Breaking News: WMD's Found

We have no reason to believe that N. Korea intends to launch a nuclear attack; ergo, my suggestion for simply taking out the missile on its launch pad. There has been some talk of using N. Korea's launch as a test for our new anti-missile system.

When a leader has the courage to make a decision, there's always the possibility that the consequences of that decision will be painful. When a leader won't make a decision...well, we call those leaders "Democrats."
 
Wait a sec. Could these, or could they not, have reached Israel? That's the real question.

Because the WMD rationale for war, to the extent it may have ever been true / valid (which was very little / very minor in the grand scheme), was only about WMDs capable of reaching Israel or our bases in the middle east (saudi and such) in the first place. It was NEVER about weapons capable of reaching the U.S. The minor actual reason of WMDs (but played up as the #1 reason) was about helping our ally Israel, which in turn of course is about the money and votes of rich Jewish Americans. Not racist, just fact. Saddam WOULD have sent WMDs to Israel (he sent scuds there before). He most certainly would not have hit the hornet's nest of the US with a stick.
 
What originally sold me, and most of America, on the Iraq War was that Saddam had dealings with terrorist organizations, possibly with Al Qaeda, and that he was possibly hiding or manufacturing NBC weapons and keeping them hidden from UN weapons inspectors. Everyone forgets the time line. Bin Laden disappeared, 9/11 and the anthrax attack were still fresh in everyone’s minds, we did not know if Saddam did or did not have WMD but he was "screwing with" UN inspections. The thought was to prevent Saddam, who is nuts and hated the US, from handing some NBC weapon over to a terrorist organization and having a chemical bomb go off in Times Square at rush hour. This isn't the first report of an old chemical shell being found in Iraq (remember an old sarin shell was rigged into a failed IED a few years back). You can rule one or two out as being "misplaced" since the end of the Gulf War. You don't misplace hundreds of chemical shells, you hide them until the inspectors leave. Its not the big smoking gun of manufacturing and stockpiling of WMD that the admin sold us on, but Saddam did have some Duel purpose abilities leading up to the war and now some old stuff in storage. It seems now that Saddam is not as clean as some people would lead you to believe.

Again I am sickened on how people are swayed by politics, rather than common sense and national safety. I probably feel like this because I no longer have a party affiliation since I think the democrats are too liberal and the republicans are too conservative. Neo cons will give a big "I told you so!" assuming this will wash away previous mistakes regarding Iraq, while liberals will say "so what they are old, stale pre 1991 weapons, it doesn’t count" Regarding the stale thing, Most NBC weapons have a shelf life, but may they still be dangerous, or with some work can be brought back to almost original strength. Prime example is a suitcase nuke, without maintenance they have a limited shelf life. Would you feel safe if an Al Qaeda terrorist had an old suitcase nuke in on US soil if the nuke has a 1/50 chance of working properly? Are those “stale weapons nay sayers” willing to sit in an enclosed room like a movie theater while they open an old stale Iraqi mustard gas shell? I think not!

Honestly it is in everyone's best interest to keep things like hidden WMD in Iraq classified, let Al Qaeda and others assume nothing is there so they don't start looking. If that is the case I give Bush credit for some smart thinking (even though I called him an idiot on other things), if he kept this quiet since 2003 he risked losing an election to keep it under wraps, for the greater good. Santorum on the other hand apparently needs some votes, and just doesn't care.
 
Last edited:
Like I said earlier, the 'clear and present danger' is a disruption in the flow of oil which would bring this country to its knees.

I don't think that many agree with me since I seem to be the only one saying it, but that is why we went to Iraq...the 'war on terror' is just a good excuse which has fooled so many millions of Americans.
 
P.S. in 2003 we did not know Iran was working on the Bomb and North Korean had a Nuke but no missle to reach us.

Target #1
Al Qaeda = Sunni hates the Shiites and the US. Attacked the US on 9/11

Target #2
Saddam = Sunni Hates the Shiites and the US. Fought the US before and may have some NBC weapons. Had talks with Al Qaeda in the past.

?????
Iran = Hates the US, but Shiite so no known connection with Al Qaeda or Saddam. Working on a Bomb

North Korea = Hates the US. Has the bomb, but no known connection with Muslim terrorist.

