13

You lose again! same old story, same old song and dance My friend.."

The narrative of the ant... (Below threshold)
Phoenician in a time of Romans:

The narrative of the anti-war left has been that Iraq had no WMD when invaded.Remember BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED?

"He's been a menace forever, and we will do -- he needs to open his country up for inspection, so we can see whether or not he's developing weapons of mass destruction." - George Bush, 7 Aug 2001.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."- Dick Chaney, 26 Aug 2002.

"[Saddam] has amassed large clandestine stocks of biological weapons... including anthrax and botulism toxin and possibly smallpox. His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and sarin and mustard gas... [he] has at this moment stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons." - Donald Rumsfeld, 18 Sep 2002.

"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." - Colin Powell, 5 Feb 2003

"Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.... I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons." - George Bush, 6 Mar 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George Bush, 17 Mar 2003

"The goals of our coalition are clear and limited. We will end a brutal regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique threat to the world." - George Bush, 10 Apr 2003.

Simply put - Bush lied, people died.

Don't you wingnuts ever get embarrassed lying so blatently?

Dont You ever feel guilty d... (Below threshold)
914:

Dont You ever feel guilty defending a mass murderer?

Dont You ever feel guilt... (Below threshold)
Phoenician in a time of Romans:

Dont You ever feel guilty defending a mass murderer?

Which one, Saddam Hussein or George Bush?

Saddam insane... (Below threshold)
914:

Saddam insane

Then why, Mantis, why are y... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Then why, Mantis, why are you so interested in refuting the evidence of WMD warheads? If it doesn't matter to the morality of the war, as you now allow, one is left pondering your actual motivations.

I dont think Your willing o... (Below threshold)
914:

I dont think Your willing or able to defend George..

One does not have to ponder... (Below threshold)
914:

One does not have to ponder to far McCain. The motivations are self evident. lean to the left But hold on tight..

I see that nobody here is i... (Below threshold)
KC:

I see that nobody here is interested in refuting the fact that it was the U.S. under G.H.W. Bush and Ronny that allowed (and in some cases directly aided) Saddam "insane" to acquire the WMDs all you wing nuts are so fucking celebratory about today.

Again, if you can't provide links, the discussion is over.

Of course, if one wishes to stick to the topic of this thread, it was already over when the actual quote of the "top DoD" official talking to Faux News was posted.

Oooohhh, wait. Nevermind. S... (Below threshold)
KC:

Oooohhh, wait. Nevermind. Sorry.

We're talking about Rick "Intelligent Design" Santorum and his desperate attempt to divert the attention from real issues for his upcoming campaign.

Time for an abortion law in PA.

If We enabled Saddam in His... (Below threshold)
914:

If We enabled Saddam in His WMDs then they do exist right? We dont need links You C.O.G. You just said it! believe in Yourself for once in Your life and be free of hatred..

If We enabled Saddam in ... (Below threshold)
KC:

If We enabled Saddam in His WMDs then they do exist right? We dont need links You C.O.G. You just said it! believe in Yourself for once in Your life and be free of hatred..

You got nothing, "914". What exactly is C.O.G.?

I think it's fairly obvious to any rational, thinking human being that the WMDs we have found are reported to be defunct, pre-Gulf War artifacts containing some of the agents we (and others) provided. Can you refute that? Because that is the subject this thread. Furthermore, it was stated by Saddam's regime that they did, in fact, lose track of roughly 500 WMDs after the Gulf War.

Good thing we invaded, created a huge power vacuum and didn't safeguard the "known sites" so that the Islamofacists that we allowed to take root in the country couldn't get ahold of them.

So can I take it that you are admitting that we did enable him?

Come on, I know you can be honest for once in your life..

914Do you e... (Below threshold)
mak44:

914

Do you ever pull your head out of your ass?

You just said it! believ... (Below threshold)
KC:

You just said it! believe in Yourself for once in Your life and be free of hatred..

Blogging rule #1: Don't post drunk. Idiot.

Do you ever pull your he... (Below threshold)
KC:

Do you ever pull your head out of your ass?

Have we reached the pinnacle of your reasoning and reading skills here? Is that what you're left with when the "Facts" you have based your entire belief system crumble under scrutiny? If you had one iota of reading comprehension skill, or had taken your adderall and actually read the quote from our DoD official, you'd see that these WMDs were PRE-GULF WAR, and therefore NOT the WMDs used as a justification to invade.

Give it up, dude. Don't you have an intermediate algebra quiz to study for?

Hey KC, you must be a littl... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Hey KC, you must be a little blurry-eyed. I'm on your side.

914 - Fingers in ears - scr... (Below threshold)
KC:

914 - Fingers in ears - screaming "NA NA NA NA NA NA...LA LA LA LA LA LA....I can't hear you...BLAH!"


Pathetic. It's called Adult Attention Deficit Hyper stupidty Disorder (ADHD).

Sorry, my bad. Thought the ... (Below threshold)
KC:

Sorry, my bad. Thought the "914" in bold was our buddy trying to make a name for himself.

Hehe. ;) It's late.

Just for fun, here's the O... (Below threshold)
KC:

Just for fun, here's the O'Reilly, Rethug translation to me putting my foot in my mouth:

Sorry, my bad. Thought the "914" in bold was our buddy trying to make a name for himself.
=

What? I never said anything bad about you. It's the MSLM distorting my quote and taking it out of context.

Wow, life must be easy when you live in the reality construct wherein you NEVER have to take responsibility for what you said.

I guess I'm just a weak-kneed liberal veteran.

WTF? Is it really this easy... (Below threshold)
KC:

WTF? Is it really this easy here?

P A T H E T I C.

You two are an excellent ex... (Below threshold)
McCain:

You two are an excellent example of the disfunctional, self-loathing liberal intellegentia.

And you, McCain, are a typi... (Below threshold)
KC:

And you, McCain, are a typical example of the factless, chickenhawk, propaganda spewing idiots on the "right".

Note: you still fail to provide a single iota of factual basis for any of your "arguments".

I guess that's what happens when your entire political literacy consists of talking points and smears.

Got anything better?

Phoenician:Don't you moonba... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Phoenician:Don't you moonbats ever get embareassed at being so incredibly stupid? Bush said there were WMD in Iraq and-whattaya know-there were! Game over-thanks for playing! Like I said, your moonbat line has been there were no WMD in Iraq-NONE,ZILCH,NADA-that's now proven wrong.Congrats on learning to use Google-give yourself a moonbat star.here's a google search you should do:General Georges Sada.He wrote a book stating that most of Saddams WMD were flown out to Syria prewar.According to Michael Ledeen-another Google search for you-there's a lot more along those lines in the still classified report Santorum cribbed from-and more will come out.Enjoy!I know I will.

XennadyIf y... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Xennady

If you're using the crypto-fascist Ledeen for support you are off the deep end.

This fascist pig is most likely the one to have had his hand in the production of the fraudulent Italian Niger Yellowcake documents.

Ledeen is just one of the fascist neo-cons that come from Reagan's admin. The man is a maniac & if he gets his way, the Earth will be turned into a radioactive cinder.

If Ledeen is where you go for facts, then you are insane.

Sure I have more, KC. What... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Sure I have more, KC. What specific facts would you like to hear today?

As you ponder what you desire to know, you will be probably uninterested to know that I'm not on the "right" in any way that you would define it. I have developed through maturity and study, however, an understanding that liberals generally are self-loathing anti-American creatures. The history of modern liberalism provides enough empirical evidence to pursuade an impartial observer to reach this conclusion.

Then why, Mantis, why ar... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Then why, Mantis, why are you so interested in refuting the evidence of WMD warheads?

Not refuting, just trying to provide some context.

If it doesn't matter to the morality of the war, as you now allow, one is left pondering your actual motivations.

As I now allow? I've never said differently. I was not aginst the war because I considered it immoral. If we engaged in every possible moral war, we would be fighting multiple nations constantly. The goals of this war are not immoral, they are just highly unlikely, made moreso by the idiotic planning of the current Dept. of Defense. Plus I always thought they were largely full of shit about the weapons threat.

The DING BATS are just scre... (Below threshold)
914:

The DING BATS are just screamin for attention because their minds cant keep up with their bowel movements.. Hey KC or in laymens terms..Kentucky fried.. time for Your weekly pabst smear.

One iota of truth would wipe Your lousy ass out of existence.. TRUTH! YOU want the truth! You cant handle the truth!...PISS-ANT PISS OFF!

KCGlad you ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

KC

Glad you stumbled in on this hotbed of far right extremist lunacy. You've done a yeoman's job taking these crypto-fascists and/or war-mongers apart today & tonite.

I came across this disintellectual pigpen a couple months ago from a link about the Rolling Stone cover story about "The Worst President in History."

Lorie, the author of this thread, was just a bit too exuberant to get on the Sanitorium wagon and she left herself and this Ship of Fools known as Wizbang out on an extremely thin branch.

These Righties are so desperate to find justification for Bush's Iraqi insanity that they grasp at anything. Following the silly Santorum has taken them over the cliff, just like a bunch of lemmings.

Phoenician:Don't you moo... (Below threshold)
Phoenician in a time of Romans:

Phoenician:Don't you moonbats ever get embareassed at being so incredibly stupid? Bush said there were WMD in Iraq and-whattaya know-there were!

Bush may have also said once that the sun rises in the east. The fact that this is true doesn't prevent other things he said from being lies.

As shown in the cites I gave:

- Bush stated that Hussein was developing WMD in 2001. This is a lie.

- Chaney said Hussein was amassing WMD to use against the US. This is a lie.

- Rumsfeld said Hussein had large stocks of chemical and biological weapons. This is a lie.

- Powell said Hussein had at least 100 tons of chemical weapons. This is a lie

- Bush said Hussein's weapons was a threat to the US. This is a lie.

- Bush said Hussein "possesses and conceals" some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This is a lie

- Bush said that Iraq's WMDs made it a unique threat to the world. This is a lie.

Bush lied, people died. Deal with the facts, wingnuts.

Good Mantis, we are coming ... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Good Mantis, we are coming to agreement on some foundation arguments. Your argument against the war becomes one of assessing the risks differently. And you throw in something about not believing the WMD was there, which I again say is irrelevant.

I will ask you a question now. Since you say we cannot fight every moral war, which is true, does it follow that we should not fight any? In other words, isn't a little morality better than none? Isn't spreading freedom to Iraq a morally better outcome than spreading freedom to neither Iraq nor North Korea?

MAK44Where do you ... (Below threshold)
914:

MAK44

Where do you go for facts( if im allowed the liscense to ask)?

914You are ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

914

You are God's proof on Earth that He intended for some parents to practice abortion, or, in your Mother's case, take an enema.

As you ponder what you d... (Below threshold)
KC:

As you ponder what you desire to know, you will be probably uninterested to know that I'm not on the "right" in any way that you would define it. I have developed through maturity and study, however, an understanding that liberals generally are self-loathing anti-American creatures. The history of modern liberalism provides enough empirical evidence to pursuade an impartial observer to reach this conclusion.

Translation from the keyboard of McCain: "I can't address the issues raised on this thread; While defending the utter idiocy of the reasoning which spawned this thread, I will purport to having political leanings somewhere other than "the right", whom I shill for here; therefore I will resort to ad-hominem attacks on "all liberals" when confronted with facts."

Sure I have more, KC. What specific facts would you like to hear today?

Let's start with the FACT that the DoD explicitly said that the WMDs in question on this thread ARE NOT the WMDs which were (in part) the justification on which the invasion of 2003 was based. Do you deny this? Because as stated very clearly, in this very thread - nobody ever doubted that there were defunct, outdated WMDs still missing somewhere in Iraq, and that these WMDs were fabricated sometime BEFORE the Gulf War WITH THE ASSISTANCE of the United States of America under GW Bush and Ronnie Reagan.

For the last time, please do try to refute these facts.

Finally, as if you are worth the time: I love The USA, I love the freedoms we have and realize that no nation is perfect. If a coward like you were to question your patriotism to my face, I'd suppress the urge to knock your teeth out and point out that it is the practice of turncoats and scoundrels to hide behind false patriotism.

Next?

