WMD's have been found

Hawkeye

Well-known member
We've known for several months that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. Despite the mainstream media and the Democrats' lying to the contrary, several chemical weapons have been found that qualify as WMD. But people have ignored the evidence...since it would blow a hole in their 'Bush Lied, people died' nonsense. To be fair, the Bush Administration has done little to correct the record on this issue.

Now a new report from the Pentagon sheds some light on just how many WMDs have been found, and it's a lot. We're not just talking an old Sarin shell here and there. No less than 500 chemical weapons have been found since 2003, according to a recently declassified defense department intelligence report. The weapons are of the mustard gas and Sarin nerve gas variety...nasty stuff.

Anyway heres the article below:

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."
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...classified.pdf
He added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.
"The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," Santorum read from the document.
This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
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."
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 he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.
He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.
"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.
Hoekstra and Santorum lamented that Americans were given the impression after a 16-month search conducted by the Iraq Survey Group that the evidence of continuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction was insignificant. But the National Ground Intelligence Center took up where the ISG left off when it completed its report in November 2004, and in the process of collecting intelligence for the purpose of force protection for soldiers and sailors still on the ground in Iraq, has shown that the weapons inspections were incomplete, they and others have said.
"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.
"It is significant. Perhaps, the administration just, they think they weathered the debate over WMD being found there immediately and don't want to return to it again because things are otherwise going better for them, and then, I think, there's mindless resistance to releasing any classified documents from Iraq," Barnes said.
The release of the declassified materials comes as the Senate debates Democratic proposals to create a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq. The debate has had the effect of creating disunity among Democrats, a majority of whom shrunk Wednesday from an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts to have troops to be completely withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of next year.
At the same time, congressional Republicans have stayed highly united, rallying around a White House that has seen successes in the last couple weeks, first with the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then the completion of the formation of Iraq's Cabinet and then the announcement Tuesday that another key Al Qaeda in Iraq leader, "religious emir" Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, was also killed in a U.S. airstrike.
Santorum pointed out that during Wednesday's debate, several Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue.
"This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.
As a result of this new information, under the aegis of his chairmanship, Hoekstra said he is going to ask for more reporting by the various intelligence agencies about weapons of mass destruction.
"We are working on the declassification of the report. We are going to do a thorough search of what additional reports exist in the intelligence community. And we are going to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war," Hoekstra said.
 

Shimmer

Well-known member
Quite interesting information. Thank you!
smiles.gif
 

kaliraksha

Well-known member
that was a bit to get through! but yeah thanks for sharing info... i passed it on to my boyfriend and we had a convo about it =)
 

Shimmer

Well-known member
The story isn't run as much in American media because mainstream American media gets a kick out of villifying Bush's administration.
It has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction that 'aren't intended for Americans' as it's rather difficult to say where or on whom the weapons were intended for use.
 

Dizzy

Well-known member
The American media won't run the story because they'd have to admit that they were wrong for the last five years. Remember, it's not about what's the truth to them, but where they can get money. At this point they have the masses so against Bush that if they sold papers basically saying that he was right they'd lose the support and money. Capitalism, gotta love it.

And I don't think it's a matter of whether the WMD's were to be used against America or not- the fact remains that they shouldn't have had them, period. And this also serves as even more proof that he was hiding them from the UN weapons inspectors- after all, those weapons don't just appear overnight.
 

Hawkeye

Well-known member
Bingo! And Saddam has used them on his own people and that just makes me think if he has the balls to use it on his own why not us? Seriously he supposidly hated us so much, why not the western world?

And the media, just to put it bluntly, this is their templet: If it makes Bush look bad then PRINT IT. But then again, who can forget the many times the left has had to put their tail between their legs and hope nobody remembers the mistakes they made (my favorite so far is John Kerry wanting to do a direct pullout recently then decided no he didn't).

The media doesnt like to make mistakes. I mean after all look what it did to Dan Rather. His credibility went down the crap shoot and he was pretty much forced into retirement.

