GOP conspires to hold back: REPORT: WMDS found in Iraq

Oh, you just know I have to go here. I'm gonna blow the whistle on the whole Vast Right Wing Conspiracy here. I hate to do it, but I have to before some left wing nut job comes along and figures it out and becomes a big hero for doing it (figuring it out).

How am I gonna blow the whistle? How about by pointing to the following news (headline is linked):





Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.
"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.
Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."



The report continues here...

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.
Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."
Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.
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."




There's more in the original article, but right there you have all the proof you would ever need of the vast right wing conspiracy. What do I mean? It isn't hard to figure it out.

Bush was sitting on this news. This is old news, not declassified until recently, and even then not trumpeted by the Bush administration. They were sitting on the story to save it for an October surprise. Much like the recent death of Al-Zaqari or whatever that moron's name was, the news was being saved to be drug out just in time to influence the elections. It was gonna be sprung just in time to give Bush a boost, to deflate the liberals and help keep congress firmly in the hands of the GOP.

Ooops, did I just blow that whole plan right out of the water? Nah, it was Santorum's fault (oh, wait, he's part of the VRWC, and he is perhaps in a little danger back in his home state. I guess he gets to be the mouth piece for this story so that he can club his opponent over the head and win back his seat).
5,237 views 20 replies
Reply #1 Top
Regular readers probably recognize the satire and cynicism in the article above. Irregular readers, or liberals, probably won't
Reply #2 Top
But what if the Bush administration was actually doing what the report assumes... that whole forward-looking thing. *GASP*!! It can't be true!
Reply #3 Top
It's Bush's fault.
Reply #4 Top
Well, you snooze you lose. I was going to write on this, but you beat me to it. But notice 2 things. Fox is the only one carrying it (CNN is stone cold), and the Libs have not commented yet. They are trying to figure out a response (i.e. how to lie out of it).
Reply #5 Top
It's not news. It's been public knowledge for ages - I remember parated or moderateman or drmiler or one of you guys anyway writing about it months ago.

I don't think Bush'd want to talk it up too much though - the weapons were inactive, as in dead. They couldn't be used and had probably been forgotten. Relics of Bush snr's sterling diplomatic efforts in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.
Reply #6 Top
The left is already,working on their way to take away the find.. Now all you hear is.. oh they don't count, they were pre 1991 munitions, besides the chemicals were degraded, 3 of them had rust spots, and and and a few were dusty. anything that makes Bush right just drives the left up a freakin wall.
Reply #7 Top

It's not news. It's been public knowledge for ages - I remember parated or moderateman or drmiler or one of you guys anyway writing about it months ago.

Uh, not quite.

Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now,

Reply #8 Top
I don't think Bush'd want to talk it up too much though - the weapons were inactive, as in dead. They couldn't be used and had probably been forgotten. Relics of Bush snr's sterling diplomatic efforts in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.


Apparently the original poster of the words above also missed the part of the original article that made reference to the fact that these munitions were claimed (by Saddam) to have been destroyed, as in non-existent, not available, gone, no longer possible to be used in any way, shape or form.

I guess that poster doesn't have a problem with the fact that Saddam lied, and this is further proof of it. Perhaps original poster of the quote here is more interested in running around screaming Bush Lied, soldiers died.
Reply #9 Top

Reply By: terpfan1980

Must not have read this part either:

The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage consitions.  While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal

Reply #10 Top
Uh, not quite.

Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now,


Fine. But I do remember one of you writing about a shell found in Iraq that had a small reservoir of degraded sarin gas.

Apparently the original poster of the words above also missed the part of the original article that made reference to the fact that these munitions were claimed (by Saddam) to have been destroyed, as in non-existent, not available, gone, no longer possible to be used in any way, shape or form.


I do have a name you know. Why is it important anyway? It's not like he was lying about anything he could use.

The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage consitions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal


You honestly think they could have loaded that stuff into a rocket, fired it into Jerusalem and caused significant damage with it? How? The Defence Department doesn't agree with you that it was a weaponised WMD:

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


Or perhaps you have better sources than the US government as members of your fictional right-wing conspiracy.
Reply #11 Top
#10 by cactoblasta
Thu, June 22, 2006 9:19 PM


simple question cacto, would you want to be less than 10 feet away from a degraded sarin gas munitions shell when it went boom?
Reply #12 Top
You honestly think they could have loaded that stuff into a rocket, fired it into Jerusalem and caused significant damage with it? How? The Defence Department doesn't agree with you that it was a weaponised WMD:


Regardless of your name, in addition to the question posed to you above, how about thinking about what could be done with any of the materials that were found if someone actually cared to try to put it to use.

Not weaponised does not at all mean "not useful", and "not potent." It means that some analysts felt it wasn't an immediate threat, or wasn't in a form that would make it convenient for delivery against an enemy.

Give that pile of supposedly non-existent munitions to a terrorist and let them start spreading it around in any means they choose to use. Perhaps in a crowded shopping mall? Maybe in a work place by tainting bottles of water that would be used for water coolers.

It's been downplayed because it wasn't a huge pile loaded into rockets pointed at Israel, Qatar, or perhaps Saudi Arabia. Again, none of which means it's not an important find, and none of which means it wasn't a threat to U.S. or allied interests.
Reply #13 Top
Sorry Terp, I didn't see yours when I posted mine...

But I totally agree, this "no WMD in Iraq" farce has gone on long enough. I also cited a Greenpeace mission which recovered a hunk of yellowcake the size of a car. I even included a picture of it. WMD were in Iraq. WMD continues to be in Iraq. Chemical and nuclear programs existed until Saddam ran to his spider hole. It's just that simple.
Reply #14 Top
Sorry Terp, I didn't see yours when I posted mine...


