Well, we know he lied. I mean, if this report had come before his eyes before the invasion, and he thought he could have used it to bolster his case, he would have used it. So either he didn’t see it or not even Bush thought it had any probative value WRT Iraqi WMD’s. Either way, it shouldn’t affect our judgment as to whether Bush lied. Which he did.
I’m just glad, as we prepare to duck incoming ICBMs from North Korea, that we blew so much money and stretched our military to the point of breaking so Saddam couldn’t hit us with 20 year old rusty, depleted sarin gas bombs( that we probably gave him in the first place).
The funny thing is that if they ever were found, the Bush administration has already given the Demcrats all the ammunition they would ever need. When it became obvious that they wouldn’t be found, his administration began downplaying their importance in the decision to go to war. To hear him now, you would think they had nothing to do with it. If he were to suddenly find a stockpile and trumpet it you would hear cries of HYPOCRIT! from all over the Democrats.
Also, if the one roadside bomb made from one of these old shells is any indication of their effectiveness, we would be better off if the insugents started using them instead of conventional explosive IEDs. That thing sucked as I recall.
Ah, but what folks here are forgetting is that there are other ways to spin this besides the whole “see, he did have immediate access to WMDs” thing. Here’s how one conservative pundit’s apparently looking at it:
So don’t expect this to go away just because they’re from before '91.
Wow. I seriously though Shodan was going to slap his head, say “geez, sorry guys, I was had!”
Instead, after his rather nasty OP has been exposed as a pretty goofy attempt by a failing Senator to grab headlines based on completely banal information, he actually retains his snark. That takes guts, even if it doesn’t deserve much respect for intellectual honesty otherwise.
To recap: the “oh, no amount of WMDs will ever be enough for you argument” is about as silly as it gets at this point. No one BEFORE the war claimed that you couldn’t find shells like this all over Iraq. As I said, people totally unaware of what they were and unconnected to any plot of Saddam’s regime had them sitting in their freaking living rooms.
The ONE that Al Qaeda used so far, they used in a way that demonstrated that they were ignorant of what it was: they simply used it as a shell for a roadside bomb rather than using it in a way that would disperse what chemicals might be left. The fact that they show interest in acuqiring some is interesting, if not particularly surprising (they’d want ANY weapon they could get their hands on), back has JACK ALL to do with whether Saddam had stockpiles of WMD. If you’d read up on the information behind YOUR OWN OP, you’d note that the report itself says nothing about enemy stockpiles, instead noting that they were scavenged and collected from old battlesites, found scattered around, and so forth. To try and pretend that these things, which everyone knew about long before the war was a gleam in a Republican fundraiser’s eye, were somehow an appropriate cause for war is pure, driven nonsense. Can you admit it to yourself yet?
If you can, I won’t be particularly mad at you. I know myself I’ve gotten taken in and way too excited about some claim of liberal blogs or PR sources that turned out to be bullplop too. Rushing in on a story without thinking it through can leave your ass dangling in the wind. It happens. I’ll forgive you, if you’ll own up to it.
These munitions are, if anything, MORE likely to be smuggled out of a choatic, lawless Iraq than the one controlled by Saddam. Saddam, of course, had an interest in not attacking the US or pissing it off too much. He was an egotistical asshole who certainly wasn’t willing to die for something like that. The Al Qaeda horde now running all over the place, of course, is. Dumb trade on our part, IMHO.
We know that Saddam had WMD’s, because Donald Rumsfeld negotiated selling them to him, when we were backing Saddam in his war against Iran. It’s possible these munitions fall into that category – they might be stamped “Made in the USA”.
Hindraker is full of it to. Name one person, ONE PERSON of any major significance in this debate who denied that Saddam had used chemical weapons. Who the hell is he pretending to lecture on that as it being some new revelation we all lacked his insight to forsee?
Damn right. I remember. That is what first made me very suspicious… the rationale was never the one I had remembered from the previous “speech” or “debate”. Plus, the various reports finally surfaced from Blix, the CIA, the Army, etc all saying there was no WMD capability. At that point, Downing Street was just the icing on the cake.
They’re still finding chemical shells in France from time to time, left over from WWI. Who’s up for invading Germany?
Don’t know if the alledged mobile chemical trucks actually produced anything but Saddam did have a mobile uranium enrichment setup because some of them (possibly all) were destroyed when discovered by inspectors.
Not quite the same thing. Saddam had a habit of burying things. According to the Pentagon the majority of the chemical weapons found were 155mm shells. These were probably left over from the Iran/Iraq war which was 3 years prior to the 1st Gulf War. This correlates with an early Frontline program on the subject. these were buried in plastic sheeting (for reasons not explained). Not sure if Saddam was cheap on his disposal practices or cheap on his hiding technique. While the shells may or may not be viable as a weapon the chemicals inside them pose a threat.
