By now, I believe that the news of the discovery of 500 fully loaded chemical weapons shells by coalition forces has broken through to the American people. That despite desperate attempts to shield the truth from the American people about anything positive in the post-liberation Iraqi Theatre in the War On Terror. And the attempts to cast Senator Santorum and Representative Peter Hoekstra as some kind of kooks.
I have withheld my judgment on this story since I felt we have “been there before” in the discovery of WMDs that didn’t turn out to be. I now believe that this news is very significant. And the fact that it is NOT causing the major TV broadcast networks to issue “Special Reports” is probably proof enough to show how significant the information is. After all, it violates their pre-written newscast scripts: “Bush Lied, People Died”.
Gateway Pundit reported earlier this week that “it only took Saddam 15-20” of similiar chemical shells to “murder thousands of Kurds” in 1988. Santorum and Hoekstra reported 500 shells were found.
Since the media quickly moved the debate to: “Well, yeah but those shells were old and they weren’t really a danger”, the anti-American bureaucrats at the CIA and Defense jumped fully on board. In the vein of Joe Wilson and Mary McCarthy, an “intelligence source” quickly jumped into the media discussion to announce these weren’t real WMDs.
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.”
But Defense Secretary Rumsfeld make an excellent point.
Rumsfeld, in a news briefing Thursday, said Santorum’s comments were correct.
“Certainly. What has been announced is accurate, that there have been hundreds of canisters or weapons of various types found that either currently have sarin in them or had sarin in them, and sarin is dangerous. And it’s dangerous to our forces, and it’s a concern.”
“They are weapons of mass destruction. They’re harmful to human beings. And they have been found,” Rumsfeld said. “And they had not been reported by Saddam Hussein as he inaccurately alleged that he had reported all of his weapons. And they are still being found and discovered.”
That is a key point. Saddam violated UN resolution after UN resolution. And while he claimed to at least report all of his WMDs, Santorum and Hoekstra have proven that is a lie.
Remember how worked up the media got us when a couple of envelopes of anthrax dust showed up at NBC and the Senate office buildings? How we were told just a few spores could kill 100,000 people? Everyone started buying duct tape and plastic wrap to cover their windows!
Well guess what folks. Imagine what a dirty bomb loaded with even “degenerated” sarin gas could do if it exploded in Times Square! A weapon of mass destruction.
The WMD in Iraq (as defined by Congress in its resolution of War Against Iraq) were found. The real question is — what other truths in the War on Terror are being kept from us because it doesn’t “fit the script”?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
I think lots of things that don’t fit the script are downplayed. Like the lack of any real connection between Hussein’s regime and any serious terrorists, the fact that those opposing are troops include a lot of people other than Islamic terrorists, that kind of stuff.
Ah yes, the MSM (or Drive-By Media). Otherwise known as “Weapons of Mass Delusions.”
Their treatment of the findings of 500 WMDs (so much for the “Bush Lied” screed!) and the NY/LA Times’ outing of one of our anti-terrorism measures makes me think that the MSM is on al-Qaeda’s payroll.
Loose libs sink ships.
Regards,
Peter H.
#1 – Excellent point, John. The media’s script says there couldn’t have been any connection between Saddam and the terrorists – so it simply blanks out all the huge evidence for it. Even the fact that Zarqawi’s group was called “Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia” is minimized by the media – or ignored. Whether you meant to or not, you’ve brought up an excellent additional example to Bruce’s.
—————————–
Now, for any of you lefties who want to say stuff along the lines of “Those 500 Sarin shells were old and they weren’t really a danger” – OK then – let you be the one to handle and dispose of them. Let’s see you volunteer.
Brilliant, Calarato.
