[spacefreak]

How is this not an important enough story? Probably has to do with the fact that it completely shoots down a key liberal platitude.

Document Details WMD Recovered In Iraq, Santorum Says

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) announced Wednesday the finding of over 500 munitions or weapons of mass destruction, specifically "sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles," in Iraq.

Reading from unclassified portions of a document developed by the U.S. intelligence community, 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."

According to Santorum, "That means in addition to the 500, there are filled and unfilled munitions still believed to exist within the country."

[FeLiZeCaT]

You smell like desperation.

[spacefreak]

That's the best you can do? Wow.

[Ron Goodman]

Rick Santorum--now there's a reputable source.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

How is this not an important enough story? Probably has to do with the fact that it completely shoots down a key liberal platitude.

Document Details WMD Recovered In Iraq, Santorum Says

the story may be new, but the fact that we've found pre-gulf war degraded mustard and sarin gas is not news. there were many reports of these finds during/after the the iraq liberation. it's about as exciting as finding a coupon past it's expiration date - it's not worth anything.

i'm assuming that gulf war refers to the 1991 war and not the 2003 liberation.

"are assessed to exist" and "still believed to exist?" if we made news stories about what people thought might be there, iraq's nukes would be front page stuff every day of the week apparently. anyway you look at it, it's old news and/or wishful thinking.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

That's the best you can do? Wow.

Spacefreak, when you post on that topic, 100% of it is all bis repetitam. Know what I mean?

I mean, repeating a lie does not make it true. So I return the question to you:

Is that all you can do? Honestly, I think you can do better than that.

My 2 cents.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

I mean, repeating a lie does not make it true.

And were you going to debunk what the Senators highlighted from declassified documents?

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

...repeating a lie does not make it true.

Typical of the blind left, who aren't going to believe any WMD information because it destroys yet another liberal myth, like the 2000 'stolen election' /It's only about sex,/Bush lied /Cindy Sheehan nonsense that keeps the lefties looking like loosers.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Typical of the blind left, who aren't going to believe any WMD information because it destroys yet another liberal myth, like the 2000 'stolen election' /It's only about sex,/Bush lied /Cindy Sheehan nonsense that keeps the lefties looking like loosers.

Hmmm..

Have you tried this yet?

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

And were you going to debunk what the Senators highlighted from declassified documents?

Fantastic! Declassified documents!

Freud's documents have been declassified as well; we learned nothing more though!

Sorry. Try again with more substance!

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

the story may be new, but the fact that we've found pre-gulf war degraded mustard and sarin gas is not news. there were many reports of these finds during/after the the iraq liberation. it's about as exciting as finding a coupon past it's expiration date - it's not worth anything.

Well, duh... of course the munitions are old. The accounting of previously manufactured (ie. old) chemical munitions was required of Saddam. If Saddam-era weapons caches still hold sarin and mustard gas munitions, one can't really say "he didn't have any chemical weapons".

The key anti-war argument of liberals that Saddam had no chemical, biological, or nuclear weaponry may have held when it was a lone cannister or two found in a pit (as reported in the past). But 500 munitions is a sizable amount.

[Spliff]

[FONT="Book Antiqua"]santorum (san-TOR-um) n.[/FONT]
Definition (not PG13)

Santorum Controversy

please, keep it pg-13. Thank you. -- vmarks

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Fantastic! Declassified documents!

Freud's documents have been declassified as well; we learned nothing more though!

Sorry. Try again with more substance!

FACT: Hundreds of munitions filled with weaponized sarin and mustard-gas have been found in Iraq so far .

LIE: Saddam had no chemical weapons.

[Dork.]

I found the Weapons of Mass Destruction..... in my pants!

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Well, duh... of course the munitions are old. The accounting of previously manufactured (ie. old) chemical munitions was required of Saddam. If Saddam-era weapons caches still hold sarin and mustard gas munitions, one can't really say "he didn't have any chemical weapons".

The key anti-war argument of liberals that Saddam had no chemical, biological, or nuclear weaponry may have held when it was a lone cannister or two found in a pit (as reported in the past). But 500 munitions is a sizable amount.

You were defeated on that argument everytime you brought it.

Spinning does not give us vertigo, but it certainly seem to make you feel good.

