As has happened several times before, a claim this week that the United States found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq appears to be inaccurate. This time, it was made by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich. (in photo) — who ought to know what he is talking about. But according to intelligence officials, these WMDs were actually some chemical weapons shells that had been manufactured before the 1991 Gulf War and, for the most part, were badly deteriorated and unusable. The shells’ existence was already known, the officials said, and does not change the government’s conclusion that Iraq didn’t have WMDs.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
76 Comments
Is there one person in are huge mess of a government who isn’t a complete screw up?
… And the Republican spin doctors spin on . . .
This desperate election year claim that “we found the WMDs!” is simply pathetic. Anyone with a brain can see through this feeble Republican attemt at justifying a colossal mistake.
Well…
Those shells are WMD’s.
Weapons of mass destruction can be Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical.
I don’t know what the context of Rick Santorum’s statement was, but those shells are WMD’s.
Clearly not the amount we were looking for or thought he had, but WMD’s non the less.
How can something that can’t be fired be a WMD?
“The shells’ existence was already known, the officials said, and does not change the government’s conclusion that Iraq didn’t have WMDs.”
The government says no, Nathan says yes.
Who to believe…..
Nathan, is the Defense Department lying?
Some story they TRIED to make this. Santorum “breaks” it on the Sean Hannity show for crying out load! And I do mean load!Not finding REAL WMDs and trying to shill the decayed remnant of WWMDs does not = Saddam had WMDs to anyone with a lick of sense.
Of course the REAL proof that there were NO functionable WMDs in Iraq is self evident. Namely, they were not used.
Could someone close this loop for me? Did Saddam have them and even knowing that his regime and himself were doomed choose NOT to use them? What he was too nice? Did he forget he had them? Maybe he misplaced them? He had them and didn’t want to lose them and so he gave them away and let his coutry get invaded and subjugated in 3 weeks? He didn’t use them and hid them REAL REAL good to get even in the long run with bush?
I’ll go ya further. I think bush &company KNEW Saddam had no WMDs. Otherwise his cavalier use of the military against Iraq seems to have little regard to loss of life the use of any real WMDs would have caused.
Nice try bushbots. Maybe next week Newt Gingrich will catch Osama and turn him over to Rush Limbaugh!
XXX The purple chicken hid the WMDS in the henhouse.
Nathan,
These “WMD muitions” were degraded, tactically useless and of pre-1991 vintage! Shrub and the liar cheney said that Saddan had ONGOING WMD programs and they specifically mentioned a nuclear program, remember? Sorry Nathan but this dog won’t hunt!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!!
WMDs? Hell, this is an accounting error.
Let the show begin.
WMDs, found! (we were right all along!)–There will always be right wingers who insist there were WMD all along – always. They’ll be ex-military or Texans, or both. It’s an old pattern with the JBS wing of the GOP (the same guys who insist Joe McCarthy was a hero).
Domestic terrorists, found! (you need us!)–Even though the only time this administration ever catches a “terrorist,” it’s always during a runup to election time – and then they turn out to be about as dangerous as Clem Kadiddlehopper. Another, newer pattern.
Coming attractions: Terrorist Alert Levels that you’ll swear could be a rainbow, they change colors so often.
Just in case you missed it Ian, I said:
“Clearly not the amount we were looking for or thought he had…”
XXX,
“How can something that can’t be fired be a WMD?”
The ability of something to be “fired” or not doesn’t determine it to be a WMD.
I am not debtating the poor condition of the rounds. I am saying that chemical weapons like that are indeed classified as WMD’s.
“The government says no, Nathan says yes.”
No offense, but I would have to see the quote of the government saying there are no WMD’s and what specifically they said about these.
People are here have a tendency to hear what they want to hear when someone says something.
“Nathan, is the Defense Department lying?”
Let me see what they said about this.
All of this hype is reminiscent of the yellow cake uranium. “WE FOUND THE WMD’s!!” All the while it has already been inventoried.
I hate to say this, but NEENER NEENER NEENER! Told ya so!
Is this anything like the turkey gas that was found a couple of years ago? ;)
Nathan, what is the shelf-life of sarin gas?
Oh, wait, here’s the answer:
Shelf lifeSarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA [1], in 1989 the Iraqis destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks owing mostly to impure precursors.
Like other nerve agents, Sarin can be chemically deactivated with a strong alkali. Typically an 18 percent aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide is used to destroy Sarin.