Isn't spreading freedom... (Below threshold)
Phoenician in a time of Romans:

Isn't spreading freedom to Iraq a morally better outcome

Hmm - bombing, invading and occupying a nation "to spread freedom".

Is that a little like fucking for chastity, or holding a kegger to spread sobriety?

mak44, I have never read so... (Below threshold)
McCain:

mak44, I have never read so many cliches packed into any comment on any blog anywhere. You get kudos for pulling it off so well. I will allow that you might be parodying a typical partisan for laughs. Either way it is quite funny but understand that it does clutter the thread.

McCain, 914, Lorie, et al:<... (Below threshold)
KC:

McCain, 914, Lorie, et al:

If there's one thing I admire at the same time I am flabbergasted by from the "right", it's the ability to defend the indefensible, to argue against overwhelming factual evidence, to buy into talking points and group think, to embrace Newspeak until the death.

If you dumbfucks could admit you were wrong, or just being disingenuous once in your miserable lives - the subject of this thread, for instance, or the REAL rationale for the "moral" war as it's been so dubbed here, then I'd gain the slightest iota of respect for you.

But alas, it will never happen and I'll be stuck in the same "through the looking glass" wormhole of reality that I find whenever I come to a site like this out of morbid curiosity.

McCain<... (Below threshold)
mak44:

McCain

I would imagine that, as a person of the Right, you are a Constitutional originalist. Just where in the powers enumerated for the Executive branch of government is a president charged w/ the duty to fight "moral" wars?

I'd like to know from what part of the Constitution that you think there is a charge to fight moral wars of choice.

Fake clinician?All... (Below threshold)
914:

Fake clinician?

All of those things you listed were all controlled by Sodomy at one time or another.

Deal with this fact leftnut if you can: I doubt it? 1,400,000 children murdered every year! got that! Now thats lyin and dyin!

For the friggin' millionth ... (Below threshold)
KC:

For the friggin' millionth time:

And again, for those idiots who can't read:

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions. "This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

kc, I'm not going to repeat... (Below threshold)
McCain:

kc, I'm not going to repeat my discussion that preceeded your entry into the thread. You will need to do some reading to obtain your answer. In summary, 1) WMDs are irrelevant to the appropriateness of the war, and 2)the discovery of these WMDs since the Duefer report was issued calls the entirety of the Duefer report into question. Now, before you dive into these statements, I require you to read every word I have written to support them on this thread. Then you may attempt to argue if you are capable. We'll see.

44 Where in the co... (Below threshold)
914:

44

Where in the constitution does it say that You cannot fight "moral wars"? not that thats what this is..

McCain - your low IQ or poo... (Below threshold)
KC:

McCain - your low IQ or poor reading comprehension skills are beginning to try my patience.

1. I did not cite the Duefer [sic] Report. I cited the RIEGLE REPORT. You do some reading.

2. I'm not debating the appropriateness of the war here, although I definitely could. I'm simply stating that the subject of this thread, as intended to somehow offer justification for the war, is at best disingenuous, and at worst an outright falsehood. YOU and YOUR ilk pointed out that this report had been declassified, and that there were (gasp!) WMDS, indeed. Too bad they were old, defunct, useful only in the hands of the insurgents we allowed to take root, relics of the Ba'athist regime built BEFORE the Gulf War. Hence, this entire circle jerk of a thread is moot. Do you understand this?

Earth to McCain....Earth to McCain...

kc and the sunshine band</p... (Below threshold)
914:

kc and the sunshine band

Who listens to Fox news or any news outlet? the internets much better..

914 -Are you here ... (Below threshold)
KC:

914 -

Are you here to muddy the waters, prove your stupidity, type off your meth buzz, or all three?

Please refrain from making any more posts until you graduate from high school.


mak44, you have asked an in... (Below threshold)
McCain:

mak44, you have asked an interesting question. Surely you will concede that the achievements of man should not be limited to semantical arguments about one nation's constitution. So I don't agree with your premise that we must be limited in our aspirations, sort of in an Orwellian sense that we can not possibly think beyond the bounds of governmental constructs. There is a higher moral calling.

Put simply to you, the spread of democracy throughout the world will eventually mean the end of war. Democracies don't war against one another empirically, ever. The sooner we get there the better will be our suffering, whether or not the consitution explicitly allows us to be moral as you seem to suggest. I don't accept that premise, by the way.

Kassey CSorry but ... (Below threshold)
914:

Kassey C

Sorry but Zark was there way before us! and We did not create Him!! old WMDs just as useful as new WMDs if thats Your cup of tea..I guess to each His own? Your own illogic tells Me Your running on empty! better charge up pahdna.

little tiny kcLets... (Below threshold)
914:

little tiny kc

Lets see what you got hotshot? Take Your best shot!

Nice. You wingnuts have a n... (Below threshold)
KC:

Nice. You wingnuts have a nickname for your little PR Pet, Zarqawi.

You're right, for once 914. He was there before us, and actively working to undermine Saddam's government and install a fundamentalist Islamic state - if you believe the hype. I happen to think he was an opportunistic thug who DID NOT identify with Al Qaeda until AFTER our invasion. IN FACT, he openly opposed Bin Laden too, and he was operating terrorist training camps in northern Iraq, outside of Saddam's area of influence.

But that's beside the point. The point that McCain and the rest of you are too afraid to touch with a ten foot pole is that the WMDs we've found ARE NOT indicative of an active WMD program any time after the Gulf War.

Think really hard about that before replying.

Cmon Im waiting............... (Below threshold)
914:

Cmon Im waiting..................pindrop............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................pindrop..............................................................................exhibitionist...............................................

Put simply to you, the s... (Below threshold)
KC:

Put simply to you, the spread of democracy throughout the world will eventually mean the end of war.

Aside from being WAAAAAY off topic, that's quite possibly the stupidest, most simplistic rationalization for the war in Iraq I've ever heard.

Not only that, but it's utterly false. If you're trying to say that instilling American hegemony and homogenized corporate democracy throughout the world will end all war, I might be able to agree with you in theory. In practice, however - you just keep proving how little neocons like yourself really think about things.

See? You've got your wish. We're debating philosophy in lieu of any rational ON SUBJECT argument you have to offer here.

Again, PATHETIC.

914 - Give it up, ... (Below threshold)
KC:

914 -

Give it up, big guy. The real "intellectual heavyweights" like McCain are tuckered out. It's only you, me, and your crack pipe here now.

If you have anything to say about the topic, shoot.

Im not affraid to touch it?... (Below threshold)
914:

Im not affraid to touch it? Whats Your point? that Saddam is stupider for giving up the riches? or poorer for not saving face and playing the good boy before the world community?
So maybe 14 months was enough time to move everything out or destroy it? The fact remains His regime gassed thousands and He did at least have the sarin gas highly active at one time! Anyways, He killed millions and would still be doing so if in power today.. Show a different reality?

"I'm not debating the appro... (Below threshold)
McCain:

"I'm not debating the appropriateness of the war here, although I definitely could. I'm simply stating that the subject of this thread, as intended to somehow offer justification for the war, is at best disingenuous, and at worst an outright falsehood."--KC

OK, you are trying to score high-school debating points rather than have a substantive discussion. It is always amusing to me how partisans embrace process over substance. I don't care about the WMDs. They don't matter. Saddam Hussein did enough killing with bullets and grenades of mass destruction. It is irrelevant to the morality of this war.

The Riegle report is also irrelevant to this discussion. Bringing it up is convoluting. And I'm not required to respond to your off-topic argument as you seem to think, because you see, what you think is important is largely irrelevant. I did bring up the Duelfer report because it IS relevant to this thread. Since you (heh) want to have a discussion, respond to my comments about that report now.

Sorry I dont do drugs! feel... (Below threshold)
914:

Sorry I dont do drugs! feel free.

So maybe 14 months was e... (Below threshold)
KC:

So maybe 14 months was enough time to move everything out or destroy it? The fact remains His regime gassed thousands and He did at least have the sarin gas highly active at one time!

Riiight. On converted airliners to Syria. Which our vast network of spy satellites didn't notice.

And are you now admitting that we gave him biological weapons? The ones which I have proven on this very thread that "we" did, in fact, give him and sit idly by as he used them? Heck, we gave him coordinates of his (and our) enemies so that he COULD use them.

BTW - anyone can make sarin.

You bore me. You want to argue about sports or something?

Yes after all this isnt deb... (Below threshold)
914:

Yes after all this isnt debating 101 kc..so bring it on! and I dont mean the song..

OK, you are trying to sc... (Below threshold)
KC:

OK, you are trying to score high-school debating points rather than have a substantive discussion. It is always amusing to me how partisans embrace process over substance. I don't care about the WMDs. They don't matter. Saddam Hussein did enough killing with bullets and grenades of mass destruction. It is irrelevant to the morality of this war.

Clue to dumbass - LOOK AT THE HEADLINE ON THIS THREAD. It is you who continues to post OFF TOPIC.

Isn't there another thread in the incomparable "archives" where we can debate the morality of this war?

How many people have died since the inception of this war? I will bet you my bottom dollar that more have died since 2003 than in all of Saddam's U.S. SANCTIONED AND ABETTED war on Iran and the Kurds.

If you say the Riegle Report is irrelevant, then you can't or won't read the earlier posts. It says, unequivocably that the U.S. PROVIDED HIM WITH WMD AGENTS.

Was that moral? Please do answer.

"American hegemony and homo... (Below threshold)
McCain:

"American hegemony and homogenized corporate democracy"

Heh, that's right out of Indymedia's underground swamp of misfits-with-grudges. It also happens to reveal you for the self-loathing (if you indeed are American) anti-American creature that you are. It is also an irrational thought. Thank you for showing us that you are a typical liberal.

Since you are self-loathing, I won't bother insulting you because you may enjoy it. I will, however, simply say that your idol Chomsky is an idiot (everyone, duck now).

Yes after all this isnt ... (Below threshold)
KC:

Yes after all this isnt debating 101 kc..so bring it on! and I dont mean the song..

Dude, I'm done with you. Sorry, but you have absolutely nothing substantive to offer. And I fear McCain doesn't either.

If you fools want to debate the morality of our foreign policy, then this IS the WRONG thread on which to do so.

Please, 914 - lay off the rotgut bourbon or crack or whatever it is that leaves you absolutely incapable of anything more than a once sentence attack devoid of ANY factual matter.

You're funny dude.

Heh, that's right out of... (Below threshold)
KC:

Heh, that's right out of Indymedia's underground swamp of misfits-with-grudges. It also happens to reveal you for the self-loathing (if you indeed are American) anti-American creature that you are. It is also an irrational thought. Thank you for showing us that you are a typical liberal.

1. Never, ever, ever even BEEN to indymedia if that's a site. Honest.

2. You fail to answer the point yet again, and again resort to ad-hominem attacks. Look it up.
I was trying to humor you and play your sophomoric little philosophical game in substitution for your ability to stay on topic or address real points. My mistake.

3. Never read any Noam Chomsky - although I do know who he is. Strike three. You're out, little man.

You have proven nothing on ... (Below threshold)
914:

You have proven nothing on this thread! other then You have an overgrown ego that is incapable of accepting any truth that does not come from Your miniscule understanding of life and its beauty.. You are not the all knowing arrogant ass You try to come across as! Your just the ass and forget the arrogant!..this is Your excuse to cop out cause You cant compete.. study up and maybe someday? naw forget it..

Again, McCain, as if you ha... (Below threshold)
KC:

Again, McCain, as if you haven't already proven yourself to be below real debate:

If you say the Riegle Report is irrelevant, then you can't or won't read the earlier posts. It says, unequivocably that the U.S. PROVIDED HIM WITH WMD AGENTS.

Was that moral? Please do answer.

Since the Riegle Report WAY preceded the Duelfer report, what's your answer to that question from a morality standpoint?

914 - Learn the di... (Below threshold)
KC:

914 -

Learn the difference between "Your" and "You're".

Yull soawnd alot moore coherant.

And just to rub it in, I have proven:

1. The report publicized by Santorum et al proved nothing. These WMDs were already known about, and useless to Saddam - the guy we went in there saying might use them.