500 munitions is nothing, and canisters that were the object or erosion mean the gas has no longer its efficiency. Please do a search of your own previous posts on the topic, and make sure to read the responses you got.

Denial does not lead to truth, quite the contrary actually.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Well, duh... of course the munitions are old. The accounting of previously manufactured (ie. old) chemical munitions was required of Saddam. If Saddam-era weapons caches still hold sarin and mustard gas munitions, one can't really say "he didn't have any chemical weapons".

The key anti-war argument of liberals that Saddam had no chemical, biological, or nuclear weaponry may have held when it was a lone cannister or two found in a pit (as reported in the past). But 500 munitions is a sizable amount.

twelve here, fifteen there. they add up. UNMOVIC found and destroyed 95% of iraq's wmd by about 2002. sure there will be some left over - but a few canisters here and there still don't make saddam's wmd any kind of grave threat. as you yourself mentioned, these weapons are often found buried, forgotten, lost.

this is old news, rehashed to make it look important. the only really exciting thing that could possibly come from this is for bush to suddenly point to this document as proof he was wrong when he had previously admitted that iraq had no wmd's.

[NYCFarmboy]

of course there are weapons like this in Iraq....now the tinfoil hat democrats will screach that "we meant OTHER wmd's"

it would be funny but for the fact that these same wmd's have been used against the kurds by Saddam... a fact being buried by the Dems in their putrid hatred of the American President.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

How is this not an important enough story? Probably has to do with the fact that it completely shoots down a key liberal platitude.

That theory doesn't really explain why none of the right wing mainstream media aren't carrying the story. Got another theory that explains why both right and left mainstream media aren't carrying the story?

[davesimondotcom]

Every time I read Rick Santorum's name I start hearing "Sanitarium" by Metallica.

Good song.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Well, duh... of course the munitions are old. The accounting of previously manufactured (ie. old) chemical munitions was required of Saddam. If Saddam-era weapons caches still hold sarin and mustard gas munitions, one can't really say "he didn't have any chemical weapons".

Is a WMD that is no longer destructive still a WMD?

The most damage a degraded chemical projectile could do is make a hole wherever it lands and stain whatever the degraded chemical happens to leak onto.

Is Saddam guilty of not reporting these degraded chemical projectiles? Absolutely. Was he going to cause any Mass Destruction with them? Absolutely not.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

it would be funny but for the fact that these same wmd's have been used against the kurds by Saddam... a fact being buried by the Dems in their putrid hatred of the American President.

No more than the fact about who gave him the chemical weapons he used on the Kurds.

[vmarks]

The actual declassified doc is here.

You could read it.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

of course there are weapons like this in Iraq....now the tinfoil hat democrats will screach [sic] that "we meant OTHER wmd's"

bush wouldn't even acknowledge that these are the WMD that we invaded to find or that were such a grave threat to the US. he spoke of nuclear, chemical, biological programmes ongoing or at a moment's notice, quickly reconstituted, the ability to make these things in the backs of trailers. none of those (programmes, munitions) were found.

enough with the political zealotry! why do you hate bush so much that you don't believe a word he says on the subject?

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

it would be funny but for the fact that these same wmd's have been used against the kurds by Saddam... a fact being buried by the Dems in their putrid hatred of the American President.

they probably were the same WMD's - built in the mid-80's and long past their prime.

[vmarks]

the document says:

"While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal."

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks

the document says:

"While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal."

I've no doubt that degraded chemical warfare agents remain "hazardous and potentially lethal". But are they still mass destructive?

Paint thinner is also "hazardous and potentially lethal".

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by vmarks

the document says:

"While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal."

so does the pizza in my fridge. they are designed to kill afterall. where were these WMD's found? an intercepted convoy heading to the front lines? probably not.

the iraqi's probably did what every great civilization does when confronted with something really nasty they don't want anymore - they buried it for someone else to deal with. or sent them to syria.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

500 munitions is nothing

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Paint thinner is also "hazardous and potentially lethal".

And the left gets its "they're not really weapons" on.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

You were defeated on that argument everytime you brought it.

I din't notice that.