And also this whole fact that it wasn't that much-doesnt make bush much of a lier anymore does it? The whole Bush lied people died line doesn't fly anymore.
 

mac_goddess

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by quandolak
Also there have been no new weapon hauls. But hauls of weapons over ten years old in some cases the weapons included in this report are 20 years old..
.....i know weapons are still weapons but people have to keep things in perspective.


What I'm left wondering about are the said imperfect chemical munitions could be rigged for improvised use, just like roadside bombs made out of artillery shells.?

I don't think the age necessarily makes them any safer. It's not like wine, that gets better with age so don't misunderstand me, as I don't think they get more potent with age either.

IMHO, the more valuable ones have been moved to safer places anyways. but that's jmho
winks.gif
 

dmolinet

Active member
My brother has been on the front lines in Iraq since Desert Storm. He just went back last week for his 4th tour this time. I think this more than qualifies him to speak about the quagmire we have gotten ourselves into for, in his opinion, pumped up allegations. My brother is career military and follows his orders because it was what he commited to do when he joined up 20 years ago. He spent 30 days in Walter Reed Hospital last year being treated for a parasite--I was with him there--I opposed the war from the beginning because I didn't believe the hype even then. But, until I saw the young boys(looking more like boy scouts than soldiers) missing multiple limbs, suffering burns that will affect them forever, I didn't really get angry. But, after sharing an elevator with a young family with a young wife pushing her double-amputee equally young husband who held their infant son, I wished so much that Bush & Cheney could have taken his place. Imagine a boy, not really a man, Saying with tears in his eyes, "My son and I will be learning to walk at the same time. How can that be right?"

Too many supporters of this war don't have a clue what is happening to these young men. Medical advances mean injuries that would have been fatal even a few years ago are survivable now. Of course, this also means we are going to see veterans with types of injuries the likes of which we've never seen.

The people who pay with their limbs, as well as the soldiers who will pay for Haditha and other such events, aren't the policy makers. They're the people who counldn't find jobs at home--who couldn't afford college. What will be waiting for them back home?? Just a little effort can give you those answers---they aren't very pretty.

I'm sorry to sound so preachy, but my baby brother is in Iraq. This war is very real to me. Has the past taught us nothing? And, anybody remember this guy named Osama-He's not in Iraq.

In closing, Iran is more of a threat to us than Iraq ever could have been. Too bad we got that last letter mixed up and blew our wad in the wrong country.
 

Hawkeye

Well-known member
I can understand your frustration and your fear.

I mean I don't think that anyone likes the affect of war. I go visit soldiers in the hospital everyday through an organization. I was lucky enough to go up to Walter Reed and be able to touch the soldiers hands and look them in the eye and get to know *THEM*. I've gotton the whole story both good and bad and I've seen people whose limbs have been amputated, whose bodies were burned because of those roadside bombs, and I have written to more than 160 USMC men, half of them 18-21. And everytime one of them falls its like one more stabbed wound in my heart.

It's a very general statement that "the supporters of the war don't know what really goes on" and for the most part I would agree. But many of the soldiers will tell you that they believe in this war. I have actually come across very few who have said, " this war was a waste of time".

Some of the girls on the board, one is a former US soldier, knows good and well the horrors of war. I see it every day at Hospitals, and its enough to make you sick. I don't agree with the way the war was handled, I'll give you that much, I don't always agree with the administration, but I do know that I am angry-I'm angry the US hasn't supported these "kids"-I'm angry we have politicians who can't decide what the hell they want to do and because of the division it makes the enemies stronger so more of these "kids" get killed. I'm angry at the likes of Cindy Sheehan who divides this country supposidly in the honor of her son-while encouraging the insurgents to kill more of these kids. I'm angry at the Media that hides stories that are telling people of the GOOD news in Iraq because of their blind hatred for George Bush. I'm angry at the insurgents whose blind fanaticism likes to kill people just for the hell of it. I'm angry at Saddam Houssain for wanting to kill his own people and rape them and torture them.