2. The U.S. directly aided Saddam in acquiring and refining chemical agents, and in his use of them on the Iranians, and turned a blind eye to his use of them on the Kurds. This is a fact. Read up in the thread.

Nice try.

"How many people have di... (Below threshold)
McCain:

"How many people have died since the inception of this war?"

The more important question is how many would have died without the war, and taking a long term view of that question. What you don't understand is that the world is full of choices requiring selecting the lesser of two evils. That is the case of this war, which requires weighing costs and benefits just like any other action or decision that ever gets made. There is a certain logic to this that liberals are generally incapable of understanding because of their utopian dream world-view.


"If you say the Riegle Report is irrelevant, then you can't or won't read the earlier posts. It says, unequivocably that the U.S. PROVIDED HIM WITH WMD AGENTS. Was that moral? Please do answer."

To the extent that is true, the answer is possibly no, depending on the alternative choices, but it is also irrelevant to the morality of this war. By analogy, because we fought Germany one year, we can logically and morally be pals with them in a different year. It is illogical to connect the two things.

Krackin Casey... (Below threshold)
914:

Krackin Casey

To the extent that is tr... (Below threshold)
KC:

To the extent that is true, the answer is possibly no, depending on the alternative choices, but it is also irrelevant to the morality of this war. By analogy, because we fought Germany one year, we can logically and morally be pals with them in a different year. It is illogical to connect the two things.

Aha. I see we've accepted some baseline facts. We DID IN FACT help Saddam acquire biological weapons. Good to hear some reason from you.
As for your statement above, you have it all wrong. If "one year" is 1943 and "a different year" is 2006, then I'd have to agree on those simplistic terms. However, the Geneva Conventions going back to the 1920s, and agreed upon by the U.S. explicitly stated the illegality of using chemical weapons on civilians in times of war. We knew damn well that such tactics were immoral, illegal, and downright contrary to international law, yet we now only sat idly by and let him do it, but we assisted him in it. For that reason, your "least of two evils" argument goes right out the window, and onto the shit heap with the rest of your "points". Sorry. Contrary to your purported philosphical standpoint, you're incapable of being consistent within the constructs of your own arguments.

We didn't assist Hitler in his campaign of genocide (unless you count Prescott's funding). We did assist Saddam's. Facts hurt, don't they?

kc, because you say strike ... (Below threshold)
McCain:

kc, because you say strike 3, that doesn't make it so, now does it? You aren't the umpire, but rather, you are a marginal participant on a losing team. It is the sort of thing a child says who has lost an argument, a variation of running home with the ball.

Now admit it, your anti-American ranting cliche was not really an attempt at humor, now was it? It slipped out because you can't help it when you lose control of emotions. And you do love Chomsky.

So we gave Saddam the weapo... (Below threshold)
914:

So we gave Saddam the weapons of mass destruction? now Your illogical arguments almost make sense. so then even You must conclude He had them right?.. naw makes to much sense for a princeton scholar like You.

Nothing is illogical, when Your ideology becomes Your life.

If You want to spell check? Im sure there is much to be found in Your rants KC.

KC, you continue to be enti... (Below threshold)
McCain:

KC, you continue to be entirely illogical as expected. Let me put this into your simplistic 5th grade mentality. Johnny did bad thing one day. Johnny can do good thing the next day. In other words, the supply of arms to Saddam does not preclude us from morally eliminating him for using arms to kill 2,000,000 people. By the way, most of Saddams arms were supplied by the eastern bloc. We did supply some arms. Whether or not chemical weapons were supplied is in some dispute (which is why I said "to the extent"). But whether or not we supplied ANY is irrelevant to the morality of the war. It is also irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

mccain,kc, beca... (Below threshold)
KC:

mccain,

kc, because you say strike 3, that doesn't make it so, now does it?

Apparently, it does. I refuted each of your stupid ad hominem attacks with facts. Never read Chomsky, or the other sites to which you attempted to conflate my viewpoints. I didn't lie. Thus: strike three. Is that so hard to understand?

I am an American. An English speaking American. Judging by your and 914's grammar and usage, you are not. I think I might know some illegal immigrants with better English usage.

Please point out my "ramblings" which you deem to be "anti-American", and then address the point of this thread.

I wish I knew as much about this Chomsky guy as you seem to. Maybe I ought to check him out.

For the last time, please address the points:

1. The latest WMD news release means nothing if you have the faintest ability to parse facts.

2. The U.S. acted immorally in aiding and abetting Saddam in his acquisition and use of illegal chemical agents.

914 -Spell check i... (Below threshold)
KC:

914 -

Spell check is the least of your worries. I don't think it can correct "your" vs. "you're",
but don't let facts or the ability to convey a point in proper English get in the way of your attempt to convey your ideology.

KC, you continue to be e... (Below threshold)
KC:

KC, you continue to be entirely illogical as expected. Let me put this into your simplistic 5th grade mentality. Johnny did bad thing one day. Johnny can do good thing the next day. In other words, the supply of arms to Saddam does not preclude us from morally eliminating him for using arms to kill 2,000,000 people.

McCain, I can only dream of the abiliy to be as illogical as you.

Now, did we supply "arms"? Yes. Not illegal.
Did we supply biological agents which we knew would be employed as weapons and then claim the "lesser of two evils" argument? Most definitely yes.

And by the way, those biological agents are the very reason we claimed the right to invade Iraq.

Do you fail to see the hypocrisy there? Did we supply Germany with the gas they used to eradicate the Jews?

Your argument is invalid. Period.

Again,"American he... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Again,

"American hegemony and homogenized corporate democracy""

Explain what you mean exactly in full sentences. Don't give me dictionary definitions of your multi-syllabic words because I know what them mean and I also know the context in which they are used by the anti-American intelligentia in which you cheerily participate. I want to understand your full thought. When you are done explaining, I will reassess my conclusion that you are a self-loathing, anti-American creature.


As an aside, does your entire claim of substantive victory really rest on whether or not you read Chomsky?

As I've clearly and patient... (Below threshold)
McCain:

As I've clearly and patiently explained before, the reasons given for invading Iraq matter not to me nor do they matter to the morality of the war. Whether you were lied to, facts were wrong, or it is taking longer than expected, it is still the right moral action. And that is because human suffering will be lower in the long run than the alternative of leaving Saddam in power. Pretty simple to understand, even for you.

Question for McCain:<... (Below threshold)
KC:

Question for McCain:

When is the morality line crossed when we are supplying a known genocidal maniac with "arms" and WMDs? When his ambitions no longer suit our "lesser of two evils" strategy in a particular theater?

If we're so willing to forego our "morals" for a favorable outcome, how do we have any moral capital on which to base his ultimate removal?

You neocons love to claim some sort of moral basis for your philosophy, yet it crumbles under the most minute, real world scrutiny.

Ahh hate to interrupt but, ... (Below threshold)
914:

Ahh hate to interrupt but, for one thing I was not alive in 1923 and any treaty they signed does not weigh on the protection of and threats We face in the world We now live! starting first with My family,We may know that illegal weapons are immoral and and against everything that is right. but Saddam and the terrorists have no such scruples.
Furthermore, in that time frame 1920s people were just trying to survive the winters. not worry about WMDs. " yet We now only sat idly by and watch him do it."
this is not a properly phrased sentence genius! whats the matter? Koolaid flirtin with ya? ya thats it.

KC The question that... (Below threshold)
914:

KC
The question that begs to be answered is: If You knew that Saddam Hussein was a homicidal maniac? then where is Your problem in having Him removed>>>>>>>>>>>>>His ambitions no longer matter because Hes out of power..

That is actually two questi... (Below threshold)
McCain:

That is actually two questions not one. In English, you must say "Questions for McCain."

When is the morality line crossed when we are supplying a known genocidal maniac with "arms" and WMDs? When his ambitions no longer suit our "lesser of two evils" strategy in a particular theater?

The question is what one expects from anti-American rabble. It is NOT any argument against the current war. The morality line is crossed when human suffering would be greater than the alternatives.


If we're so willing to forego our "morals" for a favorable outcome, how do we have any moral capital on which to base his ultimate removal?

This question presupposes an answer that I have not given. If I had given a different answer like "yes, it was clearly immoral" then I would ask you to define "we." I speak for myself rather than the U.S. government just as you. This war is moral.

As I've clearly and pati... (Below threshold)
KC:

As I've clearly and patiently explained before, the reasons given for invading Iraq matter not to me nor do they matter to the morality of the war. Whether you were lied to, facts were wrong, or it is taking longer than expected, it is still the right moral action. And that is because human suffering will be lower in the long run than the alternative of leaving Saddam in power. Pretty simple to understand, even for you.

Refreshing honesty. Awesome to hear from a neocon - even one who won't admit to as much.

Fine with me. But do you think that selling the war on moral grounds would ever hold water given the utter hypocrisy on "our" part that led to the situation in question?
Short answer: Nope. That's why they had to lie. And you've admitted it, as well as given us a peek into your worldview. I respect you for it.
Unfortunately though, we ARE debating on a thread with a specific topic. A specific topic, the basis of which I have already proven to be specious, and disingenous.


As an aside, does your entire claim of substantive victory really rest on whether or not you read Chomsky?

Yes. Well, that and the other two points I refuted you on a couple of posts earlier. 1+2=3.

If you want an answer on my corporate democracy reasoning for world peace, I'll give you the short version.

I was humoring your ill-thought theory that the generic concept of "democracy" could be applied to an entire region of the world and be expected to yield predictable, peaceful results. Simply way to simplistic to be entertained unless working under the assumption that all the "democracies" in question conformed to a single archetype (American , corporate, or otherwise). If you can't see the possibility of bordering countries governed by democracies in name only warring with each other, then it's pointless to debate. I was only simplifying the terms of the example to facilitate agreeing with you. You seem to have let my verbiage (i.e. hegemony, homogenized,etc.) get in the way of the underlying point, which was: it's unrealistic to expect that simply because two or more bordering nations are democracies (in whatever vague terms you choose to define a democracy) that they will not war and all will be peaceful is naive. Especially when one of those "democracies" (see Venezuela) is not in the current favor of the superpower advocating democracy.

Now that I've answered your question:

1. Admit that the subject piece of this thread was disingenuous and meaningless. and:
2. We amorraly supplied Saddam with WMDs and watched as he used them on innocent people until his policies no longer suited our interests.

Phoenician:Still won't wash... (Below threshold)
Xennady:

Phoenician:Still won't wash! Bottom line:Iraq had WMD at the time of the invasion.You can recite prewar quotes until Howard Dean makes sense but the ground has shifted right out from under you.In fact please do-you'll take the Democrats right over a cliff.See,you've gone from the fairly coherent story line that Iraq had no WMD NONE NADA and Bush is a lying LIAR WHO LIED LIED LIED US INTO WAR!!!! to a pathetically indefensible story line that the WMDs that were discovered in Iraq weren't really WMD and they were really old and anyway we already knew about them and uh...BUSH LIED LIED LIED!!! Sorry, it ain't gonna work.Have fun trying! And if you think no one will care about this story-well,consider that this day old thread is still getting comments.

The question is what one... (Below threshold)
KC:

The question is what one expects from anti-American rabble. It is NOT any argument against the current war. The morality line is crossed when human suffering would be greater than the alternatives.

And you contradict yourself again. It is you who presupposes that the ultimate death toll as a result of our misbegotten endeavor in Iraq will ultimately be less than that had Saddam remained in power and in check.

But, if past trends hold true, you and your like will move the goalposts yet again and forget that every action has future consequences. You are guilty of presupposing that our foreign policy, i.e. the removal of Saddam will somehow result in democracy in the middle east, and are willing to brush aside any current and mounting casualties in the pursuit of this nebulous goal. Worse yet, you r side has the gall to state that if it somehow fails, that it is the minority opinion of this country which will bring about said failure.

As for your pathetic attempt at indicting my usage, you only need to look back at the utter incompetence of your fellow right wingers at writing proper English to put it in perspective. And your example of my misuse is obviously attributable to a simple typo, whereas 914 is obvioulsy a moron.