Asking why we are not invading Iran or North Korea like Iraq is comparing apples to oranges. North Korea saber rattled to get oil and food from Clinton, and he is "fueling up" an alleged ICBM to get more. They are containable. Iran??? I don't know what they are up to. Perhaps its saber rattling and this package we are negotiating will shut them up like N. Korea.
 
I beg to differ, Mikeyboy. Remember the "Axis of Evil" (Iraq, Iran, and North Korea)? Strikes me that the comparison was made all the way at the top and at the onset of the conflict.
 
These aren't the droids you're looking for...(wave of the hand and Jedi mind trick)


Seriously, would those in opposition who don't think these are bad enough WMDs or infractions of the treaty have preferred we waited until HE DID build something (still not proven that he didn't) and use it or sell it to other terrorists to use it against us?

Nearly everyone here would take a proactive approach to his individual safety. Most of us carry and would use deadly force if presented with a viable threat of deadly force.
 
The problem with that is that there is no objective, reliable benchmark to let us know it's "finished". When is the job done?

Oops let me qualify that....

As previously posted in this forum before we need to set down and have a serious discussion with the Iraqi governement as to a time table for withdrawal of American Forces with a firm date. So that way the Iraqis understand that this is going to be thier war for democracy with some assitance that does not include military personnel. I am not for an indefinite war in Iraq. This war must be won or lost by the Iraqis at some point. If we keep propping them up we will be there a while spinning our wheels and in the long run more of our folks lives will be lost.
 
I really do wish the Iraqis will get their ducks in a row, so we can turn the place back over to them and stop bleeding our forces.

I'm going to make a prediction here, and I hope I'm wrong with it. In a few years, you can all go back through the archives, and then we'll see whether I'll have to eat crow.

We will be in Iraq for another few years, well into the next administration, and possibly the one after that. We will have spent a trillion taxpayer dollars on the adventure (already over 1/4 there), lose another 5-10,000 troops before the last American pair of boots leaves Iraq, and as soon as they do, the place will turn into the battleground for a lengthy civil war between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. When the smoke clears, Iraq will be either ruled by Iran via proxy, have a homebrewed Shiite or Sunni theocracy, or be ruled by a new strong man which will be a Saddam sequel.

Call me pessimistic, but that's what I fear to be in stock for the region.
 
We will be in Iraq for another few years, well into the next administration, and possibly the one after that. We will lose another 5-10,000 troops before the last American pair of boots leaves Iraq, and as soon as they do, the place will turn into the battleground for a lengthy civil war between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. When the smoke clears, Iraq will be either ruled by Iran via proxy, have a homebrewed Shiite or Sunni theocracy, or be ruled by a new strong man which will be a Saddam sequel.

Sounds about right to me, except that all three of your conclusions within the final sentence may well happen simultaneously, with each faction taking a piece of the country. :(

Funny, I recall saying this (not here, though) ... in 2003! :mad:
 
Lief I agree with you in the sense that the "Axis of evil" thing includes all three, however North Korea needs to be contained, not invaded. Iran...possibly the same thing. The big question for Iraq should we have invaded and could we have just contained Saddam. If it was discovered after the invasion that Saddam had an active WMD program and large stockpiles, everyone would agree that the Invading sooner than later would be a good thing. Everyone, including myself got disillusioned with the decision to invade when no WMD stockpiles were found. Post invasion research concluded that Saddam had debatable duel use capabilities and no stockpile of weapons, that the Iraqi WMD program was halted, possibily waiting for inspections to stop to be restarted again. That kind of made me feel that rushing an invasion was a bad idea. Now if there is stockpiles of old NBC's than that definately violated the UN resolutation, and makes it more invasion more justifiable, moving closer to being a good idea again, however I am waiting for all the evidence to come in before I commit to it.

Again, you will hear people like Rush and Hannity scream that Bush can do no wrong and see I told you so, but that doesn't excuse the fact that we plan a good invasion and removal of Saddam however we had no plans beyond that. Planners incorrectly assumed that the Iraq would be just fine and run like a clock the moment Saddam was gone, eveyone there would hold hands and sing, with rainbows and ponies. That was just plan stupid.
 
I really do wish the Iraqis will get their ducks in a row, so we can turn the place back over to them and stop bleeding our forces.

These are the same people that in 1991 had an army that after a invading a defensless country, basically surrendered when a real military force showed up.

you got 3 main groups that all hate each other and withing them some factions that fight among themselves.

You had a dictator that for 20 years killed the smart, the brave, the politically motivated opposition.