Or maybe they could detonate them at a US embassy, or maybe take a few vials down into the New York subway….just to show us, you know, how they really aren’t that dangerous, how it’s no big deal….
guys “the MSM” has been covering it like crazy- because it’s HILARIOUS. My guess is the reason this stayed classified til now is that it would hamper Bush’s chances of getting re elected if this was all they found. Donald Rumsfled can’t have a good point. I’ts not technically possible for that to happen. Santorums career is over as a result. Yeah FOx new’s Jim angle sabatoged the whle thing with his pentagon bush hater “source”. This really illustrates how delusional you guys are. We didn’t go to war over broken rules, we went because there was a perceived THREAT, that turned out to be false. there could “techinically” be thousands of WMD and Saddam could break dozens of rules and that wouldn;t be anything close to a reason to go to war if it wasn’t a matter of life or death of our nation.
LOL….then you crack them open and breathe them, Lester.
Care to take Calarato’s challenge? Why don’t you get a big room of you and your fellow Democrats together and crack open some mustard gas? After all, you say it can’t possibly harm or hurt Americans.
from what I understand these munitions are actually less dangerous than comet cleanser they have so badly degraded from when they were made 18 yeas ago. so yes I will. again, the pentagon says these were NOT the types of things we invaded or would invade Iraq for.
“from what I understand these munitions are actually less dangerous than comet cleanser…”
LOL 🙂
Then phone up your military recruiter or CIA office, lester, and volunteer to handle them already!!!!!!!!!!
#3: “Even the fact that Zarqawi’s group was called “Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia” is minimized”
It only recently took that name long after we invaded Iraq and long after Bush repeatedly nixed our military’s plans to kill him.
As for the “WMDs”, I was wondering how long it would take Bruce to devote an entire breathless post to them. Why am I reminded of that crowd in the Life of Brian chasing after him with sandals in their hands?
BTW, I thought all the WMD’s had been shipped off to Syria? What’s up with that. LOL!
Seriously, if these degraded pre 1988 shells rally are the fabled WMD’s then it’s a pretty pathetic find. By their silence, I think even the Cheney administration realizes that. But leave it to the true wingnuts: they’ve found their Messiah!
Ian and Lester-
Just admit you are opposed to all military action against our enemies.
You were probably part of the Nuclear Freeze crowd…if you were out of diapers.
Just admit it already. You hate the US military and any mission against terror states or groups in our post-9/11 world.
Just admit it already!
#10: Now there’s no need to get hysterical. If I hated our military so much I’d be glad to see them bogged down in the crossfire of the Iraq civil war and I’d be cheering Bush on in his commitment to More of the Same until long after he’s gone from office. After all, More of the Same for years to come is EXACTLY the way to destroy the military you claim I hate so much. Instead, I want us finish the job we started in Afghanistan, a venture that today is in grave danger http://tinyurl.com/nmstb . We’ve had some success in Iraq: we got rid of Saddam, eliminated any threat from his weapons programs, the Iraqis have a new constitution and elected government. We can’t hold their hand forever; it’s time for us to move out and move on.
I’m all for Ian and Lester testing out the “degraded” sarin shells. Great idea Calarato.
I mean they can’t be dangerous, right?? Lester and Ian say so! And so do the traitors at the CIA.
I’m still cautious. If these weapons were stashed in a way that indicates intentional concealment, some kind of cataloging to make them easily retrieved at a later date, then these are a tremendous repudiation for the Bush administration as they would indeed show deceptive intent of Saddam against the UN and its resolutions. Even though they are degraded, these devices are still quite lethal and would have been available once the sanctions were lifted. If, however, they were obviously stored in various warehouses and forgotten about (the last scene of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” comes to mind), then it’s less a big deal, though it still proves the presence of WMD’s
sonicfrog,
Saddam didn’t come clean about his WMDs. Saddam was obligated to come clean and get everything accounted for, and he didn’t. Moreover, Saddam was obligated to abandon all research and future-intent-to-manufacture-or-recover WMDs.
Those 2 things are what we went to war over; and no matter how any lefty slices or dices it, those 2 things are EXACTLY what they found in 2003 and continue to find.