Hey Xennady Nice t... (Below threshold)
914:

Hey Xennady

Nice to see Your still awake? or just woke up? ha ha, this is a great thred, weve got some egghead on here that thinks God created the Universe around him! maybe He did? anyway nice to see You back.

"Refreshing honesty. Awesom... (Below threshold)
McCain:

"Refreshing honesty. Awesome to hear from a neocon - even one who won't admit to as much."

If you actually participated in this thread rather than cherishing your own words so very very much, you would not be so curiously dumbfounded. It is my point in the 3rd entry in this thread, at the o-so-top of the thread and my subsequent comments. If I didn't like you so much, I wouldn't resist the clear evidence that you are an intellectual lightweight.

And yes, again, it bores me to tell you again that the war is moral. Your moral-relativity arguments are pointless, but I don't have time to assail the bankrupt moral philosophy upon which they are based. Moral relativity is the manna of liberalism.

Again, cutting through your rhetoric, democracies don't war. I feel obliged to inform you that we are not warring against any Democracy including your example of Venezuela. Throughout human history, you can come up with precisely 2 marginal examples of democracies ever schmever warring against one another.

Question for McCain:... (Below threshold)
KC:

Question for McCain:

When is the morality line crossed when we are supplying a known genocidal maniac with "arms" and WMDs? When his ambitions no longer suit our "lesser of two evils" strategy in a particular theater?

If we're so willing to forego our "morals" for a favorable outcome, how do we have any moral capital on which to base his ultimate removal?

Even a chimp could see that the two questions I posed were in essence a single question.

Stick to the point.

Manna is the breadlike food... (Below threshold)
KC:

Manna is the breadlike food that God gave the Israelites in the desert.

So what exactly did you intend "Manna" to mean?

Are you American or Israeli?


Spare me the parroting of my points which prove that it is you who is the intellectual lightweight.

Nanny nanny boo boo.

Good Mantis, we are comi... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Good Mantis, we are coming to agreement on some foundation arguments.

Well, we already were in agreement, you just attribute the opinions of whatever the typical "liberal" in your mind has to me, despite the fact that we discussed just war 10 days ago on this thread.

Your argument against the war becomes one of assessing the risks differently.

Risks and outcomes, yes.

And you throw in something about not believing the WMD was there, which I again say is irrelevant.

Responding to your pondering of my "motivations".

I will ask you a question now. Since you say we cannot fight every moral war, which is true, does it follow that we should not fight any?

No. And your own calculus of moral costs vs. moral benefits is fine, but simplistic.

In other words, isn't a little morality better than none? Isn't spreading freedom to Iraq a morally better outcome than spreading freedom to neither Iraq nor North Korea?

If that's the outcome, maybe so. If there were a likelihood that we could invade, neutralize the military, depose Saddam, and establish a democratic government that would hold and wouldn't turn into a theocratic nightmare or an authoritarian military dictatorship, or, more likely with Iraq, a disaster of warring sectarian militias buttressed by terrorists and supporting states. One must also consider the time and costs associated with reaching our objectives, things the administration grossly underestimated, and that's being generous.

You see, I realized before this war, as Bush 41 realized when he executed the Gulf War, that Iraq was an extremely fragile country underneath the controlling grip of Saddam. These damn post-empire states which were drawn on the map by our European friends with no regard to the ethnic or political realities of the people that lived in them will for many decades continue to cause problems for us and the world (see west Africa for tons of this). I knew that holding it together would be next to, if not totally, impossible, at least in any way we would be happy with. North Korea would be a treat to convert to democracy compared to Iraq, it's the initial war that would be tougher there.

So, anyway, in a kind of touchy feely worldview your view is right, that spreading freedom and democracy in the world is a moral good. If you can succeed. There's the rub.

Re: your post, third from t... (Below threshold)
KC:

Re: your post, third from the top.

So you proved early that you are unable or unwilling to stay on topic.

Stick to you schtick, though. That line of reasoning surely would have convinced the Congress, the American people, and the world that the war was necessary. Again, that's why they had to lie.

Let's take out ALL the immoral dictators in the world militarily then!

Now there's a tenable foreign policy. And I hereby nominate you to be the "decider" on all things "moral".

Are you really that stupid?

"And you contradict your... (Below threshold)
McCain:

"And you contradict yourself again. It is you who presupposes that the ultimate death toll as a result of our misbegotten endeavor in Iraq will ultimately be less than that had Saddam remained in power and in check."

Nooo, I don't presuppose it. I calculate it as the most likely probability. In other words, the excellent chance of the outcome that I expect is worth the risk that I might be wrong. But we are back to probability theory, which entered the discussion earlier in the thread. Liberal minds don't understand probablity theory -- the fact that outcomes are always uncertain, and that risks and reward must be considered in all things.

In all honesty KC You calli... (Below threshold)
914:

In all honesty KC You calling Me a moron while You rationalize away Saddams millions of murders and your obvious ignorance to obvious things that are evil in this world causes a write it off reaction in Me, as in no hope.. Good luck. enjoy Your short life, and may Jesus save You..

Don't talk to me about prob... (Below threshold)
KC:

Don't talk to me about probability theory, especially in the context of something on which you have an even more pathetic understanding.

Here's an intellectual excersise for you though:

Yes. You do presuppose it. If you are basing this supposition on some mathematical probabalistic theory though, tell me WHEN you expect democracy to take root in any significant sense in the Middle East, and how many will have died in the endeavor - CONTRASTED with your opinion on when this would have occurred had things played out as they were, pre Iraq war, including casualties.

This is getting funny. Oh, and by the way, keep referring to liberals as the Nazis referred to Jews, and as racists refer to blacks. It makes it easy to see how intimidated you are.

"Let's take out ALL the ... (Below threshold)
McCain:

"Let's take out ALL the immoral dictators in the world militarily then! Now there's a tenable foreign policy. And I hereby nominate you to be the "decider" on all things "moral". Are you really that stupid? "

This has been asked and answered already. See Mantis' so timely response. Hello Mantis. kc, you cannot be so dumb as to think that an inablity to do ALL moral activities precludes you from doing one. The question that you ask and answer yourself is a non-sequitor. What you need to do is stop loving your words so much and begin to love yourself. That will open your eyes and ears to the world around you.

The question that you as... (Below threshold)
KC:

The question that you ask and answer yourself is a non-sequitor. What you need to do is stop loving your words so much and begin to love yourself. That will open your eyes and ears to the world around you.


Ok, then - and ignoring your pathetic attempt at evangelizing, what is the criterion on which we base our next "moral" action? Is it the possesion of WMDs?

Oh, no - we're now back to the main point of this thread. Sorry, McCain but you can't escape reality no matter how you try.

Ok, then - and ignoring you... (Below threshold)
KC:

Ok, then - and ignoring your pathetic attempt at evangelizing, what is the criterion on which we base our next "moral" action? Is it the possesion of WMDs?

Remember: you're the "decider".

KC, the short answer to you... (Below threshold)
McCain:

KC, the short answer to your "question" is that I believe less that 2,000,000 people will die in this pursuit. That is about how many gave died in the last 15 years without democracy in the middle east, and therefore, can otherise be expected to die in the next 15 years without democracy in the middle east.

Young KC, I am whimsically confident that my expertise in probability theory is greater than yours on both an academic and applied level.

Re liberals, you are who you are. Keep talking about American hegemony, as you personally love to do, and you will keep reinforcing the well-earned stereotype.

kcWho are You talkin... (Below threshold)
914:

kc
Who are You talking too? because Your fading away..

That was the short answer t... (Below threshold)
McCain:

That was the short answer to your prior question. The short answer to your last question is clearly no. The possession of WMDs is not in and of itself a reason to invade another country. But now I feel I am talking to a kindergartner. "No Johnny, we don't invade France because they have a nuclear weapon." I hope that is obvious. To be utterly repititious in the feeble hope that you will actually listen to another person, the possession of WMDs is not the reason I support the Iraq war, nor was in the only reason given for the invasion.

Young KC, I am whimsical... (Below threshold)
KC:

Young KC, I am whimsically confident that my expertise in probability theory is greater than yours on both an academic and applied level.

Empty words, as I expected. I may be young in a relative chronological sense - though not as naive as you in a pragmagic sense, and I'd stack my academic and applied credentials up against yours any day - notwithstanding your obvious propensity to gravitate toward faith at the expense of reason.

Sadly, you've again failed to entertain my question in any realistic sense given that the "body count" you cite as a 15 year total has probably already been reached.

But keep drinking the Kool Aid and convincing yourself that Saddam was willing and capable of killing as many people as the present conflict and its ramifications will kill over the next 20 years given all "probabalistic" projections.

But then, that's the convenience of basing one's philosophy on "faith" and "morality" - both relativistic concepts even given the dogmatic rejection of such observations readily visible to those who live in a reality based world. You can rationalize any means in the pursuit of an undefined end - other than the moral basis for said means and the fact that you can live comfortably away from the methods used to achieve your moral goals.

But now we've strayed into another topic altogether.

To be utterly repititiou... (Below threshold)
KC:

To be utterly repititious in the feeble hope that you will actually listen to another person, the possession of WMDs is not the reason I support the Iraq war, nor was in the only reason given for the invasion.

Ok, then, idiot. What IS the reason, criterion, insert_your_terminology_here, for the next moral action?

Come on, I'm SURE you have somebody in mind.

* pragmagic = pragmatic les... (Below threshold)
KC:

* pragmagic = pragmatic lest McCain smite me for a typo misinterpreted as something else.

Geez.

Yes indeed, KC, you are cle... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Yes indeed, KC, you are clearly young and naive about the world. That part is normally correctable with time. It is your illogical adoption of liberalism and its accompanying moral relativity at such a young age that is troubling.

Your "challenge" to stack up credentials, your correction of punctuation, your embrace of anti-American shallow rhetoric without really thinking through the complex issues ....... these are signs of your age and disposition. There is an old adage in the publishing business that there are two kinds of people, authors and copyeditors. So far, you have proven yourself to be an exceptional copyeditor.

Oh yes, it isn't "faith" Again, it is probablity. It is a reasonable expectation of an outcome rather than a certainty. That is the point which moral relativism will prevent you from understanding.

kcWho are You tal... (Below threshold)
KC:

kc
Who are You talking too[sic]? because Your[sic] fading away..

KC,

To whom are you talking? Because you're fading away....

Comfortably numb, 914. Whatever you're smoking, I want some.

KC, is your last question m... (Below threshold)
McCain:

KC, is your last question meant to be serious? What is the basis for deciding a moral war? There is one correct answer. Because the answer is obvious, I am going to cheat by requiring you to answer first. You tell me, what is the moral basis for determining a just war? Because of moral relativism, liberals usually struggle with this question a whole whopping lot.

OK KC, did You ever liv... (Below threshold)
914:

OK KC, did You ever live in a reality based world? Saddam will kill in 20 Years if the EvilWhen Dark empire of Bush lets him A PROBABALISTIC projections amount of 1/10th of 1% those killed every year in abortion clinics.. You simplistically english challenged undereducated overly tolerated boorishly convolutedly overeducated piece of liberal puke.. ooooh man you stink. Faith trumps Your thought processes edwardo..Theres no convincing a piece of stone it was created if it believes it put itself together.

Your "challenge" to stac... (Below threshold)
KC:

Your "challenge" to stack up credentials, your correction of punctuation, your embrace of anti-American shallow rhetoric without really thinking through the complex issues ....... these are signs of your age and disposition. There is an old adage in the publishing business that there are two kinds of people, authors and copyeditors. So far, you have proven yourself to be an exceptional copyeditor.

Again, empty words. Sigh. I see we have a man well versed in both publishing and probablistic methods. Yet he embraces untenable and unrealistic foreign policy objectives.


McCain. You're a fraud. Condescending blather aside, you've failed to make a point on any of the real topics of this thread. Yes, we know - you don't CARE about the real world reasons for this war. It's moral in your mind, and nothing else matters. Need you say more? Your "point" was well understood from the third post here, yet you continue to attempt to rationalize your faith based "moral" stance on the war.

Great - you've established that your moral argument for removing Saddam is beyond reproach, you hold "modern liberalism" in low regard, and that facts have little bearing on your viewpoints.
Furthermore, you like to call others out on percieved inadequacies in fields wherein you obviously wish to hold some credentials.