No worries at all, plenty of room to go around and get the news out, especially since the MSM continues to ignore the story (since it might possibly be considered "good" news for Bush and the GOP theres no way they can help legitimize the report and bring any dishonor to the liberal/democrat cause(s)).


But I totally agree, this "no WMD in Iraq" farce has gone on long enough. I also cited a Greenpeace mission which recovered a hunk of yellowcake the size of a car. I even included a picture of it. WMD were in Iraq. WMD continues to be in Iraq. Chemical and nuclear programs existed until Saddam ran to his spider hole. It's just that simple.


Very true. As noted above, just because it wasn't on the top of a rocket aimed at us doesn't mean it was not a threat. If it really wasn't there, and really wasn't of value, then why save it at all? Why bury it and hide it from inspectors and claim it was all gone? Even if it had absolutely no use and was completely harmless, it wasn't destroyed because Saddam continued to try to game the inspections and claim he had nothing in country when he was hoping all along to get rid of the inspections and restart business as usual.

Reply #15 Top
Since the story broke yesterday about finding 500 Shells of Chemical Weapons in Iraq, shells that contain Sulfur Mustard Gas or Sarin Gas, the Left and their media were quick to dismiss this extremely important find by using the lame excuse that these Chemical weapons Shells were produced before 1991 and hence its not effective anymore because it has much lower quality”. However in March 2003 UN report about Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction there is the following on page 77 (Page 79 of the pdf file), paragraph 1 of the report http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/6mar.pdf :

“ The Sulfur Mustard contained in artillery shells that had been stored for over 12 years, had been found by UNMOVIC to be still of high purity. It is possible that viable filled artillery shells and aerial bombs still remain in Iraq.

The above form the United Nations inspectors and the darling of the Left Hans Blix totally destroy the stupid lies that the Left and their media has been spewing since the breakings new of yesterday. First the UN clearly state in March 2003 that the Mustard gas shells they found are of HIGH QUALITY even it had been STORED FOR OVER 12 YEARS. Second the UN admit that there may still VIABLE i.e. EFFECTIVE Mustrad filled artillery shell hidden in Iraq, and yesterday we learned for a fact that there were indeed 500 Mustard gas artillery shells that were found in Iraq since the removal of Saddam. Also it is safe to conclude that the Mustard Gas shells found after the war are still in high quality and highly effective Chemical weapons.
Reply #16 Top
Not weaponised does not at all mean "not useful", and "not potent." It means that some analysts felt it wasn't an immediate threat, or wasn't in a form that would make it convenient for delivery against an enemy.


I would argue though that that shell does not qualify as capable of mass destruction. Oh, and I think yellowcake is the ore isn't it? It probably needs some refining before it's usable.

simple question cacto, would you want to be less than 10 feet away from a degraded sarin gas munitions shell when it went boom?


So 10 feet is now the minimum blast radius for a weapon to be considered a WMD? Well, I think it's about time we banned grenades, tank shells, rockets, artillery of all kinds and nearly every weapon mounted on a ship or aircraft. There's a difference, Mod, between a weapon of mass destruction and an artillery shell that contains chemical agents. One, for example, is a weapon of mass destruction.

Also it is safe to conclude that the Mustard Gas shells found after the war are still in high quality and highly effective Chemical weapons.


So what? An artillery shell does not a weapon of mass destruction make. When will you figure this out? Chemical does not always equal mass destruction. There needs to be a significant capability for widespread destruction first. Causing a painful death for those nearby is not enough; cluster bombs can cause a painful death, and so do landmines, and the US isn't banning them.
Reply #17 Top

Well, we now have the liberal line.  When confronted with the proof of the WMDs, they start equivocating and redefining what a WMD is.  By the time this is all said and done, they will have redefined a WMD to be only those weapons never possessed by Saddam.

I would direct their attention to Tokyo a few years ago.  Seems that weapon was pretty effective, and it was not even delivered in an artillery shell (which can easily be fitted on a rocket with modest effort).

Reply #18 Top
I would direct their attention to Tokyo a few years ago. Seems that weapon was pretty effective, and it was not even delivered in an artillery shell (which can easily be fitted on a rocket with modest effort).


I don't know what to say. No one, anywhere, has to my knowledge claimed the Sarin gas attack to be a WMD strike, and for good reason. The Japanese people are the only ones in the world who know what it's like to be hit by WMDs. They're not about to consider some poxy chemical weapon as an WMD when it's incapable of mass destruction. It's just a banned chemical weapon.

You need to get your definitions in order.
Reply #19 Top
I don't know what to say. No one, anywhere, has to my knowledge claimed the Sarin gas attack to be a WMD strike, and for good reason. The Japanese people are the only ones in the world who know what it's like to be hit by WMDs.


No, they are the only ones to have had a Nuclear strike. France (and by proxy England, Germany, Austria and the US) has been privy to WMD strikes. WMDs are NBC! Not just N. And no one here ever claimed otherwise (you can, but then you are moving the bar again, are you not?).

it seems you are in need of a definition redefinition. We are talking WMDs, not Nuclear only ones.
Reply #20 Top
WMDs are NBC


Okay, now I see the problem. I've only ever viewed WMDs as weapons capable of widespread, massive destruction - the razing of a city, the poisoning of millions, the destruction of an entire region's crops. You would consider a needle loaded with HIV-infected blood or anthrax a weapon of mass destruction (It's a biological weapon after all).

That's fine. I won't bother to take your claims seriously from now on then on this issue. We have seriously different concepts of 'mass destruction' and I would hazard a guess that they're entirely irreconcilable.