Those Iraqi WMDs Again

I think I will post this in GD so as to make sure it doesn’t get personal. :smiley:

http://www.wwmt.com/engine.pl?station=wwmt&id=27609&template=breakout_local.html

As I see it, the options are as follows:
[ul][li]“We haven’t found any WMD in Iraq” really meant “we haven’t found enough WMD in Iraq”.[/li][li]Saddam would have given up those WMD eventually, if we had been patient for another twelve years or so.[/li][li]It doesn’t make any difference anyway, just because Saddam was lying about those WMDs doesn’t justify bringing about the “serious consequences” the UN warned him about.[/li][li]It was never really about WMD. That was just an excuse to attack Bush, because as we all know[/li] BushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLied…[/ul]

Thoughts?

Regards,
Shodan

According to Fox News, the 500 or so projectiles mentioned in the report were probably all manufactured before 1991.

I guess some variant of 1. It would be that we didn’t find the weapon programs that President Bush claimed Iraq had…mobile biological labs and uranium enrichment.

From the article (bolding added):

So, add a bullet point:
[ul]There are plenty of stupid people who desperately want to believe their prophet Bush wasn’t fucking lying to them so if we repeat vague assertions about WMDs we can shore up our base of hardcore support because we know they won’t bother to actually read the document in question and thereby learn that this is very old material that was almost certainly documented in the original inspections and that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any “weapons-related program activities” or any of the other hysterical fearmongering assertions about active development of mushroom-cloud-producing devices that were looming imminently over our horizon.[/ul]How about that?

Weird. There was a thread twoish years ago about the same stash of artillary shells, not sure how this report is “newly declassifed” then.

In anycase, if Bush had gone before the American People and said that we needed to rapidly move towards invading Iraq because of 500 non-functional (my understanding is the chemicals involved degrade into uselessness over time) decade old artillary shells, we wouldn’t be in Iraq today.

I’m also skeptical Saddam knew about these shells. Why destroy 95% of your stockpiles, as well as your ability to create new shells or maintain the ones you have, then hold on to a few hundred as they slowly decay into uselessness. I imagine they were mistaken as conventional shells at somepoint and warehoused as such.

Well, following all the links to their ends gets me to two broken links to pdf documents that aren’t there, so I’m still waiting to see this alleged report that Hoekstra is basing his announcement on.

If Hoekstra and Santorum actually believe the shit they are spouting, then they are morons. If they don’t believe it, then they are mainstream republicans.

[QUOTE=Cervaise]
From the article (bolding added):So, add a bullet point:
[ul][li]There are plenty of stupid people who desperately want to believe their prophet Bush wasn’t fucking lying to them so if we repeat vague assertions about WMDs we can shore up our base of hardcore support because we know they won’t bother to actually read the document in question and thereby learn that this is very old material that was almost certainly documented in the original inspections and that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any “weapons-related program activities” or any of the other hysterical fearmongering assertions about active development of mushroom-cloud-producing devices that were looming imminently over our horizon.[/ul]How about that?[/li][/QUOTE]

Or another bullet point:

[ul][li] There is very little doubt that Hussein retained the capability to manufacture chemical weapons and could easily ramp up production as soon as he succeeded in getting the sanctions lifted knowing that he could always count on cowards, quislings, fools and defeatists in the United States to turn a blind eye to the fact that he simply was NOT going to give up chemical weapons, no way, no how, and do their damnedest to undermine support for any kind of forceful action against him or any other bloodsoaked Third World barbarian without the slightest regard for whether or not any actual danger exists.[/li][/ul]

That one’s even better than yours.

Looks like Shodan got taken in by another drudge flash report.

Other, less excitable conservatives, are less than amused:
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2006/06/500_wmd_shells_.html

Note that the claim that the inspections team “didn’t find” these weapons is a pretty vile lie. They weren’t looking for these weapons in the first place. No one dispute that these shells were scattered all over Iraq. Heck, many people had them sitting on their mantlepieces, unaware of what the color coding meant, as relics of the Iran-Iraq war battlefields.