We are in for the long haul, but again I ask you, how Pissed off would you have been at the adminstration if a we got a regular Qaeda Chemical attacks on US soil courtsey of Saddam because Bush decided to contain Iraq and did not invade. Yes, the Iraq war is screwed up, so is Bosina, but the question is does this discovery of weapons prove anything??? Is it just Santorum (who is a total Neo con, Bush is God, bible thumper) posturing for votes, or is this evidence of the justification for the invasion. Time will tell.
 
Thing is, I feel like Mulder on the old X-Files TV show ... "I want to believe." I really would much rather be proven incorrect by the discovery of massive stockpiles of active WMDs and have to eat my words than to find myself saying "I told you so" a decade or so later. I really would like to be wrong in this case. However, virtually nothing that was presented to the public, then or now, has eased my mind the slightest with regard to the invasion of Iraq and its purported justifications.
 
We are in for the long haul, but again I ask you, how Pissed off would you have been at the adminstration if a we got a regular Qaeda Chemical attacks on US soil courtsey of Saddam because Bush decided to contain Iraq and did not invade.

My whole problem with your argument is the 9/11-Saddam link. There was none; even the administration says so. Saddam and Osama didn't have much love for each other...Saddam's regime was basically secular, and Osama and followers subscribe to a far more rigid doctrine. Saddam was only the friend of Saddam. The administration chose to be very selective about evidence...they decided right after 9/11 that Saddam was going down, and any evidence for a case against him was polished (however small), whereas any evidence against a connection was suppressed or ignored (however significant).

I have no problem going after terrorists in their strongholds. I fully supported and applauded the war in Afghanistan...the connection to Osama was indisputable, the Taliban admitted to it and refused to hand him over. The war in Iraq was an unnecessary and costly sidestep in the War on Terror, using up resources that could have been better used elsewhere.
 
Officials: U.S. didn’t find WMDs, despite claims

WASHINGTON - Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they have no evidence that Iraq produced chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War, despite recent reports from media outlets and Republican lawmakers.

Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan on Wednesday pointed to a newly declassified report that says coalition forces have found 500 munitions in Iraq that contained degraded sarin or mustard nerve agents.

They cited the report in an attempt to counter criticism by Democrats who say the decision to go to war was a mistake.

But defense officials said Thursday that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age, which they determined to be pre-1991.

Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were looking for when we went in this time."

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

"We were able to determine that [the missile] is, in fact, degraded and ... is consistent with what we would expect from finding a munition that was dated back to pre-Gulf War," an intelligence official told NBC. "However, even in the degraded state, our assessment is that they could pose an up-to-lethal hazard if used in attacks against coalition forces."

‘A bit suspicious’
Democrats said a report from the top U.S. weapons inspector contemplated that older munitions bearing traces of chemical agents would be found.

A leading Democrat on intelligence issues said Santorum's assertion that there were in fact weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was politically motivated.

"It's a bit suspicious that this was rolled out the night before" the debate and vote in the Senate on withdrawal from Iraq "by a senator in a close political race," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.

Santorum is down 18 points in his Senate re-election contest, according to a poll released Wednesday.

Harman said it was "unfortunate" that people have "not learned the lesson about hyping ... and cherry picking" intelligence to suit their own aims.

For his part, Hoekstra, appearing before cameras on Thursday, reiterated his assertions of Wednesday evening, saying, "Iraq is NOT a WMD-free zone" and it "amazes me" that members of Congress still say that there was no WMD in Iraq.
 
Let's see if I have this right.....

One side says nothing short of a huge, functional ICBM warhead counts and the other side says anything that could possibly be classified as a WMD counts.

At this point, who cares, except for bragging rights? The underlying question is not even a substantial political issue - it's not as though Bush might or might not be re-elected based on the answer.

But while we argue over meaningless questions like this, Congress can't reach a concensus on what the country should be doing going forward. That is the real shame from which we are too readily distracted.
 
Someone could make an amount of Ricin of that size for under $2000 USD.

If we are going to be worried about chem weapons used in terror attacks, they will most likely come from clandestine basement labs on our soil.
 
Santorum and his buddy are being crucified by all kinds of legitimate experts. I expect that the Pres. is mighty annoyed as it just revives the furor about the cause of the war.

The administration was trying to focus on staying the course despite initial mistakes. They didn't need an idiot out there.
 
Back
Top