Ultimately, though - and try as you might - you've failed to hijack this thread from the obvious points:

1. The recent news release proves nothing to bolster the case for the war that the administration and those not as self-aggrandingly morally rigid as yourself still feel the need to jusify.

2. The moral argument for the war in Iraq is precluded by the obvious, and intractable (to you) facts that we engaged in immoral activities which led us to the "necessity" of this war. Ergo - our foreign policy is untenable as it is presently carried out. The "lesser of two evils" is not a morally defensible way of carrying out immoral acts to acheive a contemporarily desired outcome to a conflict which boils down to economic interests.

When you are less naive about the world, you may be lucky enough to see that the means employed to enforce the moral outcomes that you desire are in and of themselves immoral - and unlikely to produce the outcome for which you hope.

If your understanding of probablistic methods is anywhere near what you purport it to be, you should know that morality is not enforceable, and that no sufficient model has ever been devised to adequately predict the outcome of complex human inter-relationships.

More succinctly: you're a neocon enabler bordering on a hack.

KC, is your last questio... (Below threshold)
KC:

KC, is your last question meant to be serious? What is the basis for deciding a moral war? There is one correct answer. Because the answer is obvious, I am going to cheat by requiring you to answer first. You tell me, what is the moral basis for determining a just war? Because of moral relativism, liberals usually struggle with this question a whole whopping lot.

Your attempt to reverse the question is amusing. You're the "decider", remember? The Iraq war was ONE moral necessity. It is your responsibility to name the "next moral necessity" if you wish to continue the conversation.

As a start - and with a basis in economic and geopolitical realism - I'd say that it's when a country is attacked in an unprovoked fashion.

Off to bed now. Maybe you'll be around tomorrow.

' Morality is not enforc... (Below threshold)
914:

' Morality is not enforceable in that no sufficient model has ever been devised to adequately predict the outcome of human relationships" Not to Your sadistic twisted logic anyways.

mccain - I'll leave you wit... (Below threshold)
KC:

mccain - I'll leave you with one last question (or rather rephrase a previous one):

If you're such a bleeding heart morally concerned individual and you're so concerned with the welfare of the Iraqi people under Saddam - do you purport to say that ther aren't people living in conditions much worse? What's your answer to these people? Are they next on the "we'll come to your rescue" list? Or are we primarily concerned with those who can be freed militarily?

You're a massive hypocrite, and I regret wasting the time that I have here "debating" a liar.

You deserve to burn in hell.

KC, I forgot to add that yo... (Below threshold)
McCain:

KC, I forgot to add that your insistence on getting the last word is another sign of your maturity. I think it would be simpler to say "I must go last" than to type a lot of words which don't have any relevance. With liberals, the substance of the thought is inversely related to the oxygen consumed.

I am forced to speculate that you think you have made some great points. This thread is about the discovery of WMD. You seem to be making two points. First, that maybe evil America gave him the WMD. That of course is a logical fallacy, an utter non-sequitur. Your second point is that these WMD weapons do not matter. It is unclear if it is the specific quantify of the WMD discovered that does not matter to you or if WMD itself does not matter. On this we agree. WMD does not matter to the moral correcness of our action. Do you have any other point to make in your wordy way?

914 - Tell y... (Below threshold)
KC:

914 -

Tell ya what. Shut your trap and quit preaching to people. Someone besides me might listen to you when you stop pretending to be the voice of Jesus Christ himself.

You know very little.
And you obviously sleep very little.

Yes Im tired, wheres My bab... (Below threshold)
kc:

Yes Im tired, wheres My baby Hitler doll.

"If you're such a bleeding ... (Below threshold)
McCain:

"If you're such a bleeding heart morally concerned individual and you're so concerned with the welfare of the Iraqi people under Saddam - do you purport to say that ther aren't people living in conditions much worse?"

Again, you don't even understand that you are making moral relativity arguments. I reject them, as do any logically thinking person, as determinant of anything at all. Moral relativist arguments are by definition indeterminant.

If you were to rephrase your question in a logical way, the answer is what you have already heard but not understood. With all actions, there is a moral calculation that must occur that weighs risks and rewards. It is hard to find other examples where we can reasonably expect 2,000,000 more people to die if we do nothing. You perhaps CAN find examples elsewhere in the word, but the risk/reward assessment must be made. When the risks and potential rewards are similar, of course we should act.

KC anytime you have anythin... (Below threshold)
914:

KC anytime you have anything Worthwhile to say...well you can pretend anyways.

You know far less! God bless always..

mccain,last word q... (Below threshold)
KC:

mccain,

last word quip aside, you should stop digging now.

If you expect anyone to believe you have any education or applicable experience in probabalistic methods, you'd know that it's "inversely proportionate", but I stray from the point.

You seem to be making two points. First, that maybe evil America gave him the WMD.

Correct!

Point 1: Well, America DID give him WMDs, as proven by Congressional Reports, intelligence sources, etc. Do you deny this? Do you support the moral basis for such actions on the part of the U.S.? Apparently you do, even as it contradicts your underlying philosophy.

Your second point is that these WMD weapons do not matter. It is unclear if it is the specific quantify of the WMD discovered that does not matter to you or if WMD itself does not matter. On this we agree. WMD does not matter to the moral correcness of our action. Do you have any other point to make in your wordy way?

Point 2: It's not that they "do not matter", rather do the matter in the context of the point that this thread is trying to make? The answer, of course, is no. They are WMDs that we already knew about, supported, and were defunct. The point of this article, in case it is lost on you, is that this somehow vindicates the position of the Administration that Saddam did, indeed have an ONGOING WMD PROGRAM, which it decidedly does not. Your inability to debate a point on its merits was made clear early on. Quantity has no bearing on this dicussion. These were unusable, discarded, and forgotten WMDs that were only of questionable use to the current insurgents. So in the sense that they are being trumpeted by desperate members of your Intelligent Design party, they are meaningless. People who embrace reality can see this readily.


So, for my reading pleasure tomorrow, tell me how either of these points are logical fallacies, and how they are NOT inter-related.

Better yet, save your breath and stop embarrassing yourself.


mccain,last word q... (Below threshold)
KC:

mccain,

last word quip aside, you should stop digging now.

If you expect anyone to believe you have any education or applicable experience in probabalistic methods, you'd know that it's "inversely proportionate", but I stray from the point.

You seem to be making two points. First, that maybe evil America gave him the WMD.

Correct!

Point 1: Well, America DID give him WMDs, as proven by Congressional Reports, intelligence sources, etc. Do you deny this? Do you support the moral basis for such actions on the part of the U.S.? Apparently you do, even as it contradicts your underlying philosophy.

Your second point is that these WMD weapons do not matter. It is unclear if it is the specific quantify of the WMD discovered that does not matter to you or if WMD itself does not matter. On this we agree. WMD does not matter to the moral correcness of our action. Do you have any other point to make in your wordy way?

Point 2: It's not that they "do not matter", rather do the matter in the context of the point that this thread is trying to make? The answer, of course, is no. They are WMDs that we already knew about, supported, and were defunct. The point of this article, in case it is lost on you, is that this somehow vindicates the position of the Administration that Saddam did, indeed have an ONGOING WMD PROGRAM, which it decidedly does not. Your inability to debate a point on its merits was made clear early on. Quantity has no bearing on this dicussion. These were unusable, discarded, and forgotten WMDs that were only of questionable use to the current insurgents. So in the sense that they are being trumpeted by desperate members of your Intelligent Design party, they are meaningless. People who embrace reality can see this readily.


So, for my reading pleasure tomorrow, tell me how either of these points are logical fallacies, and how they are NOT inter-related.

Better yet, save your breath and stop embarrassing yourself.


Strange error. Sorry for th... (Below threshold)
KC:

Strange error. Sorry for the repeat post.
Good night wing nuts.

Time for bed, gentlemen. K... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Time for bed, gentlemen. KC, it has been "educational" listening to a typical young liberal profering typical anti-American rhetoric about your country's moral actions in the world. At Churchill said, young conservatives have no heart, while older liberals have no brain. I will look forward to your transformation as you develop your intellectual capacity and fully see the world for what it is. Good luck in this pursuit.

By God, as if one wordy pos... (Below threshold)
McCain:

By God, as if one wordy post isn't enough he does it twice. There is an interesting phenomenon in the liberal mind that they become more relevant when they are louder. I'm afraid it isn't so.

If you were to rephrase ... (Below threshold)
KC:

If you were to rephrase your question in a logical way, the answer is what you have already heard but not understood. With all actions, there is a moral calculation that must occur that weighs risks and rewards. It is hard to find other examples where we can reasonably expect 2,000,000 more people to die if we do nothing.

So if the hands-off policy towards the Sudan is kept in place, and given that militarily it's practically a no risk situation, and we don't act - you're going to be up in arms, right?


Please, asshole - let's hear your answer.

Not yet, germs.... (Below threshold)
KC:

Not yet, germs.

KC, it has been "educational" listening to a typical young liberal profering typical anti-American rhetoric about your country's moral actions in the world.

You have a gift for typing fighting words behind the vast internets and your screen.

If you can point out any anti-American rhetoric in my posts, I'll forego the urge to punch you in the mouth, or rather, challenge you to a duel.

Get it, tough guy? You're a lightweight.

KCNow that ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

KC

Now that you have found this assylum thru whatever Sanitorium link that brought you here, I hope you stay around and post some more from time to time. You are tenacious and your posts are well thought out.

You have McCain & 914 twisted around themselves w/ their crypto-fascist neocon thinking .

Wow, I missed alot since I ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Wow, I missed alot since I posted last.
The only person I would like to address is Tom who spent alot of time writing to me his opinion and trying to pass it off as universal fact.

You start, Tom, by mentioning that you welcome the debate, but then proceed to trying to tell me who I am, what I beleive, what my education is, so on. Let me tell you something. No one would know better than I if my civil liberties are eroded, so don't go playing omnipotent and lecturing me on the state of my life. Your infantile finger-pointing does not prove a point.

I don't have a weak grasp on global issues Tom, I don't have your grasp on global issues and that irks you doesn't it?

Cheney is undermining our civil liberties every day?
Yet, you're just saying that, there is no evidence of it. As I said and stand by, I have the same liberties I had before 911, so take off your tin foil hat and educate yourself instead of just jumping on the progressive bandwagon.

mak44,I agree, the... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

mak44,

I agree, the new blood is nice here. Even if I dont agree with alot of people that stopped by...it's nice to not argue with all the same people everytime.

Uh, Heralder:"I ha... (Below threshold)
robert lewis:

Uh, Heralder:

"I have the same liberties I had before 911"

Uh - no you don't. E.G. 1:

Before 9/11 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enforced, and failure by the government to obtain a warrant before wiretapping you was considered to be a felony punishable by 5 yrs in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Now - courtesy Ashcroft, Gonzales & Bush - it is no longer enforced.

E.G. 2: Before 9/11, as an American citizen you had a right to counsel and to confront your accusers. Now - if the Chimp deems you to be a "terrorist" all such protections may or MAY NOT be afforded you.

R. Lewis,I think y... (Below threshold)
KC:

R. Lewis,

I think you miss the point. If Heralder, or those who believe as he does were to be investigated via illegal wiretapping/data snooping, and arrested on suspicion of plotting terroristic endeavors, sent off to a black site prison, and waterboarded without any due process, any contact with the outside world, and any hope of ever being released, they might begin to understand.

However, they are of the opinion that they simply need show their Republican voter registration card, and they'b be granted a pass.

mak44,you hit the ... (Below threshold)
KC:

mak44,

you hit the nail on the head. these guys (well, mccain really - since 914 is really not debating anything) will contort and twist their version of reality to suit their pre-conceived ideologies, even at the expense of contradicting these ideologies when it's convenient to the "point" they are trying to make.

That's why mccain eschewed discussion on the WMD find and relevance early on. In his mind, we're fighting a morally just and necessary war. That it is actually a different war than that which was (wrongly) approved by the U.S. Congress is either invisible to him or too inconvenient to his underlying philosophy to admit. As I said before, he seems to be of the opinion that we can now sell wars on the bases of their relative moral value to the Congress and the American people in order to prosecute them overseas. Yet, when asked what the next "moral" action we should take is, even in his own opinion, he tucks his tail between his legs and retreats to vague generalities on morality and
the probability that these wars will eventually spawn "democracy" in the Middle East and the world.