(“Saddam was obligated to abandon all research and future-intent-to-manufacture-or-recover WMDs” *** and he didn’t)
6: Wow, advocating the death of fellow American citizens because you don’t agree with them. Well, there’s a good example of the American Way for ya
#13: “If these weapons were stashed in a way that indicates intentional concealment, some kind of cataloging to make them easily retrieved at a later date”
Chemical weapons that old would be more dangerous to the Iraqis trying to use them than to the US military. That’s why such old weapons were of so little concern to Cheney and crew. For the most part, these are not newly discovered either. If you truly believe this news is such a bombshell, then please explain why the Bushies themselves are downplaying it.
#16 – Ridiculous, Kevin. “[T]hese munitions are actually less dangerous than comet cleanser”, right???????????
I always thought it odd that when the WMD debate started, everyone was thinking some stadium-sized bunker with A-Bombs blanketing the floor…to the rafters! It does not take much to kill a few people, or does “mass” mean the entire population of the Earth?
Beside all that; can someone clarify for me, as I understand, that a instigator of the ’93 WTC bombing possesed an Iraqi passport? Take care-
#16: “advocating the death of fellow American citizens because you don’t agree with them”
Not only that, but death due to mustard gas is slow and painful – only a real sicko would wish that on their political opponents.
#19 – Iraq had a great deal of involvement in the first WTC bombing in ’93. I can’t instantly recall the story. Though I have a vague notion, at present, that the Clinton Administration may have even indicted some Iraqi nationals over it?
You could probably google the story easily enough. I think Laurie Mylroie wrote a couple books about it, so including her name in additional searches could be useful.
Roger Simon has an entry about how Jane Harman (D-CA) on Fox News said they were old and therefore no more dangerous than aging items one might find “under the kitchen sink.”
Roger Simon had this to say ” I would bet my house that if the Congresswoman found any twenty year old sarin under her kitchen sink, she would get the Hell out of the bulding and call the police and anyone else should could think of as quickly as possible.”
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2006/06/sarin_under_her.php
#16
Wow, advocating the death of fellow American citizens because you don’t agree with them. Well, there’s a good example of the American Way for ya
Comment by Kevin
Actually, it’s letting the stupid prove their claims. Besides, these weapons are no big deal, so what the hell?
#11
I want us finish the job we started in Afghanistan, a venture that today is in grave danger
Just as long as nobody pays any mind to the continuing failure in Somalia, right?
#24 ThatGayConservative — June 24, 2006 @ 2:22 am – June 24, 2006
Just as long as nobody pays any mind to the continuing failure in Somalia, right?
I have no idea what this poster is trying to inply, but I will merely point out that the US involvement in Somalia was begun by Dubya’s father.
I could go on. Well, I will. The US involvement in Vietnam was begun by Eisenhower. And he left it to his successors to clean up his mess. Kind of like Dubya and Iraq, apparently.
From the post
Well guess what folks. Imagine what a dirty bomb loaded with even “degenerated” sarin gas could do if it exploded in Times Square! A weapon of mass destruction.
Probably more of a weapon of mass distraction. Even the Pentagon–which is not known for its liberal tendancies–has poo-pooed Sanctimonious Santorum’s report.
Recognize that SS is in a tough re-election battle. It should be obvious to any sentient being that this “announcement” of old news is nothing more than an attempt to revive his floundering re-election bid.
WMD”S found, enough to kill thousands. You can begin forming the line now to apologize to the President all you leftists. I know it hurts, but the leader of the free world wants to protect you too, not just right thinking conservatives.
Cal, don’t get me wrong. I still hold firm that removing Saddam was the right thing to do, WMD’s be damned. But lets face it, even though we had already found evidence of WMD’s and shadow dealings with Al-Qaeda prior to this latest revelation, nothing short of finding an atomic bomb would cause the Dems and the MSM, who both preached regime change and /or Iraqi WMD’s prior to the invasion, to acknowledge their role in the twelve year buildup to to third stage of the Iraqi War.