—Now if you had been paying attention, you’d know that according to reports from the DoD (or the Pentagon), the sarin Santorium was touting has been found over a period of about 3 years. It wasn’t “just discovered” as he seemed to make it sound like. Also, the DoD stated that the chemicals were degraded, which would mean that their shelf life had run out.
If you need links, hunt them up. It seems only Fox was the only one running the story until the DoD picked it up and other news agencies reported the DoD findings.
Do you honestly believe what was found wasn’t tested before a report was filed?
Nathan,You will lose this one. The poisons in the bombs was degraded, in fact way past their shelf life. They were useless, not able to kill anybody. Even the defence department said they were no good as WMD. It’s a red herring. A useless spin for the backers of Bush.
At this point the repukes need any win they can get. With a list of of failures as long as your arm they will take anything they can get.
What is the definition of a WMD? The truth of the matter is that Nathan is right. We’ve been finding stock piles of weapons cashe, biological and chemical agents.
But with the left in full swing on their spin machine, it doesn’t matter what we find, it will not be considered good enough to be WMDs.
The left won’t accept anything beyond the entire Soviet Nuclear arsenal with the reciepts and Saddam’s signature on the credit card purchases for it to be considered a legitmate WMD claim.
I hear the spin that this is pre-91 stuff, so it doesn’t count. Well actually Saddam was suppose to detroy every single drop of whatever he had by the numorous UN resolutions that were passed, included being inspected for them for an entire decade.
I guess these slipped by the UN weapons inspectors or did Saddam diliberatly hide them away from them?
It doesn’t matter to the left. Because this isn’t about Saddam, WMD’s, or the war. It’s about Bush. They can’t stand him so much that they will use anything against him and they would rather blow off the truth or apply disinformational tatics and spin to cover the fact that this war was neccesary and legal.
Kerry might have said “wrong war, wrong place, and wrong time.”
But I’m saying it’s the “right war, wrong president, and it’s about time.”
I honestly wish somebody else was President. Not because of the decision to go to war, because I believe it was the right decision, but because anybody else just might make this war effort have a much better united support among Americans.
There are people who do not support the war for pacifist and religous purposes, and I can understand and respect that. But the vast majority of the people that claim to be against this war, is because of ideological and political differences of the President. You guys will be against any decision that Bush makes no matter what. You will always find a fault or some conspiracy into it.
I just wished that most people support this war for the sake of freedom and the interest of the United States for security purposes. Just like what we did during WWII.
There are bad guys in the world, just like there were with Nazi’s and Emperial Japan.
The Japanese hated our guts and committed suicide bombings and homicides. They even stealthly attacked Pearl Harbor when we weren’t doing anything (remember 9/11).
Now we get along and are pretty good friends. 50 years ago if you ask somebody what do they think about the Japanese, it would parrot a lot of what people think about the Iraqis.
Give freedom a chance. Iraq will be completely different and for the better in the future. We are doing some great things over there and history will be on our side and we will see this as the right thing to do, just like what we did for Japan and Germany after WWII.
DING DINg, DIng, ding, dong, dud. Fizzle.
Whew,Joe – you ought to at least advertise the BS factor. Some of us have children!!
What is up with this DING thing? Is it something that Randi Rhodes does on her radio show?
When ever somebody does the “Ding”, it just proves that they have nothing to say.
Just considered yourself defeated in debate. Don’t be a sore loser. Keep the bell going. It isn’t going to save you. I can do 12 rounds buddy. ;)
FSSSSSSST!Who was that Dingster?
My greatest regret at my little boycott the meetup is I didn’t get to meet ya gster. I like you. You are gonna go far I think.
You remind me a LOT of kfg in her first days here.
I missed meeting you to JOE. I like you too. You’re silly!
If Saddam had WMD why did he not use them to save his regime and maybe his life?
Remember the “Mother of all battles” stuff he was spouting back in 91? (the era of the discovered “WMD”) Was he saying that a few years ago?
There WERE no WMD Saddam knew it. bush knew it. Someday Joe and Nathan and you all will have to get out of your fog and accept it.
Attn: Joe W
The Accouting Dept has determined that you have received 207 Dings and therefore owe the like number of Dongs.
Please supply the requisite number of Dongs within 15 days.Failure to do so wil result in your ass being in put into Collection.Have an average day.
gster,I regret to inform you that the dongs, after 14 days, lose their potency, and are therefore considered dings. As such, Joe will have accumulated a total of 414 dings by the forth of July.
Maybe we can trade him in on a six pack of bottle rockets.