Sorry, that should have been “drudge-STYLE” report, i.e. a blaring PR blitz with a highly misleading headline and summary that on closer examination turns out to be a lot of BS. Drudge was blaring this one, but obviously other outlets do it too.

Would you mind being slightly more specific. These are the options? Whose options? Options for what? And who gave you the authority to decide what these mysterious options are?

The entire world knows that Bush made enormous claims about Saddam’s WMD capability that were entirely false. The entire world knows that Bush’s mistruths were deliberate lies, not innocent mistakes. If Hoekstra’s report actually justified the things Bush said before the war, then Bush and all his friends would be trumpeting that report from the rooftops. But they aren’t. Recall: the Bushies claimed that Saddam had 500 tons of mustard gas. They claimed he was actively trying to purchase yellowcake uranium. They claimed he could deliver chemical weapons to Europe and America in a matter of minutes. As near as I can tell, Hoekstra’s report doesn’t address any of those claims.

Of course, I can’t tell very nearly right now. I think even you would agree that a news report of four extremely short paragraphs is not very detailed. I’d love to read the entire thing, but when I try to follow the link and read the summary of the report, I get an “Object not found” error. Hmmmmmmm…

In short, I think this is a good sign. If the Republicans are really desperate enough that they have to use this to justify the war retroactively, then support for the Iraq war must truly be on its last legs. The withdrawal will be coming soon.

Cite?

Are you calling me a traitor?

[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
Or another bullet point:

[list][li] … forceful action against him or any other bloodsoaked Third World barbarian without the slightest regard for whether or not any actual danger exists.[/li][/QUOTE]
Does this also apply to “first world” fools who presume some dangers, inflate them, and then strike out blindly against the wrong target?

Ah, found the error. Some numbnuts running the Intelligence Committee’s website doesn’t know how to translate a Windows filepath into a properly-formatted URL.

Here’s the summary released to Hoekstra et. al. upon which he bases his own press release

That’s the whole thing, apart from a cover letter and a list of recipients.

Ah, so it’s just a summary of how many chemical weapon shells have been found over the last few years. That explains the weirdness I noted earlier with this “declassifed” report appearing to be old news. And it is old news, there have been reports of pre-'91 chemical weapons found since the invasion, one was even used in a roadside bomb attack. But no capacity to produce or maintain these weapons, no sign they were being conciously stockpiled, no sign any were made after '91, etc. These shells were not anywhere close to the biggest threat to US security in 2002, and certainly not worth 2000+ American lives, billions of dollars, the loss of American prestige, etc.

I think the real story here is why our military classifies stuff that is being reported in US newspapers.

You object to my post but not Cervaise’s?

[ul][li]“We haven’t found any WMD in Iraq” really meant “we haven’t found WMD, or WMD programs, which resemble those claimed to exist by the administration”.[]Sanctions and inspections were working to frustrate any ambitions Saddam had towards retaining or building a WMD arsenal.[]Inspections could have easily dealt with this small cache of shells, as had been done with similar caches in the past.[]It is the province of the Security Council, acting within their own rules of procedure, to determine what “serious consequences” means and how to implement said consequences.[]The risk posed by “degraded sarin and mustard agents” may or may not meet the Security Council’s criteria for imposing “severe consequences”.[/ul]I’m sure there are more options here, but the reality is we’re stuck with the damn fool war we’ve got and we had better make the best of it.[/li]
If anyone is really worried about proliferation of WMD, the caches which seem the most worrisome to me are those in the former USSR.

With the manpower and money spent on the Iraq war we could have secured this and hundreds of other caches in the former USSR.

Just one more data point for those who want to ask “why this war, why now?”

Enjoy,
Steven

What part of “before 1991” and “degraded” is failing to penetrate? Seriously, what the fuck, OP? No more effort on a response is warranted, far as I can tell.

You’ve gotten all the response you deserve.

I responded to a hostile, ill-mannered post with a hostile, ill-mannered post. You got pretty much the response you deserved, too. If you or anybody else have any complaint, take it up with the mods.