Calorato- Iraq had NOTHING to do with the first WTC attack. I had a relative who survived both the 93 and 01 attacks who worked there so i am a bit of a WTC buff. There is a book called “the war against america” by a woman named Laurie Mylroie that makes that claim. It is a wild conspiracy theory. Even people like Daniel Pipes have said so. It was from the old belief that al queda was not based on loose networks but a centrl state sponsered thing. interestingly, the back of the book has commendations from Perle and Wolfowitz. It was written before people knew whhat al queda was, basically.
gaypatriot- I am opposed to military interventions in general, yes. I would not at all be opposed to bombing al quda treaining camps and the like but say kosovo, gulf war, somolia and the worldwide whining for our prescence in Darfur (no disrepspect to the Sudanese victims themselves) I think they tend to open up cans of worms that we aren’t equipped to deal with. But i’m willing to compromise if there is a clear exit strategy.
Bruce – You could easily do another post like #0, titled “Terrorists in Iraq – are they or aren’t they?”
Maliki has outlined his reconciliation / amnesty plan. The BBC notes oh so perceptively,
“It outlines plans to disarm militias and beef up Iraqi security forces… [but] it does not seek reconciliation with those at the heart of the insurgency – the radical Islamists, many of them foreigners, who want Iraq to be the centre of a new Islamic empire.”
Now, what do we call “radical Islamists, many of them foreigners, who want Iraq to be the centre of a new Islamic empire”?
Could they be….. al Qaeda terrorists?
And the BBC claims, because it is convenient this time, that they are “at the heart of the insurgency”. Well – are they or aren’t they? Is the “heart” of the Iraq “insurgency” al Qaeda terrorists, or not?
#20 – And Ignorant and Nauseating, if it were up to you, I would not doubt that you would wish any kind of hateful shit on some of us here on this blog. Most of your ilk already want to do harm to the president, veep, sec’y of state, defense et al. It’s a proven fact. And if you insist on really making yourself look like a fool, I can provide the links.
Regards,
Peter H.
lester writes: “Calorato (sic)- Iraq had NOTHING to do with the first WTC attack. I had a relative who survived both the 93 and 01 attacks who worked there so i am a bit of a WTC buff.”
OMG. lester is raj but at a 3rd Grade Reading level!
lester, raj is famous for once having said something like “I read German magazines so I’m an expert on …. (fill in the blanks). It was crazy hillarious! even raj laughed once he calmed down from being called a non-expert on something.
lester, lester, lester. You gotta get to a school and try to learn.
lester writes later: “There is a book called “the war against america” by a woman named Laurie Mylroie…” No kidding lester… it was referenced twice before in this very thread. Do you read for comprehension?
Maybe Brendan can help you? I think he’s slowly learning how to do it these days.
#31: Pee-eewws promises: “I can provide the links.”
Please do. I really don’t think you’ll find one instance where I’ve wished harm on anyone here or the Presdent or the Vice President or any of the others you mention. So come on, put up or shut up and retract your claim.
But since it is evident that Hussein was unable to produce any new chemical or biological weapons after the first Gulf War, doesn’t that indicate that the UN weapons inspections were working? Inhibiting Hussein’s ability to develop new WMD was one of the primary goals of the inspections.
Inhibiting Hussein’s ability to develop new WMD was one of the primary goals of the inspections.
Then why were they ceased in 1998, on the insistence of leftist Democrats and the UN, when the inspectors were still protesting that Saddam had not been forthcoming and was still hiding and manufacturing banned weapons?
#35 North Dallas Thirty — June 26, 2006 @ 2:04 am – June 26, 2006
Then why were they ceased in 1998, on the insistence of leftist Democrats and the UN…
They weren’t stopped on the insistence of “leftist Democrats and the UN.” They were stopped on the insistence of Saddam Hussein, himself, using the excuse that UNSCOM, the inspectors, were spying–presumably beyond the scope of their mandate. Apparently there was some validity to that charge.