JR, I think you are giving the right wingnuts too much credit. I don’t think anything short of whatever god they believe in telling them to their face will convince them. Even then there is some doubt because shrub will deny it and they won’t know who to believe.
Wow, what part of degraded, unuseable and pre-1991 vintage do Joe and Nathan not comprehend? i see that you lads are ready, willing and able to go down with the ship on this one! You implied that only leftists wouldn’t accept this as proof of viable WMDS. Well, I ain’t no leftist and I ain’t buying it either!
viva La Raza Blanco!!!
I guess there is a reason why they call the Democraps…ummm…Democrats, Dingbats. They like to use the tired Air America bell.
Unusuable maybe, but it still doesn’t discount them not being there or once being used. Also! It doesn’t mean it can’t still be deadly in another form. Lets see if you can pick up that stuff without a bunny suit and air filter.
What are you guys against the war for really? All you do is say “wingnuts and your crazy”. I don’t see any substance, except for Ian, and that’s pretty sad.
It really is pretty simple Joe.
Who is this “war”benefitting? If Saddam had WMD why did he not use them?
You have to get past those two questions. You have to find your own justifiable answers to them. Flag waving and hoping for the best aint gonna get it. That is what CAUSED it.
If we Leave Iraq, then the “Project for the New American Century” is dead. Iraq is the first stage. That’s why they say “stay the Course.” Iran is the second stage, you can read all about what Rumsfeld and Cheney concocted.
If that wasn’t true, then we’d leave now rather than later.
The time has come for the anti-war left to step up! The time has come to recognize the true cause of and beneficiaries of this insane, evil war! It’s time to name the jews!
The bankruptcy of the mainstream leftas illustrated by Stephen Zunes
By Steve Sniegoski
The antiwar left would prefer that old-style American imperialism and the quest for oil had caused the Iraq War. They are the preferred enemies of the left. They are the traditional villains. And they are safe villains. Mentioning Israel as a culprit would cause problems: it would lose support for the left among activist Jews, and it would lead to hostility from the Israel lobby and mainstream Jewish groups.
No one ever got in trouble berating oil magnates or Arab sheiks — witness Michael Moore’s blockbuster 2004 documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which focuses on those alleged villains while ignoring the neocon/Israel connection to the war. [1] Also important is the fact that Jews, categorically, are considered to be victims; and it is hard for the left to criticize an officially recognized victim group. In terms of left-wing psychology the ideal is to strike a radical, nonconformist pose without really alienating the powerful, thus avoiding any negative consequences as well as the cognitive dissonance that results from chiding designated victims. The process can go so far as to turn a man into an unintentional apologist for Israel. Such is the case with Stephen Zunes, a prominent leftist historian of the Middle East, whom the leftist Israel-critic Jeffrey Blankfort describes as a Noam Chomsky acolyte. [2]
Zunes teaches at the University of San Francisco and, as his biography at the USF Website indicates, serves as a writer and Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project, and as an associate editor for Peace Review. [3] Zunes has given numerous lectures and conference papers in the United States and abroad, and has published numerous articles in journals, magazines, and newspapers on such topics as U.S. foreign policy, Middle Eastern political developments, African politics, social movements, and nonviolent action. His books include Nonviolent Social Movements (Blackwell, 1999) and, with Richard Falk, Tinderbox: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage, 2003). Zunes has served as a political analyst for National Public Radio, Pacifica Radio, the BBC, and MSNBC. He has also been a board member and consultant for a number of peace and human-rights organizations. As is apparent from this brief description, Zunes is a prominent intellectual activist of the antiwar left. And his views reflect the characteristic attitude of that broad group.
Writing in Foreign Policy in Focus, Zunes recently offered an analysis [4] of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s “Israel Lobby” essay [5] that was similar in some ways to the negative views of leftist luminaries Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein [6] but reflected a more hostile tone not just toward Mearsheimer and Walt but toward anyone who would dare claim that the Israel lobby has had an impact on American foreign policy.
To encapsulate Zunes’s position: Instead of influencing American policy, Israel is but the passive instrument of American policymakers. Washington has forced Israel to pursue a belligerent policy to enhance American hegemony in the Middle East for the benefit of corporate capitalists, especially arms merchants. Free of American control, Israel would pursue a peaceful policy toward the Palestinians and neighboring Arab states. Therefore, Israel is the victim of the United States.