It would be nice if the Pentagon specified what the “minority” of chemical weapons were or if this was a mis-speak when they said the majority were 155 mm shells. I found it alarming that they showed something completely different on the news (can’t remember which but it was one of the 3 broadcast networks). What they showed was footage of something that was decidedly NOT a 155 shell. Not that I except any real news to be presented during the news. :rolleyes:
Since the White House and the Pentagon are not too excited about this I’d say it’s bird-cage material… I’d still like to know the full extent of what they found because chemical weapons are already part of Al Quada’s MO. They used them in the attack against the WTC (1st attempt).
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/dod-disavows-santorum
Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”
Fox’s Alan Colmes broke the news to Santorum. Watch it here: http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/santorumdod.320.240.mov
COLMES: Congressman, Senator, it’s Alan Colmes. Senator, the Iraq Survey Group - let me go to the Duelfer Report - says that Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there. And Jim Angle reported this for Fox News quotes a defense official who says these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded. And the official went on to say these are not the WMD’s this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMD’s for which this country went to war. So the chest beating at this Republicans are doing tonight thinking this is a justification is not confirmed by the defense department.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14879499.htm
New report offers no evidence that Iraq stockpiled WMD
WASHINGTON - A new, partially declassified intelligence report provides no new evidence that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction on the eve of the U.S.-led invasion, as President Bush alleged in making the case for war, U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday.
The report, made public in the midst of a partisan debate in Congress, says that about 500 munitions containing degraded chemical weapons, including mustard gas and sarin nerve agent, have been found in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion.
But the intelligence officials said the munitions dated from before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and were for the most part badly deteriorated. “They are not in a condition where they could be used as designed,” one intelligence official said.
“There is not new news from the coalition point of view,” one official said, noting that chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer predicted in a March 2005 report that such vintage weapons would continue to be found. … “Rolling out some old fairly toxic stuff sounds to me like a desperate claim by those who wish that we could find some new way to rationalize the ongoing devastation in Iraq,” she said.
The report was written by the National Ground Intelligence Center, an Army unit, and its key points were declassified at the request of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich. He and Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., released it during Senate debate this week over the U.S. troop presence in Iraq.
Santorum and Hoekstra didn’t return calls requesting comment Thursday in response to the intelligence officials.
I have my own copy of this Duelfer Report. It says No WMD. It is supported as I said, by the Army’s report. It is supported by the other reports. It’s time to stop beating this dead and already discredited horse.
Just because it would be unwise to hand-feed a wolverine doesn’t make the animal a WMD.
Well, I mean, unless WMD stands for “Wolverine of My Disembowelment,” of course. 
Awwww, too bad. The defense department won’t play along with the little game…
And I ask you a second time: why do you object to my post and not Cervaise’s?
I dunno; could it be possible that it is because Cervaise’s post is grounded in fact and yours is grounded in illusion? Just a thought.
Yeah. Sure. Right. Whatever you say. :rolleyes:
Is the distinction you are drawing between being usable by armies vs. being usable by terrorists?
Although the opinion about the military usefulness of the WMDs is not unanimous:
You will remember that one of the talking points before the invasion was that Saddam might share his WMD with terrorists rather than attack the West and her allies directly.
True, of course - if we happen across a functional ICBM Bush and Co. will certainly rub the Democrats’ noses in it for the next few years.
So far, so good - the terrorist regime is overthrown, its head is on trial, and there are 500 or so WMDs that will not be sold to al-Queda or other Islamo-fascist groups.
Because it would be met with the same chorus of derision that this was, and accomplish nothing. The less-rational Dems aren’t going to support the war, no matter what.
We are already in Iraq. The task now is to prevent the Democrats from surrendering.
And, to put it on the crudest level, Bush isn’t going to be re-elected. He has already passed the only referendum he needs on the run-up to the war - and passed with a majority. He’s fought that battle and won.
Regards,
Shodan
To anyone not terminally blinkered, it is obvious that the inspections were working. There was no need for immediate “forceful action”. Hussein was a problem to be dealt with, certainly, but there was plenty of time to take care of it - no need to rush. I find it sad that there are those who, for whatever reason, are so personally invested in supporting the war that they simply cannot bear to look at the clear evidence that it was unnecessary.
I guess this means that you think that GW is incapable of enunciating that this find validates reason No. 1a, Page 1 of all the reasons put forward for invading Iraq.
It seems to me that the task is to formulate and carrying out a sensible plan for ending this monstrosity.
Very true and people, even the world-wise and well informed voters in the US, can make tragic blunders.