Unfortunately, Raj, Saddam Hussein didn’t have that right or option.
Go back to your leftist talking points explaining why you supported bribes and corruption at the UN.
Inserted Anal Nozzle, read my post again…very carefully:
“MOST OF YOUR ILK already want to do harm to the president, veep, sec’y of state, defense et al.” (CAPS added for emphasis with respect to your low IQ.)
I was referencing people on the Left who have either (a) made direct physical threats to the President, like Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) wanting to hit the President, or (b) slandered the President by comparisons to true terrorists like Hitler, OBL or Saddam Hussein, like Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and anyone else at the NYT, or even (c) urged the personal harm of conservatives, like Julianne Malveaux at NPR who wanted Clarence Thomas dead of cholesterol poisoning.
Those are just a few of the citations I can provide. Did I ever say that YOU ever made those threats? No, because you are personally insignificant to me and to the rest of the world except for maybe your parents. I really don’t care what you would do or say, but suffice to say that your supposed superiority over everyone else at this board is getting on a lot of people’s nerves.
Regards,
Peter H.
michigan matt- no one referenced laurie myroie or that book. that’s good to know about raj. I can’t say I have any german magazine super perspective myself. and I’m not impressed he does. Mylroie is a nut. She thinks saddam was involved in okhlahoma city as well. and every other terrorist attack.
#38: Hey Pee-eeewws, provide the links as you PROMISED you could.
#37 North Dallas Thirty — June 26, 2006 @ 4:02 pm – June 26, 2006
Unfortunately, Raj, Saddam Hussein didn’t have that right or option
Oh, so why was it reported as I described at the time?
Just a couple of examples:
US Used UN to Spy on Iraq, Aides Say, By Colum Lynch, The Boston Globe, January 6, 1999
Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 1997-2000
There are many other reports along the same line. Try again.
Upthread there was a reference to Laurie Mylroie. She was a guest on the late David Brudnoy’s radio talk show here in Boston starting a little more than a decade ago, and it quickly became clear to me that she was a nut. Brudnoy also had Michael Ledeen on, and it was clear that he also was a nut.
Brudnoy was a gay man, who shortly before he first had Mylroye and Ledeen on, had survived a bout with AIDS. A few years ago, he died of a rare form of cancer. Before his bout with AIDS (he was long-time HIV+), he vehemently denied that he was gay, but probably everyone in the Boston gay community knew that he was gay. He claimed that he was a “libertarian,” but anyone listening to his rants on his show (as we did) in the late 1990s and before his death could tell that he was a Republican in libertarian clothing. Which is one reason that I do not trust self-described libertarians: they are little more than Republicans in alternate garb.
Oh, so why was it reported as I described at the time?
What? That UNSCOM was using US intelligence equipment and data to penetrate the numerous deceptions Saddam Hussein was using, in defiance of all UN regulations, to avoid disarming and hide his WMDs?
What you’re trying to argue, which doesn’t surprise me, is that Saddam Hussein had “rights” — that were allegedly based on resolutions that he himself was violating.
First off, he didn’t have them; second off, his own actions, even if he had had them, would have invalidated them.
#43 North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2006 @ 4:40 pm – June 28, 2006
What you’re trying to argue, which doesn’t surprise me, is that Saddam Hussein had “rights” — that were allegedly based on resolutions that he himself was violating.
Nonsense. What I said–I did not try to argue anything, I said–was that
They (the inspections) were stopped on the insistence of Saddam Hussein, himself, using the excuse that UNSCOM, the inspectors, were spying–presumably beyond the scope of their mandate. Apparently there was some validity to that charge. #36
And I subsequently provided evidence to support that statement. You have never provided anything to support your allegation that the inspections were stopped
in 1998, on the insistence of leftist Democrats and the UN #35.
Unless you can provide evidence to support your contention, I’ll consider this matter closed. You can’t even correctly paraphrase what I said.