I did notice the lack of evidence used to back up your claims. It's like you refuse to debate the facts in fear of losing the actual argument every time. Being obnoxious and rude is surely your attempt to cover this up.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

That theory doesn't really explain why none of the right wing mainstream media aren't carrying the story. Got another theory that explains why both right and left mainstream media aren't carrying the story?

Fox News..?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Fox News..?

And there's the answer to your title question ...

Is the Washington Post Left or Right?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

And the left gets its "they're not really weapons" on.

Oh no. Saddam was certainly guilty of not accounting for these degraded weapons. But, tell me, are these degraded weapons actually "mass destructive"?

Lawmakers Cite Weapons Found in Iraq
"intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion"

[villalobos]

You would figure that when Dubbya himself came out and declared that they blew it with the whole WMDs story, our friends fanatical republicans would just agree with him and forget about the whole thing. But no, they still have to come back to it, ad nauseam, and pretend they were right on the WMDs, at the risk of saying that Dubbya was wrong.

Ironic, isn't it?

[tie]

Spacefreak in particular has a great record on this issue. If the news isn't to his liking, he just makes it up!

But I must say I'm convinced on this case. I'm shocked, shocked that Saddam didn't properly dispose of his old WMD. Where was the EPA on this? Poisons could have leached into the groundwater. Perhaps they are even contributing to global warming. WMD indeed! Perhaps the internet-inventor who had the 2000 election stolen (stolen!) will take action. Disgraceful, truly.

[analogika]

Is this the huge breakthrough document spacefreak promised us three years ago that would justify everything?

[moodymonster]

There's been periodic discovery of chemical weapons in Iraq - namely motars, artillery shells etc - stuff Iraq had admitted to having but had mislaid it (out of 68,000 mustard gas shells it admitted it had mislaid 550).

It's not WMD, and most definitely not why we went to war.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

There's been periodic discovery of chemical weapons in Iraq - namely motars, artillery shells etc - stuff Iraq had admitted to having but had mislaid it (out of 68,000 mustard gas shells it admitted it had mislaid 550).

It's not WMD, and most definitely not why we went to war.

That Fox-Online ran with the story as "WMD's found" further underlines its dishonest nature. I'm curious if Fox-television ran with the story too, big time on primetime-news. But to answer that US-posters have to watch it.

Taliesin

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by analogika

Is this the huge breakthrough document spacefreak promised us three years ago that would justify everything?

It's already been justified. Saddam's regime DID have an ongoing relationship with al Qaeda, they had plenty of yellowcake with a disassembled centrifuge carefully buried, Zarqawi proven to be in Iraq and operating under the al Qaeda banned well before we invaded, etc.

So now it comes out that 500 or so chemical munitions have already been found, and the best the left can do is throw some insults (see above) and/or say "they're not really chemical weapons" (see above).

I understand it's got to be tough for those on the left to deal with reality - that Saddam was a bad man who was a constant threat (ask our pilots who have been fired upon by Iraq from 1992-2002) - but reality has never been the left's strong suit, anyway.

Let's recap...

FACT: Saddam had chemical weapons
FACT: Saddam's regime had an ongoing relationship with al Qaeda
FACT: Al Qaeda had operations going on in Iraq prior to the invasion of 2003
FACT: Saddam had all the necessary components and materials to restart nuclear enrichment at any time (yellowcake + centifuge + nuclear scientists.

LIE: Saddam's Iraq had no relationship with al Qaeda
LIE: Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until after the US invaded.
LIE: Saddam had no chemical weapons, which is based on
LIE: No chemical weapons have been found in Iraq.

The leftists will continue to whine, complain, and make personal attacks as they try their best to avoid any actual discussion of factual evidence...

LEFTY: "They're not really weapons - these so-called 'chemical munitions' - no more dangerous than paint thinner"
LEFTY: "They're not the WMD weapons we were looking for"
LEFTY: "Saddam didn't agree with al Qaeda'a goal of an Islamafacist world, so they couldn't have truly wanted to collaborate/communicate. therefore, they didn't... irregardless of those boxes of documents detailing numerous meetings between the two parties.
LEFTY: "The UN already had secured the Yellowcake in Iraq. Saddam couldn't have gotten to it." (notice the lask of mention of the buried centrifuge and team of nuclear scientists on standby)

[Kevin]

Space no matter what they find, some people wont EVER admit it.