1. What is our next military "moral action", and what are the risks/rewards of this action? Your own opinion is fine.

2. Do you recognize the Hamas government of the Palestinian territories as a democracy? Would you be satisfied that if such democracies are elected that we'd see an end to armed conflict in the area?

KCSorry to keave Y... (Below threshold)
914:

KC

Sorry to keave You in such a quandry. But in all honesty Your the lightweight KID.

That's okay guys. You can ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

That's okay guys. You can tell me till your blue in the face that in a theoretical situation I have lost my civil liberties. When innocent people begin to get marched off to prison for no reason I'll come back to Wizbang and ammend my statement.

Yet again, my quality of life and my liberties have not been impacted since 911. You can tell me how my life has changed all you want, but I tend to form opinions based on experience. Thanks for your concern for me though.

Heralder,I appreci... (Below threshold)
KC:

Heralder,

I appreciate the willingness to debate. And I agree that most of our lives have not noticeably changed from a civil liberties perspective.

That's okay guys. You can tell me till your blue in the face that in a theoretical situation I have lost my civil liberties. When innocent people begin to get marched off to prison for no reason I'll come back to Wizbang and ammend my statement.

The only problem with this, Heralder is that without oversight and due process, we:
a) may not even KNOW that innocent people are being "marched off"
b) said people may never have a chance to even prove their innocence.

Is that so hard to postulate given the Executive power grab since 9/11?

914 - Are you a bot? Do you know what a "bot" is?
Does that compute?

KCa)May not eve... (Below threshold)
914:

KC

a)May not even KNOW that innocent people are being "marched off"

A hypothetical filled with paranoia and distrust.

b)Said people may never have a chance to prove their innocence

Said people exist only in Your convuluted logic.

KC, are You a phonie chronie? do You even know what one is?

Sigh - 914,Do you ... (Below threshold)
KC:

Sigh - 914,

Do you mean "crony"?


A hypothetical filled with paranoia and distrust.
Do some research on what happened in Nazi Germany. Some villagers simply didn't know what was happening when their neighbors disappeared, nor did they ask questions about the strange dust that the compound behind their village produced.
Slinging the word "paranoid" around does nothing for your credibility, and if you can't imagine something similar ever happening again - please tell me why.

Said people exist only in Your convuluted logic.
Said people already exist in Guantanamo, and at countless, nameless black gulags scattered throughout the world. Just hope you don't end up in one - they probably won't give you chewing tabacky in there.

KC,Of course there... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

KC,

Of course there could be people being marched off and imprisoned wrongly without due process, without us knowing about it.

But yes it is, a theoretical situation. I understand you have little faith in our government and current president, but to think that he is deranged to the degree that this would happen is beyond my powers of reasoning.

Naturally it is within our right, and in fact we are obliged to, as Americans, to question our represenatives and to make sure this sort of thing does not happen. Bush may not be what you want him to be, but a fascist dictator he is not.

Perhaps some of my doubt comes from what kinds of dots you would have to mis-connect to think an average citizen was planning a terrorist attack when he was not. It seems quite difficult to screw up that badly, in plain terms.

KC,In light of you... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

KC,

In light of your response to 914, let me give my take on what you said:

Do some research on what happened in Nazi Germany. Some villagers simply didn't know what was happening when their neighbors disappeared, nor did they ask questions about the strange dust that the compound behind their village produced.

A wise example to look at, to be sure. It does, however, fail right at the point to try to parallel it to a current Western democracy. How is it that some will think it not far-fetched to comapre Nazi Germany to Bush America? I see no like circumstances.

Said people already exist in Guantanamo, and at countless, nameless black gulags scattered throughout the world.

Guantanamo exists as housing for enemy combatants captured abroad. We are failing with Guantanamo because there have been no rules set forth before now to deal with exactly this type of situation.

Again I feel that Guatanamo and these "black gulags" (which there is no substantiated legal evidence of) are an erroneous comparison to our domestic civil liberties.

KC,Just another qu... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

KC,

Just another question, and answer honestly, it is in no way a loaded question:

If your chosen candidate were president, and had instituted the same anti-terro laws, would you be comparing situations that happend in Nazi Germany to America today?

Good morning, KC. This thr... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Good morning, KC. This thread is about to scroll off the homepage. You will be able to find it burried through a search so that you can continue your heroic vigil in the defence of something or other that nobody will read. I have concluded that you are a narcissist, which is typical for your tender years and is typical for liberals. Depression often results in self-loathing, the curious ability to hate oneself. You are a wonderful example of a typical liberal and so I enjoyed our exchange greatly from an educational perspective.

Your hatred of America is right out of Chomsky. Since you pretend to want an example (again) of your anti-Americanisms, I refer you again to the language you used yesterday, of which you later pretended to be kidding. More generally, your strange obsession with refuting this WMD report, as if it matters at all to the morality of the war, gives away the fact that you will do anything to lower public support for the war, no matter how disengenuous. Lower public support means lower troop morale. Lower troop morale means more dead soldiers. Your liberal rhetoric gets our soldiers killed.

You triumphantly ask a question about the next conflict, as if the question itself is an answer, but you did not answer my question about conflicts more generally. My question is when is a war just? Answer that easy question first, and then I will answer your question.

[ pin drop ]... (Below threshold)
914:

[ pin drop ]

HeralderYou... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Heralder

You posted: "Yet again, my quality of life and my liberties have not been impacted since 911. You can tell me how my life has changed all you want, but I tend to form opinions based on experience."

A poem attributed to Martin Niemöller, an early supporter of Hitler, who later changed his convictions, after having steered clear of the Bazis until 1937, goes as follows:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Well Mak, If You suddenly "... (Below threshold)
914:

Well Mak, If You suddenly "disappear" we'll know where You went..

If your chosen candidate... (Below threshold)
KC:

If your chosen candidate were president, and had instituted the same anti-terro laws, would you be comparing situations that happend in Nazi Germany to America today?

An honest answer: Hell yes I would. I won't even go into the fact thatI don't think that "my chosen candidate" would have felt it necessary to circumvent the existing framework with which to accomplish legal domestic surveillance, then lie about it to cover it up. But if he/she had, I'd be just as pissed as I am today.

But yes it is, a theoretical situation. I understand you have little faith in our government and current president, but to think that he is deranged to the degree that this would happen is beyond my powers of reasoning.

Ah, but it's a slippery slope, Heralder. Perhaps I'm not worried about "him" in particular. Perhaps I'm worried that the erosions of our civil liberties - or the framework that supports them - will eventually fall into the hands of another president without the scruples you right wingers so lavishly praise and readily assume that Bush possesses.

He's shown before his inability to manage the consequenses of his actions, and even the inability to consider that there will be consequences to his actions, and I fear that the laws in place to protect us from terrorists are no more effective than the laws which already existed when used properly. The new framework, i.e. usurpation of power by the Executive branch simply lays the groundwork for further forays into a fascist executive fuhrer.

914"when th... (Below threshold)
Wayne:


914

"when they were a 100% fresh and lethal, what was the objective of these weapons? to plop harmlessly in the sand or to murder by the 1,000s??"

When they were 100%fresh they were close to 100% functional. Over time the components become unreliable. They were design for a battlefield environment and being unreliable would make them ineffective and they can blow up in your face. Just like we don't use munitions past their expiration date. It really sucks when a T.O.W. missile misfires. We don't even use bullets that get to old. Not because that won't fire or can't kill but because of hazards to the user. The WMD shells may not be effective on a typical conventional battlefield like they were design for but good be of great use to a terrorist.

David Kay had issues with Bush when he was appointed. Politics make strange bedfellows. Besides nobody likes to be proven wrong.

mak44, that is a good poem ... (Below threshold)
McCain:

mak44, that is a good poem which you apparently are unaware is directed toward immoral people who will risk nothing in the defence of liberty for other peoples. The last verse is what the Iraqi will say if liberals ever get their way.

McCain,Your idiot... (Below threshold)
KC:

McCain,

Your idiotic (and incorrect) guesswork as to my age and psychological temperment aside, I feel that I have intimidated you into again retreating back to rhetoric. Furthermore, as you have demonstrated a few times in this thread, your reading comprehension skills are almost as lacking and stunted as your reasoning ability.

My question is when is a war just? Answer that easy question first, and then I will answer your question.

As I stated BEFORE - A war is just when waged against a state that not only offers a realistic and demonstrable threat to the very existence of the nation making war, but has demonstrated the desire to do so by direct action. Whether this is an economic attack, or direct military attack. Either way, a nation must be attacked or be threatened with a legitimate imminent attack by another nation to wage a just war. There are other situations whereby a war may be considered just such as an ally being attacked in an unprovoked fashion.
Once you start defining war as just based on your particular moral beliefs, and not applying the same beliefs and rationale for war to all such transgressions, you become at best a noble hypocrite, and at worst expose your TRUE motivations for waging said wars. Oil? Again, what's your answer on The Sudan?
That's my OFF THE CUFF answer to you, even though you predictably deem any sentence over 10 words, and with any words you have to look up in the dictionary to be the rantings of a "narcissist". It's your defense mechanism, and I can try to understand.

More generally, your strange obsession with refuting this WMD report, as if it matters at all to the morality of the war, gives away the fact that you will do anything to lower public support for the war, no matter how disengenuous. Lower public support means lower troop morale. Lower troop morale means more dead soldiers. Your liberal rhetoric gets our soldiers killed.

1. The report has been successfully refuted. See posts above. End of story. It is what it is.

2. Now that you've said that opposing the war gets soldiers killed, prove it. Add that to the long list of questions you're unable or simply too disingenuous to answer.

And BTW, as you seem obsessed with my age - I'm in my 30's. But I think what you're really saying, and possibly correctly, is that anyone with the patience to sit here and argue with you despite your obfuscation, ignorance on the topics (despite your protestation to the contrary), and willingness to say anything to score brownie points with your peanut gallery here, is in some way immature, then I think the proper term for that is projection.

Look it up.

KC & McCain,... (Below threshold)
mak44:

KC & McCain, as well

KC, in answer to the 1st question you posed to McCain, the next moral war will be Iran. McCain & the rest of the inmates here at the Wizbang Assylum have already been beating the drums for just such action in threads posted since I first came across this Ship of Fools.

McCain's response to my earlier question much further above as to where in the Constitution is the power of a President to conduct moral wars of liberation authorized, produced an insane response from McCain, that even Hitler could have used, had he been fettered by a constitution.

McCain & his ilk, Heralder, 914, Love America Immigrant et al are ready to sound the trumpets of war anytime some crypto-fascist like a Santorum jerks their string w/ jingoism.

You have seen this repeatedly in this thread now over 2 days. Because that sickening puke Santorum came running breathlessly w/ his newly declassified war propaganda re WMD's, these fools will argue ad nauseum that Sen. Puking Santorum's jingoistic rattle is all the justification required.

McCain, who doesn't even realize what a crypto-fascist that he is, is ready to march others off to a bloody death for what he deems as morally justified wars formwhat he deems a greater good. He is Voltaire's Dr. Pangloss incarnate. He should try reading Candide. And you can see from his response to my query above about the Constitution, the Constitution is no limitation whatsoever.

What this militaristic fool and the rest here like him don't get is that if you are going to approbate the right to make moral determinations about so-called "just" wars, then there are 6.5 billion people on this planet entitled to their opinions as to what constitutes a "just war." These Republicans, in spite of their denials, are in reality, Darwinists because they labor under the illusion that they are the fittest & therefore assume that their survival is certain, and of course, ordained by God, since they are of the "Judeo-Christian" ethic. And, sigh, if it doesn't all work out, then that will be ok because they will have been God's agents in His design to precipitate the End of Days.

McCain's thinking in regard to "moral wars" makes him no different from the Islamofascists that he abhors.

