"There are only 500 rounds found. That's not enough to invade a country for."
"We probably planted them there to drum up support for Bush's faltering war blah blah blah Bush lied!"
"Took 'em long enough to find them."
Oh, and let's not forget that these are in addition to the weapons that we found that the UN knew to be there, under UN seal. Apparently not all of them had been spirited out of the country in the lead-up to the invasion.
Congressman Hoekstra and I [Senator Rick Santorum] are here today to say that we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons. It's a document that was developed by our intelligence community which for the last two and a half months I have been pursuing.
And thanks to the help of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, ultimately he was able to get it in his hands and I was able to look for and look at.
And I think both of us feel very strongly that this is vitally important information that the American public needs to know. And so I will read the portions of the unclassified version and then I'll turn it over to Peter to make his comments about the significance of that, and then we'll be happy to answer questions.
The unclassified version of this report states as follows. Quote: 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...
We have found over 500 weapons of mass destruction. And in fact have found that there are additional weapons of mass -- chemical weapons, still in the country, that need to be recovered.
And so, I would suggest that this is a very important look-back. We've been focused and continue to focus on what we need to do moving forward, but it is important for the American public to understand that these weapons did in fact exist, were present in the country, and were in fact and continue to be a threat to us...
Everyone knows, and has agreed, that there was WMD in Iraq prior to the Gulf War, the first Gulf War. He used weapons of mass destruction extensively, killing thousands of his own people and thousands of Iranians.
From the Kay report and the Duelfer report, the conclusions that they reached indicated that during that period of time from the Gulf War to Operation Iraqi Freedom, there was evidence of continuing research and development of WMD, an ongoing effort with various kinds of chemicals, research programs and those types of things...
But what it does dispel is the very simple notion that there was not a single weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, but that actually hundreds of these existed and continue to exist in Iraq from various time frames.
It appears that most of this was pre-'91 production, but they're still there.
The piece that still remains unanswered, or remained unanswered, was that piece of exactly what, other than the programs, existed in Iraq in 2003?
17 comments:
Even scarier is the question "where are those weaponized components now?" I am guessing they are probably in Syria. But I think that some in the Republican Guard stowed a few away or sold them to the Iranians. Let's remember, although a million Iranians died in their war with Iraq, we are still the Great Satan according to their mullahs. I think in light of this, we need to be vigilant abroad and we MUST seal and control our borders north and south. The Canadians have only recently come to grips with the idea that appeasement may not save them. But for too long that border has been little more than a tollway. And as for the border with Mexico, that government is so corrupt that there are elements that would gladly transport weapons and personnel if they though that they would get the Southwestern US in payment. I hate to sound paranoid, but when you look at the influx of gang style activity in the Texas to California corridor, it makes one wonder if the drug connections aren't even more interwoven with growers in the Middle East.
All the same, I still think the use of the term "weapons of mass destruction" by the administration was regrettable because it *sounds* more like nuclear weapons. Finding sarin just doesn't seem to rise to the level of WMD. It's a weapon of mass MURDER, surely, but not physical destruction. Words mean something. I think that's where we really went wrong, setting up this WMD search and then appearing not to find much.
Iraq had an airforce of 2 planes when we invaded.
Don't tell me for a second they were a threat to our shores.
Here you go again, playing the leftie (DQTP) game of changing the subject when facts come to light that completely demolish the leftie position.
Iraq didn't present an *imminent* threat to us; the idea is to stop them *before* the threat becomes imminent. The President said that many times, although you lefties (DQTP) continue to claim that he said otherwise.
To say that Iraq only had 2 aircraft, and that means they weren't a threat to us, is as specious an argument as any I've ever heard. I expect better from an educated person. Heck, I don't even believe that figure--even if the number of aircraft were relevant.
And why do they have to be a threat to "our shores"? Isn't it enough that they were a threat to "peace", as you lefties (DQTP) always cry? Or perhaps a threat to "regional stability", another leftie (DQTP) ideal? How about merely a threat to US national interests?
Sorry, 40. You got nothing here. I believe you're angry that we found *anything* because you think it *might* strengthen the President's position, might mean your beliefs are based on disproven ideas, or both.
Question your patriotism? Given the above, you bet I do.
Regarding the comment from 40:
I wonder why Sarin wouldn't be considered a threat to our population when 9/11 was a stealth takeover of AMERICAN planes by subversive elements. That is why I think we must monitor the borders. A canister of Sarin released in Times Square could cause mass casualties. I guess there's just this big disconnect in that some people think that it would take a plane or missle to deliver such weapon payloads. It could be delivered in an aerosol can. I just can't imagine that the left is so willing to extend their hatred of this administration that they would ignore what could be an immenent and very serious threat. There's always been more of a fear with Saddam's history that the crux of his program was chemical and biological. Heck, he killed entire Kurdish villages with gas, do you really think that people with that sort of mentality would be stopped just because they don't have planes? Review 9/11, then answer.
Before 40 has a chance to change the subject, let me say it here:
No, Saddam didn't have a direct role in 9/11. He did have a role in international terrorism, however, which made him a threat to us. He harbored international terrorists who *had* killed Americans (Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas) and even paid bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
This war in Iraq is part of the larger Global War on Terror. It was entirely reasonable, given Saddam's history, his actions since Gulf War I, his perfidy with the Oil For Food Scandal, and his violations of the 1991 cease fire after Gulf War I. I didn't need WMD to convince me of the justness of this war, but now we have them anyway.
Boy it's hot today. What is the weather like where you are at.