Why? It would be too harmful to their ego.

They would have to change nicks or something.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

It's not WMD, and most definitely not why we went to war.

There were a host of other reasons as well. Ultimately, Saddam was a skumbag, and he couldn't be trusted heading a state in the post-9/11 world.

This highlight simply corrects those who claim that no chemical weapons have been found in Iraq.

[moodymonster]

there's a report on it here: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...ap5_annxF.html

battlefield munitions looted etc - 10s of 1,000s destroyed by the UN, stocks pre-dating 1991.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Space no matter what they find, some people wont EVER admit it.

Why? It would be too harmful to their ego.

They would have to change nicks or something.

I'm more amused at the left's panicked rush to redefine WMD and "chemical weapons", as if these munitions are not dangerous.

An interesting experiment would be to gather a trainload of liberals and run them through the subway. Announce that the contents of 25 or so of these 500 munitions will be released in the subway during their ride. Think we'd see some hesitation to continue the ride by some of the lefties who claim these munitions are no worse than paint thinner?

[moodymonster]

attacking Saddam based on suspect information takes attention and resources off NK and Iran - who are far more capable - and any other emerging threats.

Saddam wasn't nice, would have got up to speed again almost certainly on his 'WMD' (hate that term) projects - but at this time was no threat.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

battlefield munitions looted etc - 10s of 1,000s destroyed by the UN, stocks pre-dating 1991.

Oh, so Saddam didn't really have them. They were "looted" from Saddam and left in various weapons caches across his country. How odd.

[moodymonster]

there's no rush on my part - this 'news' is donkey's years old.

[Kevin]

Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

Saddam wasn't nice, would have got up to speed again almost certainly on his 'WMD' (hate that term) projects - but at this time was no threat.

Sponsoring terrorism is no threat? Come on.

Regardless, the invasion was billed as being "preemptive" right from the start. There was no way he was going to get "up to speed", at least not on Bush's watch. At that point, we were already too late on North Korea. Turns out some US President practically handed North Korea the technology to become nuclear, and they used it like most on the right predicted... to buld weapons.

[typoon]

Yup once again the Mainstream press is late. I consider FoxNews as part of that Mainstream Press.

A few statements I found interesting.

such as:

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions. - They needed an "Officail administration response from a senior Defense department official" to point out to tell them that the weapons were not in usable condition?

The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons.

and this

"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Space no matter what they find, some people wont EVER admit it.

Why? It would be too harmful to their ego.

They would have to change nicks or something.

So tell me, were these the "WMD" that made Saddam a threat to the world?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

500 munitions is nothing, and canisters that were the object or erosion mean the gas has no longer its efficiency. Please do a search of your own previous posts on the topic, and make sure to read the responses you got.

500 Chemical munitions are nothing! Excellent, we're looking to store them in your garage mmkay?

Mustard gas would be degraded because it becomes gelatinous. The sarin gas however, remains lethal. Also per document, many of the 500 munitions (5 of which could kill as many as 5,000 people) are not considered in "degraded" condition. This was in fact part of the "full compliance and disclosure" mandate made throughout the UN Resolutions drafted against Saddam. I've been warning you people that WMDs will appear and they will continue to. I keep telling you people not to get caught in the election time WMDs end-around, but you don't listen. This story should've been another month or so in coming, but it's welcome news none the less. I'll trust this Administration knows what it's doing.

- Smoking gun? Yes.
- Big story? Not really to anyone who's been paying attention. Afterall, we have taped conversations with Saddam detailing his intent with chemical weapons and interest in nukes and procurement potential. He was in an arm's race with Iran. Shocker huh?!?


This is only the tip of the iceberg though, trust me.

Denial does not lead to truth, quite the contrary actually.

Maintain denial, it will only ensure those whom you'd like to see in office never get there.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

I'm more amused at the left's panicked rush to redefine WMD and "chemical weapons", as if these munitions are not dangerous.

What is your definition of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?

For me, it must be a weapon that is capable of causing massive destruction or death. Is a degraded chemical weapon capable of causing massive destruction or death?

Again, Saddam was certainly guilty of not accounting for these depleted chemical weapons. But, tell me, did they make him an immediate danger to the world?