And of course, McCain's delusion that "Democracies" don't fight one another is naive beyond belief. It is predicated on the insane delusion that we in the US have the moral right to gift the world w/ carbon copies of our political & economic system (Predatory Capitalism) for the benefit of the entire world.

If McCain and the rest of the assylum inmates get their wish for military incursion into Iraq they will be appalled at the world-wide political & economic results that will occur from that day forward.

What I find most appalling is that the dawn of the new Millenium just 6 years ago was an occasion where the world anticipated the most magnificent century ever w/ the potential for changes & innovation exceeding anyone's imagination, and in 6 short years, Bush/Cheney Co. have managed to turn the 21st Century's promise into a bleak & foreboding future, quite possibly portending the doom of humanity on this planet.

Quite frankly, this Republican mentality is proof that a significant part of the human species is genetically malprogrammed for the species' survival.

KC, et me guess, your field... (Below threshold)
McCain:

KC, et me guess, your field of study was psychology? Or was it English? The reason that liberals such as you are generally illogical (and you don't even realize it!) is that they are not trained in mathematics and the sciences. I'm guessing that your dissertation was something like Rousseau's Neurosis: Adverb Usage and Wiener Size in the Age of Reason"

You failed the just war test. A war is just when the misery it causes is lesser than the misery that will result from not warring. Consider this axiom when listening to liberals call for an immoral pullout from Iraq.

Regarding the effect of public support on troop morality, and troop morality on battlefield perforance, you will need to get versed in military tactics before I can expect you to have a serious conversation about the topic. Start by reading Sun-Tzu. The body of impirical evidence is clear and has been known to military planners for at least 2,500 years, for everyone but illogical liberals.

McCain has obviously chosen... (Below threshold)
KC:

McCain has obviously chosen to distance himself from the crumbling rationale offered up by the Administration, and decided to find and trumpet new reasons to support the current war that are more compatible with his moral inclinations, and for that very reason more difficult to refute with actual, reality-based facts.

His ability to rationalize and aggrandize the current war is indicative of intellectual immaturity, and the willingness to subscribe to a mob mentality should the situation present itself.

Once the underlying tenet of a given thread is proven false - especially one which purports to offer foundations for his irrational belief in this war, he shows a marked desire to emerge as "victorious" by diverting the subject of discussion to abstract philosphical questions to which there are no definitive answers.

I'd say he probably dropped out of college after about 2.5 years.

KC, et me guess, your fi... (Below threshold)
KC:

KC, et me guess, your field of study was psychology? Or was it English?

No, I'm flattered, but it was Electrical Engineering with a focus on Semiconductor Device Physics. I read on many subjects, however - and spare me your paint-by-numbers amateur assessment on the psyches of engineers and physicists.

I work for a mid-sized company that happens to also do defense contract work, and have more inside knowledge of what is happening, and the real motivations of the military industrial complex controlled DoD. Let's just say that LOTS of people would lose their jobs if we didn't have wars in which to play with all our technologically advanced toys, and the ability to continue to manufacture conflicts worthy of their use.

"a significant part of t... (Below threshold)
914:

"a significant part of the Human species is genetically malprogrammed for the species survival"

Mak this fits You and the rest of the Insurgent leftists on this blog to a T.

You failed the just war ... (Below threshold)
KC:

You failed the just war test. A war is just when the misery it causes is lesser than the misery that will result from not warring. Consider this axiom when listening to liberals call for an immoral pullout from Iraq.

Does that mean I get an F, mccain? My first F ever? Please, oh please consider an extra credit assignment!

OK, whacko - and we're back to your original and already debunked point whereby you presuppose that the misery being inflicted in this war is going to eventually be less than the misery inflicted by Saddam.
Note the use of the past tense. Inflicted. Those who wage war don't have the luxury of presupposing that the amount of misery ethey often incorrectly assume would have been experienced would surpass the amount of misery as a result of making war. That point has already been passed, if you go by body counts.

Feel free to continue spouting off about how this will give life to democracy in the Middle East and how democracies don't wage war. As much as I'd like to buy into your whimsical dream, history does not support you. We've created instability, and maybe if one day, long in the future, democracy does take root in the ME, you and your ilk will not be the ones to take credit for it.

You never answered my question. Would you settle for radical Islamic democracy a la Hamas? Oh, wait - you want a full fledged, checks and balances, LIBERAL form of democracy to just appear there. Good luck, dude.

there are 6.5 billion pe... (Below threshold)
McCain:

there are 6.5 billion people on this planet entitled to their opinions as to what constitutes a "just war."

That is an exceptional statement. The problem with your philosophy of moral relativism is that it cannot allow you to make moral judgements. To you, the opinions of all people must be equivalent and therefore no single person's opinion can be correct. There is no right and wrong in the liberal mind, which is why you run in illogical circles about foreign policy considerations like this Iraq war.


"we in the US have the moral right to gift the world w/ carbon copies of our political & economic system"

No, not a right. We have a moral obligation to further freedom in the world to the extent it is within our power. And not necessarily US versions of democracy, but clearly western ideals of freedom. And that is because western culture is morally superior to other cultures. Your moral relativism will not allow you to agree.


You are congratulated for throwing the term "jingoism" twice into one comment post, and I am particularly amused by the term "predatory capitalism." Why do you loathe our culture and country so very much?

Santorum reminds me of the ... (Below threshold)
Dude:

Santorum reminds me of the kid who's parents replace his dead goldfish in the middle of the night and everyone in the family smiles at him the next day, thinking how sad it is that he's the only one who believes it's the same fish.

Regarding the effect of ... (Below threshold)
KC:

Regarding the effect of public support on troop morality, and troop morality on battlefield perforance, you will need to get versed in military tactics before I can expect you to have a serious conversation about the topic.

Nice non-answer. I expected nothing less.

Did you mean "morality" or "mortality"?

How about a nice, clearly defined plan of action for what to do AFTER the toppling of the enemy's government, along with a contingency plan as a start for bettering troop morale?

Are you saying our troops aren't performing? Because it looks more like the planning wasn't done (or if it was, it was conveniently ignored) at the top levels.

Enlighten me, genius - I read Sun Tzu back in 8th grade - how does questioning the war cause troops to be killed with greater frequency?
If the whole nation were steadfastly behind the war, would the enemy, while watching American TV simply say: "Shit, they're all on the same side. Let's surrender."? What your stunted intellectual growth leaves you incapable of grasping is that the enemy can cherry pick information from "one side" here in the U.S. as easily as they can the other.

When are you going to give up?

WMD for the average Republi... (Below threshold)
Dude:

WMD for the average Republican seeking re-election when they are down nearly 20 points now means...

We're
Really
Desperate

Like Pavlov's doggie, you guys fell for it. The DOD refuting their claims the same dang day, but you people here clap even louder!

What a lesson in partisanship. You have the left beat hands down on that.

Mak this fits You and th... (Below threshold)
KC:

Mak this fits You and the rest of the Insurgent leftists on this blog to a T.

That's right, "914". Mak, myself, and the rest of the fifth column represented here are simply awaiting our orders from OBL. We look forward to living in a fundamentalist Islamic state based on communist principles.


You're no longer worthy of even the most base satire.

KC, you have entered the th... (Below threshold)
McCain:

KC, you have entered the thread and remain a fantastic caricature of liberalism. Whether or not I am a fan of this administration (I am not), or a memeber of the Republican party (I am not), is completely irrelevant to support for the war. It is also irrelevant to your owm poor presentation and my correct conclusion that you are a narcissist. You continue to think that WMD is somehow determinant to a moral justification for the war (when it is not). Listen closely: WMD does not matter.

and no, you actually haven't debunked anything I have said. I have made a statement about the morality of war, and the best you can come up with is "how do you know" and "who are you to decide." That isn't debunking, but rather, it is punting.

McCainYou o... (Below threshold)
mak44:

McCain

You offered your usual militaristic diarrhea: "You failed the just war test. A war is just when the misery it causes is lesser than the misery that will result from not warring. Consider this axiom..."

First, until the war is at least well under progress, that definition could not come close to defining a "morally just war" in advance w/o employing an arrogance of infallibility. And Who gives you the right to make that dtermination? You are deranged.

Second, the so-called wisdom of your definition is in the eye of the beholder.

If you want to try to make a distinction about probable misery, take a look at: www.peacetakescourage.com/wwjd.html

I am sure that the victims of your "just wars" are on their knees, if they have any knees left, thanking God for your arrogance & moral wisdom.

The absurdity of your position is in the very concepts that you vainly attempt to justify. Any reader of your pompous malarkey would see that you are certifiably insane.

Heralder, Good poin... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Heralder,
Good point that Nazi Germany is more like communist Russia or now communist Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea. Why people on the left tolerate folks like Carter who embrace these fascist/communist dictators.

The real gulags are in Iran, Cuba, NOrth Korea. It is naive or willfully ignorant to compare Guantanamo to real gulags. No different from Cindy Sheehan 's motto: "Bush is the worst terrorist in the world". This is what I used to hear from the crypto-fascist left, ie the communists.

KC Bwahh You big ba... (Below threshold)
914:

KC
Bwahh You big bad liberal, you hurt my feelings! BWAHHH liberals are supposed to be all caring... You certainly are a disappointment..

A brief chronology of event... (Below threshold)
KC:

A brief chronology of events for the temporally challenged:

1. Rick Santorum et al, in desperation pending the coming elections release a recently declassified document stating that over 500 WMDs have been recovered in Iraq since 2003.

2. Wizbang proclaims far and wide that WMDs have, indeed been found. This fact purportedly grants legitimacy to our claims prior to invasion that Saddam was indeed actively developing WMDs, and that we knew where they were.

3. Just hours later, the DoD throws water on the declassified report by saying that these were, in fact, NOT new WMDs that we accused Saddam of actively developing, but old stock consisting of defunct equipment which are easily traceable to the pre Gulf War period when WE among other nations were assisting Saddam in his WMD, specifically chemical and biological WMD, development and deployment. It is laid out clearly in the links above.

4. Wizbang readers ignore these facts and cheer loudly until finally proven wrong. This leaves scragglers like McCain - described below - here to debate issues NOT CENTRAL to the topic of this thread.

4. Meanwhile, McCain is spouting off about how the WMDs don't matter anyway, and that the war in Iraq was justified from a strictly moralistic standpoint. Incorrectly conflates my debunking of the WMD story with a projected desire on my part to justify the war on moral grounds.

5. McCain proves once and for all that he's been drinking the Kool Aid, and that no amount of reason will ever break through his thick skull. He fails to:

1) Answer a question about our next military "moral endeavor"

2) Answer a question on whether he's satisfied with Hamas as a democratically elected goverment

3) Demonstrate some kind of understanding of probalistic methods and how they apply numerically in this case to his core belief that the misery resulting from this war will be less than that assuming we had pursued other options.

4) Justify his assertion that questioning the war somehow gives strength to the enemy and demoralizes or own forces. Resorts to the usual conservative meme of calling opponents "traitors" and "liberals"...

Pathetic, Mac. I knew you didn't have nothin'.

"First, until the war is... (Below threshold)
McCain:

"First, until the war is at least well under progress, that definition could not come close to defining a "morally just war" in advance w/o employing an arrogance of infallibility. And Who gives you the right to make that dtermination? You are deranged."

Your construct is based on a false premise. Moral relativist philosophy will not allow you to make judgements, but a better philosophy offers no such limitations. The short answer to your question is that I am able to make those judgements while you are not. In this particular war, the past record of Saddam's activity in the middle east over the prior 15 years is the best predictor for what would happen in the future. Your second clue is that he announced his intentions, in what you would so readily dismiss an unimportant bluster. The Saddam misery index is quite high, I am sure you will agree.

First, until the war is ... (Below threshold)
KC:

First, until the war is at least well under progress, that definition could not come close to defining a "morally just war" in advance w/o employing an arrogance of infallibility. And Who gives you the right to make that dtermination? You are deranged.

The hypocritical narcissism of the "right" knows no bounds.

In this particular war, ... (Below threshold)
KC:

In this particular war, the past record of Saddam's activity in the middle east over the prior 15 years is the best predictor for what would happen in the future.

