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

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 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 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, 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! 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 think of the argument that these shells aren't dangerous.

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 broke on the Sean Hannity radio show.

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 show? That makes it legitimate?

Man, are you guys well trained....

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 come on his show you moron. It was news. Breaking news.

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 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 "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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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, 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 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 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 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 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 anything ...

A ton of Sarin - and the Left yawns!

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 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.

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 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 declassified.

...and the sigificance of this is?

Think carefully, now.

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 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 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 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 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 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

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

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 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 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 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 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:

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

Sorry.

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 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 can apply to you too.

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 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 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 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 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 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 point.

Predictions:

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

It will end his political career.

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 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:
>>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 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?

"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 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 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.

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:

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 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'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 will record this as Santorums coming of age"

His political career has been justified.

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, 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 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 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 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 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,

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.

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.

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 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 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 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?

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 they can be scanned at the local Walmart producing a recipt that says: "WMD."

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 star? I'm not defending the WMD claim :)

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 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 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 the United States Air Force, you coward.

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'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) 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. These idiots aren't worth the perspiration....

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 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 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, 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 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 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:
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? 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 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'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 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-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" 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 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 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 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 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

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 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 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 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:

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 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:

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:

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 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.