Moreover, Zunes maintains, those who claim a significant role for Israel and the Israel lobby in determining U.S. foreign policy tend toward anti-Semitism. Thus does the left-wing critic of American policy morph into an apologist for Israel. Like Alan Dershowitz — in some respects worse than Dershowitz — Zunes makes use of misleading half-truths while simultaneously ignoring the unmistakable evidence substantiating the power of the Israel lobby in influencing U.S. policy…http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9353
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
But I’m saying it’s the “right war, wrong president, and it’s about time.”
I honestly wish somebody else was President. Not because of the decision to go to war, because I believe it was the right decision, but because anybody else just might make this war effort have a much better united support among Americans.
There are people who do not support the war for pacifist and religous purposes, and I can understand and respect that. But the vast majority of the people that claim to be against this war, is because of ideological and political differences of the President. You guys will be against any decision that Bush makes no matter what. You will always find a fault or some conspiracy into it.
Joe I am still working on the answer to give you on this. It will be as honest as I can be. Sigh which could mean it will read like “War and Peace”. So when I post it have some popcorn and soda handy. In it will have the reasons I am against the invasion of Iraq and why we must finish the job before we leave.
“It doesn’t mean it can’t still be deadly in another form.”
As what, Joe, a tripping hazard? As I stated before: if you take the powderout of a round of ammunition, what have you got left? A paper weight.
Depends on how big a round it is.Could be a great door stop.
Maybe even replace the state flower.
I see it is time for some logic again. Hold onto your seats you emotionally based, irrational, and illogical liberals!
I am not touting these things as some huge stockpile of WMD’s or the proof we were looking for.
How many way’s do I have to day that? You can stop with the strawman beatings now.
I see many people just telling me to face the fact that there are no WMD’s.
Really? Why should I?
We have proof that Saddam was seeking to gain them. We have people from his regime who testified as such.
We know he had WMD’s from before 1991. He has used them on his own people and during the Iran Iraq war.
Since the sanctions were in place he never really did fully comply with the demands to disarm or make himself accountable for the WMD’s he had.
During 1998 all the democrats are on record as all saying that he had WMD’s.
The best intelligence we had and the world had all suggested he not only still had them but was still seeking them too.
It was not some conspiracy.
Yes, it is true, that we have not found any where near what we thought he had in WMD’s.
That is not cause or justification for all of you to sit here yelling and screaming that he never had them and it was all some Bush conspiracy.
I must not be the whiney liberal you are addressing, because I believe Saddam could have hidden and/or disposed of them.I wouldn’t agree that it was ALL made up, exaggerated, probably.
This WMD bs is nothing more than grasping at straws to rally the people behind this misbegotten war, and Joe is buying it, lock stock and barrel.
Here’s what the DoD had to say on it:
“These munitions are assessed to be pre-1991 vintage and were likely left over from previous conflicts. Given their condition and age, they have degraded. It is probable that most of these munitions could not be fired as designed. For operations security reasons, I cannot say where these munitions were found. Disclosure would place U.S. and coalition military forces at greater risk. The munitions were recovered during the course of military operations in Iraq. For operations security reasons, I can’t disclose the exact number of munitions that have been found because of possible force protection implications.”
Joe, what part of “degraded and cannot be fired” do you not understand?
What part of “these munitions had already been reported” do you not understand?
Report after report has been issued about Saddam’s arsenal of WMDs. Every official and agency involved in this from the beginning has said that there were NO stockpiles of WMD.
But according to those who live in Wingnuttia, Saddam was ready to blast us all to smithereens (how? my guess would be via slingshot) at the least provocation, or so sayeth GW.
So where’s Bin Laden?
Let’s take a quick look at some of Georgie’s quotes, shall we?
“Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more.”President Bush,in October 2002 speech
Faced with a harshly critical new report, President George W. Bush conceded Thursday that Iraq did not have the stockpiles of banned weapons he had warned of before the invasion last year, but insisted that “we were right to take action” against Saddam Hussein.
“America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison,” Mr. Bush said in a surprise statement to reporters as he prepared to fly to Wisconsin.
“Much of the accumulated body of our intelligence was wrong and we must find out why,” Mr. Bush said.Oct. 7, 2004
As for the intelligence…
“Mr. Bush spoke one day after Charles Duelfer, the American weapons hunter in Iraq, presented to the Senate and the public a report that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction programs had deteriorated into only hopes and dreams by the time of the U.S.-led invasion last year. The decline was wrought by the first Gulf War and years of international sanctions, the chief U.S. weapons hunter found.
“As CBS National Security Correspondent David Martin reports, Duelfer’s report renders pre-war statements by Mr. Bush and his senior advisers flat wrong.”