And being the arrogant hypocrite that you are, you have failed to offer an opinion on the morality of our part in this record of activity. Was the misery lessened by supplying Saddam with WMDs and biological weapons? Yet another inconvenient question which will require that you directly contradict your philosophy.
Is the use of biological weapons, if it means that the misery is lessened justified? If so, why do no nations make use of them in war including the U.S.A.?

Your second clue is that he announced his intentions, in what you would so readily dismiss an unimportant bluster

And what, pray tell, intentions do you refer to? Is it sort of like when the knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail, who after having all of his limbs cut off continues to make threats? Or do you have something else in mind?

Mac - give it up.

If so, why do no nations... (Below threshold)
KC:

If so, why do no nations make use of them in war including the U.S.A.?

correction: If so, why do no nations NOT make use of them in war including the U.S.A.?

crypto-fascist left<... (Below threshold)
KC:

crypto-fascist left

Hahahaha. That's the best one I've heard all day.

While both sides of the American political spectrum can exhibit fascist tendencies, it might do you some good to review the definition of facism, and where the definition has and has not been consistent with practice in "recent" world history.

I think you'll find that the "right" is clearly headed in that direction:

http://www.cursor.org/stories/fascismi.php

1) Answer a question abo... (Below threshold)
McCain:

1) Answer a question about our next military "moral endeavor"

War is moral when the benefits have an expectation of exceeding the costs, period, and yes, I certainly do have the capacity to judge that probability for myself. I believe that the next moral war will be Iran, either directly or indirectly, although I hope that it isn't necessary. It is more likely that democracy will root there internally, but our pressure would clearly be a contributing factor in the event it happens. You will note that democracies tend not to just rush off to war. This Iraqi war was a long time in the making, and came about when their was apparently no other option for change there. What specifically do you actually disagree with in this paragraph.


2) Answer a question on whether he's satisfied with Hamas as a democratically elected goverment.

Certainly no, just like I am not satisfied with the democratically elected government in Spain. That isn't really the point. I am satisfied with the route that the eventual-Palestine is taking. The Hamas government will be short-lived IF they continue with their democratic experiment. What specifically do you disagree with?


3) Demonstrate some kind of understanding of probalistic methods and how they apply numerically in this case to his core belief that the misery resulting from this war will be less than that assuming we had pursued other options.

2,000,000 dead, due largely to Saddam Hussein. Past behavior is a good predictor for future behavior. Do you agree with that statement?


4) Justify his assertion that questioning the war somehow gives strength to the enemy and demoralizes or own forces. Resorts to the usual conservative meme of calling opponents "traitors" and "liberals"...

That is pretty obvious. Do you question Sun-Tse or our West Point training? Human behavior is often seen but not observed by those who are blinded. I will cite you studies, which I am convinced you will not read, but you must narrow your ignorance for me. Do you agree that public support for a war influences troop morale? yes or no. And do you believe that troop morale influences battlefield performance? yes or no. Agree with none, one, or both, so we can see the extent of your knowledge and save us both a little time.

I'll answer your "questions... (Below threshold)
KC:

I'll answer your "questions" when you answer mine:

Was the misery lessened by supplying Saddam with WMDs and biological weapons? Yet another inconvenient question which will require that you directly contradict your philosophy.
Is the use of biological weapons, if it means that the misery is lessened justified? If so, why do no nations make use of them in war including the U.S.A.?

Now, I have answered your q... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Now, I have answered your questions again, questions you pretend have not already been answered for your own narcissistic reasons. In the short time I have been gone, you have posed new questions. Thanks for your great interest in my opinions, but your great interest in your own education will need to slow down a bit. See the last comment and take your time to answer truthfully.

McCain: armchair gen... (Below threshold)
mak44:

McCain: armchair generalissimo & Sphincter of Morality

You incontinently posted: "To you, the opinions of all people must be equivalent and therefore no single person's opinion can be correct. There is no right and wrong in the liberal mind,"

Your mental excretions are getting further & further into the realm of insanity. Just where do you find the sanction of the infallibility of your moral judgement viz-a-viz someone else's? Who appointed you the Determineror, or, in Chimpanzee-eze, the Decider?

And you further excreted: "We have a moral obligation to further freedom in the world to the extent it is within our power. And not necessarily US versions of democracy, but clearly western ideals of freedom."

Just who gets the right to define "moral obligations?" You & your messianic morally superior Judeo-Christians? You are the epitome of a blind cultural ethnocentrist.

I'd wager whatever you wish, that an overwhelming majority of the rest of the West would suggest you take your so-called moral assessments and shove them where they will never see the light of day. A significant part of the West experienced Fascism in one way or another in the 20th Century. and they are not likely to swoon w/ your lunatic visions of your morally defined world.

I call the inability of con... (Below threshold)
BDS:

I call the inability of conservatives to admit that Bush was wrong, so very wrong, about WMDs in Iraq, and the ongoing search for "those papers that'll prove us right" the Bush Denial Syndrome.

You can keep conflating pre-1991 chemical weapons stocks with a program, but your attempt at persuasive redefinition is highly impersuasive. Wiz-bang? How about Crap-splash?

"A significant part of t... (Below threshold)
McCain:

"A significant part of the West experienced Fascism in one way or another in the 20th Century. and they are not likely to swoon w/ your lunatic visions of your morally defined world."

Have you observed that the countries who most recently experienced the smothering Soviet boot were more likely to help Iraqis win their own freedom? Somce uou don't value the western ideal of freedom as others do, you are probably not the best person to guess how those who appreciate liberty feel.

The rest of your comment is liberal poopy nonsense, so I'll let it sit there for amusement.

What specifically do you... (Below threshold)
KC:

What specifically do you actually disagree with in this paragraph.

Aside from the fact that your notion of a "moral war" has nothing to do with morality, I'll humor you anyway. How do you measure the benefits? How do you measure the cost? What units are you using?

Back to my previous example: if by providing Saddam the WMDs in the first place, are we not the real root cause of the deaths - since that seems to be how you measure costs? By extension, was today's war one of the possible costs factored into whatever psuedo probabistic method your kind utilized back when we were providing these weapons to Saddam? If not, I'd say your model is broken.

Finally, since you purport to be such an expert on the subject - what exactly are the costs of the chain of events put into motion by western imperialism in the Middle East going back nearly 70 years?

Certainly no, just like I am not satisfied with the democratically elected government in Spain. That isn't really the point. I am satisfied with the route that the eventual-Palestine is taking. The Hamas government will be short-lived IF they continue with their democratic experiment. What specifically do you disagree with?

The point is that we have a government which was democratically elected that advocates a non-peaceful platform for dealing with its nearest neighbor. Give me your other two examples.

2,000,000 dead, due largely to Saddam Hussein. Past behavior is a good predictor for future behavior. Do you agree with that statement?

If your understanding of the situation is that simplistic, then there's no point answering you. Saddam was simply not capable anymore of carrying out such atrocities on the scale he is reported to have done in the past. And again, what role did we play therein?
While I can agree that past behavior is a good indicator, it's a non-sequitor in this case. See the Monty Python knight example above. Situations change. See: Quadaffi (sp?)

That is pretty obvious. Do you question Sun-Tse or our West Point training?

Why you make it sound as if it would be the equivalent of questioning the Bible (which I do question).
Sun-Tzu and West Point don't make allowances for the case where a war is fought under false pretenses. That alone is sufficient to lower morale in an improperly trained fighting force. Do a better job of brainwashing our professional soldiers (as effective soldiers should be to a degree) and stop your moaning. Since when is the rest of society responsible for West Point's or boot camp's failures to do their jobs?

I will cite you studies
Where are they?

Do you agree that public support for a war influences troop morale? yes or no. And do you believe that troop morale influences battlefield performance? yes or no

It shouldn't. Not in a professionaly trained Army with clearly defined objectives and contingency plans. Again, are you questioning our troops's battlefield performance? Because that was never even in question, unless you're privvy to information I don't have.

Bottom line: the Army had the money, troops, expertise, and equipment to do the job right and have made mistake after mistake all along the way. Are you blaming the American public for the poor foresight and failures of top Army brass?

Do you agree that public... (Below threshold)
happy talk:

Do you agree that public support for a war influences troop morale? yes or no. And do you believe that troop morale influences battlefield performance? yes or no.

I'll answer your questions.
Yes on both counts.
However, both public support and troop morale are also contingent upon the unambiguous "rightness" of said war. Which is why you had overwhelming support for WWII. When you start dealing with the rest (WWI, Korea, Vietnam, and this one) you're standing on more shaky ground - and public opinion thus reflects this.

And by this one I am referring to Iraq specifically, not the GWOT.

...

Have you observed that the countries who most recently experienced the smothering Soviet boot were more likely to help Iraqis win their own freedom?

1. Of course. They're still grateful to the US, so it makes sense.
2. However, don't forget the power of the purse - these countries are also more easily bribed.

I left for an hour and come... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I left for an hour and come back to a mosh pit.

Two people answered my post, I'll do my best to respond.

mak44, you quoted a poem. Not very persuasive, however, as again, I fail to see the parallels of America today vs Nazi Germany pre-WWII.

In regards to a later post in which you lumped me with some other posters, well that's just sloppy.
I have been actually more on your side of this topic since about 30 posts in. I don't have a problem conceding my point or admitting mistakes, even if the left will gloat and dance and taunt me for it.

KC:

I won't even go into the fact thatI don't think that "my chosen candidate" would have felt it necessary to circumvent the existing framework with which to accomplish legal domestic surveillance, then lie about it to cover it up.

A good answer. My thought on this is not that the existing framework has been circumvented, but changed. Any domestic surveillance we've had in place is simply not equipped to root out who we're trying to root out. And if the president and administration tells everyone just what changes have been made, then there's no point in even doing it as it's already compromised. The idea is supposed to be that the enemy doesn't know he's being watched.

Ah, but it's a slippery slope, Heralder. Perhaps I'm not worried about "him" in particular. Perhaps I'm worried that the erosions of our civil liberties - or the framework that supports them - will eventually fall into the hands of another president without the scruples you right wingers so lavishly praise and readily assume that Bush possesses.

Makes sense. But do you think we're voting a fascist into office that with the way our government is set up he will be irremovable?
There's a fine line between vigilance and paranoia, I fear many of us have crossed it.

and I fear that the laws in place to protect us from terrorists are no more effective than the laws which already existed when used properly.

I think we can agree that after 911 and other attacks around the world since, that what we had in place was woefully insufficient.

You raise some good points, but we are of a different mind.
This thread is getting severely difficult to follow and probably has already slid off the front page.

I'll see you all in another topic (which we'll likely end up arguing the same ideas) :P


KC, you have the insecure p... (Below threshold)
McCain:

KC, you have the insecure person's annoying habit of asking a ton of questions in the hope it will deflect attention away from yourself. It is a sign that you are uncomfortable with your own ideas. From now, on I will answer two questions at a time, and ask you to express your ideas by answering two questions. Part of your last comment was actually a serous answer so there is some hope you can pull this off.

Q1. Back to my previous example: if by providing Saddam the WMDs in the first place, are we not the real root cause of the deaths - since that seems to be how you measure costs?

No. Gun manufacturers are not the "cause" of criminals killing victims. Your question is a common cliche that defies logic. There is a moral justification for using arms, and a moral justification for supplying arms. It is complex to assess whether or not it was moral to supply arms to Saddam at the time. One has to consider the effect of Iran overwhelmingly winning the Iraq war upon Iraqi citizens, and what Iran might do from that position of strength. But again, it is irrelevant to assessing the current war's morality for reasons I have already explained to you. So although your question is interesting, the answer is not actually important to the current war.

Q2. "How do you measure the benefits? How do you measure the cost? What units are you using?"

I think you are not being serious now. Judgement, which is a concept that is disallowed by your bankrupt moral relativity philosophy, is actually important. It is my judgement that Saddam would continue his past behavior in the future. That is a reasonable conclusion to most people who aren't playing little word games. Since Saddam Hussein started 3 major wars in the middle east within 11 years, it is probable he would do so sometime in the future. It is my judgement that the costs of stopping him when we did exceed the costs of stopping him in the future, or doing nothing.


Next will come my two questions for you.

Generalissimo & Infallible ... (Be