(see that is changing the subject my friends)
Bringing up the fact that Iraq was not any kind of threat to our country is very relevant. We (after all) had just come out of the worst terrorist strike in this country's history. To suddenly point our guns at Iraq misled this country down a costly and dangerous path.
Meanwhile, North Korea & Iran posed much greater threats to us and do today still. I don't have to remind you (since you are from California) that N.Korea is testing their missles and already have nuclear weapons. They very well could be capable of hitting this country.
That my friends is a real threat. And one that our President has decided to do NOTHING about. Oh yeah, he wants it to be handled "regionally" -- WHAT? But, you want to handle Iraq with an invasion.
It does not add up. Defend that my educated friend.
Suddenly? The September 11th attacks were in September 2001. We attacked Afghanistan, home of the Taliban who were guest-hosting al-Qaeda, in December of 2001. We didn't attack Iraq until 2003. That's not so "suddenly" to me.
What do you propose we do about North Korea? Bill Clinton gave them food, oil, and a freakin' nuclear power plant and they didn't even live up to their agreements then. What shall we do, 40? I know what *I* would do, but I doubt you'd approve. I'd do the same with Iran, by the way, but I doubt you'd approve of that, either.
"Talk talk give give" does nothing but embolden despots. I'm tired of this velvet glove approach; it's time for some (more) iron fist.
You're way off base.
And since you asked, it's already over 100 degrees here in Sacramento--at 1:13 pm.
100 degrees ain't nothing. We do that all summer long...but I don't envy it with your humidity. Just think cool thoughts and hang out at the mall, or the Walmart.
Keep talking big boy. What do you want to do... nuke'em?
(shakes his head at the shear stupidity that i even have to ask this question)
Oh yeah, Bush told his people to start connecting the dots to Iraq on SEPTEMBER 13th, 2001. Period. There is lots of documented proof on that one.
North Korea? We could have been at the table negociating and working with them. But, no... the OLD WEST doesn't work that way for Bush. Leave it up to the Chinese to negociate! Give me a freaking break. I guess North Korea doesn't have enough brush to clear on their ranches for Bush to talk with them.
See? There's the problem. You libs think talking will solve these problems.
Lesson #1 when dealing with dictators: TALKING DOESN'T WORK. Only force, or the threat of force, works. See, they're dictators. They are in power by exercise of force, and they don't believe in talking.
I notice you ignore all of Clinton's gifts, including a freakin' power plant. Talking did a great job then, eh?
Maybe you could talk them to death, though.
I think that Darren's point about talking NOT being the answer is nowhere better illustrated than the conspiracy to blow up various parts of the Canadian government. Canada has been very pointed in their criticism of the US in regards to the Middle East. They have harbored expatriats that spin conjecture into hyperbole. And *SURPRISE* that didn't really matter to the 17 or so "Muslims" who were collecting Nitrate and checking their watches. So evidentally, being neutral doesn't matter. Here's the deal, read some of the Muslim extremist manifesto, because their goal isn't just annihilation of the non-PC American, it's the annhilation of ALL AMERICANS. Furthermore, many of the imams native born and foriegn born have stated that they desire to see the United States run under Sharia law. That's a theocracy and anyone whose really afraid of losing their civil rights needs to look no further than how women have been treated in Iran and Somolia to see where this could end up unless we make a stand.
Diplomacy is always the first step. It may end in war... and that is always failure.
"War is failure of diplomacy."
John Dingell
I certainly don't want my government taking the hammer to everyone we have a difference of opinion with. I would like us to save that hammer for when it is needed most.
As you all know the rest of the world views the invasion of Iraq very harshly. We have lost a lot of standing because of it.
Regardless of what brainwashed crap you have had washed down your throughts by the Hannity-Coulter-OxyContin-Savage-O'Reilly-Beck-Elder clan.
Ah, yes. There's no way one can rationally hold the views I hold. No, we have to have been brainwashed by conservative bad guys.
You libs amaze me, and not in a good way.
As I've been known to say to other libs:
I think I'm right. You think you're righteous.
I think you're wrong. You think I'm evil.
I couldn't care less about what the rest of the world thinks. The rest of the world didn't have airplanes flown into buildings; however, major players in the rest of the world were skirting the UN sanctions they so assiduously defended by playing in the Oil For Food Scandal. Screw them. Talk Talk Give Give didn't accomplish *anything.*
So, are you already working for our new Moslem Overlords, or do you just support their goals?
In the same vein as "I don't give a damn what other countries think", let's review what soon-to-be-cadet Jameel thinks:
He also hopes to someday meet President Bush, whom his family considers a hero after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein.
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2006/06/west-point-accepts-first-iraqi-cadet.html
Explain to Cadet Jameel why you're right and he's wrong.
Interesting discussion between Darren and 40. Ironically, I distinctly remember the left criticizing the first Bush for not “finishing the job” in Iraq and that Clinton was burdened by those “no fly zones” (against the 2 aircraft that Iraq has according to 40) because of Bush’s blunder. I guess it was OK for Clinton to launch 23 tomahawk missiles at Iraq because they threatened to kill a former President, but it’s not OK for Bush to launch an attack for Iraq threatening the entire nation through actively supporting acts of terror (Sadaam would pay $10K to each suicide bombers family for their martyrdom)
Darren, to be honest, the left will never be convinced that Iraq had WMDs until they see a mushroom cloud (and then they will say that the CIA planted it in order to build their case for the invasion). You will hear the left crying now for a pre-emptive strike against North Korea (Former Vice President Mondale leading the charge), but I also see the left be the first to cry foul if we were to launch a pre-emptive strike.
Post a Comment