“But the vast majority of the people that claim to be against this war, is because of ideological and political differences of the President. You guys will be against any decision that Bush makes no matter what. You will always find a fault or some conspiracy into it.”
WD, is it ideological to expect truth from our leaders?
The Right has always been considered the Hawks. Why is that? Couldn’t be because they are the most apt to get us into a war. Nah. (this is where the eye-rolling stuff comes in.)
I’ve been against it from the beginning, not because of ideology or politics, but because it STANK from the beginning. It never made a lick of sense from day one.
I remember listening to NPR while W was giving his ultimatums to Saddam and wondering what was up. It wasn’t long before it was clear what, indeed was up. All you had to do was keep your eyes and ears open and use your brains.
It’s true that ideologically I find war distasteful and should be used only in the case of defense purposes only. War proves nothing, except who has the most bodies and biggest toys, not who is right.
I think there are better ways of handling things than going to war over every stupid little thing, such as rumors of WMDs with no proof. Bush pulled the UN inspectors out of Iraq. Ask yourself why he would do that, especially in light of what we now know.
If Middle Eastern countries want to fight among themselves, I say let them. But that also means don’t give them the means to do it. Dont’ take sides. Instead, try to find some common ground where they can come together and end the insanity that has lasted for thousands of years.
But where Iraq is concerned, it was wrong, wrong, wrong, no matter how you look at it, and it will still be wrong until it is ended. I would applaud W if he pulled out the troops, but I would also add an “it’s about time” to it. If that’s dissing this prez, then so be it. He deserves it. If he were a dem, I would say the same. Nobody gets a pass.
Israel has WMDs.
North Korea has WMDs.
Even the U.S. has WMDs.
And every little country in-between.
If anyone had paid attention to what Saddam was saying prior to George I’s invasion (a bit trumped up on that one, too, I’d say), they would know exactly why Saddam was seeking weapons.
While we’re at it, maybe we should look into where some of those weapons came from. Does anyone not think the U.S. at some time was not involved in this? Sometimes history is a bitch.
RD,
I suppose you might have something beyond the usual left wing conspiracy links to back up your assertions about who gave Saddam what he has?
Nathan, if you need links to that, you’re a lost cause. Find somebody else who has nothing to do except cater to your every whim.
Nathan,
Are you trying to tell me you’ve never seen the photo here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://hnn.us/articles/1283.html
And passed to me from another blogger:http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
What else are you too lazy to look for? Nathan, you need a wife.
I was rootin for ya RD. I had an earlier post that preceeded your last two that got lost. In it, I was congratulating you for NOT doing Nathans homework for him. I mentioned that doing so was an old trick of his and that he would be along shortly to wave a dismissive hand at your facts. I even mentioned the photo you link to and said a pic = a thousand words. I also predicted that none of this would make one dent in Nathans thick head and predicted he would not respond at all. That post got lost.
And then you went and took Nathans bait.
Let us see if my lost post was correct. What say you to RD Nathan? Also what say you to a desperate leader with WMDs NOT using them?
Sorry to disappoint you, JR. If it hadn’t been for someone else here sending me that last link, I might’ve kept quiet and let Nathan stew. But I’m weak. *grin*
Yes, I know Nathan will blow everything away as if it were a dead dandelion. Oh, well. C’est la vie, ya know.
No offense meant RD. You NEVER disappoint me. Just pointing out that doing Nathans homework for him never gains ya much.
I’m “weak”too. I think I get Nathan pretty well. I share your “grin”.
I did not read your second link before my last. I just did now.
My prediction is that Nathan will not return to this thread. Or if he does he will redirect it.
Roberts ought to be grilling George Tennet on why he put the statement back into the SOU address, after this top official had crossed it out. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060625/pl_nm/iraq_usa_post_dc_1
RD,
The discussion was about whether or not the US armed Iraq with WMD’s.
The links you provided do alot of talking about how we obviously backed Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, but provide no conclusive evidence of our involvement in supplying them WMD’s.
Even the links you provided do more to say it was the USSR who provided them the WMD’s.
Actually, Nathan, this THREAD was about WMDs that weren’t. Whatever.
“this is not a pipe…”
Pick & choose.
RD,
I was talking about my discussion with you.
I apologize for any confusion. I am not oblivious to our backing of them during the war. I was under the assumption that your were implying we gave him WMD’s.
KFG,
Look who is trolling who…
I owe Nathan an apology. I did not think he would come back here. He did. I’m sorry.
But here he is again waving his dismissive hand at all the homework others do for him.
heheh “trollin’ trollin’ trollin’, keep those trollers rollin’….”
He cant keep up with all THREE of us…. and I see he isnt changing nics.
Hey Nathan you never did answer the assertion WAAAAY upthread about just why Saddam would have weapons of mass destruction and NOT USE them to defend Iraq from being invaded and him removed from power and probably executed.
That one just sorta slid by.
That last is me. Nathan says elsewhere something like that I am some sort of master of the blog. Just thought I’d try the title on. I didn’t like it. Nathan? IF the WMDS WERE provided covertly to Iraq by the US, wouldn’t that very covertness make it kinda hard to actually have pictures or manifests or any other such proof? What there is no “proof” that the US DID supply them?Well by bush standards “lack of proof” means NOTHING!
Of course the US supplied WMD to Saddam. So what? That’s just how American business works. We stir up a war and then supply all of the players. That’s just how it works.It doesn’t matter what condition those 20 year old shells were in, or that they can’t be used, or that we knew about them.If you really want to worry about the US giving Saddam WMD, what about all the depleted uranium we gave him during the first Gulf War? It’s lying all over the place. Now Iraq technically has possesion of depleted uranium, so they have nuclear material, ie. WMD. Let’s see you Liberals deny that!
And I wasn’t going to bring up the DU, but since Infernal did…
The argument will be that DU is technically not WMD. The sad thing about that is, it really doesn’t matter. We are currently using DU in Iraq, and the effects of that will last for thousands of years. DU gets into the ground and everything grown is affected. It gets into the water.
Not only Iraqis but our own troops are being subjected to DU. So when these guys (and gals) come home and have children, maybe someone will actually give a damn.
Anybody remember Agent Orange?
Infernal, I’m a little confused by your last 3 sentences:
“If you really want to worry about the US giving Saddam WMD, what about all the depleted uranium we gave him during the first Gulf War? It’s lying all over the place. Now Iraq technically has possesion of depleted uranium, so they have nuclear material, ie. WMD. Let’s see you Liberals deny that!”
Just who was president during the Gulf War?
RD,
Infernal was being UBER sarcastic!
V.L.R.B!!
So why does Brit Hume hate the troops? Why does he endorse amnesty for those who have killed our American soldiers? Why does Brit (and Fox) support terrorists?
http://www.crooksandliars.com
Ian,
Oooooohhhhh!
And to think that sarcasm slipped by ME. Wow.
My apology then, Uber Infernal. *grin*
Applause, Ian!
Infernal,
I though that your post was well struck, it gave me a chuckle. RD is a sharp gal and I was surprised it got by her at first glance, but sometimes sarcasm gets lost in cyberspace. :)
Maybe she didn’t notice my cocked eyebrow.
From Sweden:
“Has anyone seen the crater of the two bombs that flattened the house? Anyone seen the shredded steal girders, bricks and mortar pulverized? Not even a couch or chair was left intact. But Superman (Zarqawi) was all in one convenient piece. How could a mere human emerge from this without being in the form of unrecognizable hamburger meat? How inconvenient it would have been if all the US could present was something that looked like ground beef. So, presto! Zarqawi emerges all in one piece. Well, anything is possible when the United States p.r. department tells the story.”
They said they got him 5 times before.
Infernal, that was your eyebrow? Mercy me, I thought it was a fuzzy catepillar.
Just kidding. Really. Too much skimming on my part and my attention being diverted by small monsters. (That’s ‘brats’ for Julie. I promise to do better in the future.
RD, that was my moustash.LOL
More WMD lies from a GOP Senator backed up by more lies from Nathan. Nothing new here. Next step is for truth-hating Nathan to claim that anyone who contradicts him ‘hates America’ in his goose-stepping fashion.
Good to see you back, Ben!
Yeah, welcome back Ben. We miss you when you are not posting!
And besides, after you were not here, nathan turned on me… again!
Glad to have you posting!
Hi KsFG – posting from Holbrook AZ today. Shut out of a couple of the Nat. Parks because of the fire danger. Glad to help.
By the way – there is no disagreement that Saddam had been supplied WMDs to use against US enemies Iran and the Kurds. The key Bush/Powell/JoeWilliams/Nathan/etc claim had to do with new WMDs to replace those used up against our enemies pre-GulfWar1. We knew there were none but the wingnuts keep saying they will be found ’soon’. Of course, as a geologist I realize that ’soon’ could be a million years!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7815944823333801032&q=The+power+of+nightmares
Chk this video out yall.