War sucks. I'll be the first to say it. These guys are doing something I know I couldn't do. You're brother is a good man whether he agrees with what he does or doesn't.

Iran is a threat-I have a feeling their next. Have we learned nothing from the past? We've learned. We've learned because we've seen what happens when theres strong support (WW1 WW2) and when theres no support (Vietnam). With strong support we actually won. With no support it was the first defeat.

If this had been taken care of FULLY by former presidents (GB sr anyone?, Clinton anyone?) maybe we wouldnt have had this issue now. If Bin Laden has been taken care of by other presidents, we wouldn't be in this war.

And it'll be even sadder because America will probably be attacked again. Americas just too busy bitching about how they hate Bush to even realize it. They are much to busy watching TV shows and the politicians love it. But the question now-at this moment in time (and as we've seen on the news if anyone watched) they've also spoiled a terror plot for the sears building and FBI headquarters in miami-so the question isn't IF the US will be attacked again, it's WHEN.

Anyway yeah off my pedestool too. But I am sorry about your brother but he is a good man and even if he doesnt like the situation, I'm still proud of him. I have a feeling he'll be coming home here soon. Especially with Al Queda crumbling and with that, I have a feeling Iran will be wanting to cut an run as well as soon as some of the major groups are getting toppled.

Though we will always have fanatics that are just way too interesting.

Anyway. OK sorry had to get that all out.
P.S. I would really like to know what these tapes say-
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Inve...ory?id=1616996
 

Hawkeye

Well-known member
*rolls eyes* Why do all these points remind me of something? Oh yeah, thats because it's the same leftest rhetoric thats been going on for ages!

I mean it drives me nuts the way people function. It's the upbringing and I'll even go so far as to say it's the schools. Just because the Guardian says it doesn't make it true. Just because Fox network says it doesn't make it TRUE.

Find your own sources. Fox happened to to put up its source did I believe it? NO! I went to the pentegon website and found for myself.

And Quand, I keep telling you this over and over and over. Find 3 sources that aren't just regurgitation. I'm not just saying it to pick on you. I'm telling you this to actually in my own way help you so that you can actually come up with cohesive reasoning why you don't agree or you think the way you do. I'm telling you this to think for yourself and have backup. I'm not telling you this to pick on you. But you just don't seem to understand this.

I don't agree with everything Bush does. I hate his RX Drug plan. I hate his no child left behind act, and while we're at it, I hate his immigration act. But the alternative was no better. All I'm asking is that you find sources when people ask this stuff of you. It's not like I'm asking you to build Taj Mahal out of toothpicks!

This way you can actually be able to say-this is why I don't like George W Bush and here are my reasons WHY and here is documentation to back it up or here is my life experience that I have personally seen to back it up.

I've been telling you this ever since the Who is Jesus Thread and you have ignored it. This is why I always dismiss what some people say unless they give me cold hard facts to explain themselves.

Anyway.
 

Shimmer

Well-known member
and that shuts down, again, any merit your arguments may or may not have had for the duration of this discussion.
 

Hawkeye

Well-known member
She's useless to argue with she doesn't take anyones advice and she refuses to actually do her homework. If she would actually do what people are telling her, she would have merit and we could actually have an intelligent discussion about this-not some left wing propaganda vomit and whining.

I mean the sad part is-that most people are pretty stupid and are like sheep and thats why governments get away with what they do. I can almost quarentee you that quan knows more about pop culture in her country then she does about the government. Just like 99% of americans. She probably also lets rockstars and movie stars make her political decisions for her. *rolls eyes* because they are big and famous and they pay more attention!

Hell it just pisses me off. Shimmer we could sit here and tell her what she needs to do to have a valid argument all we want and she won't do it because it requiers work.

Anyway-I just ignore her-she's just another example of what 25 and under is becoming. At least we'll be in for a few good laughs right?

But yeah, people you gotta wonder about. No clue on anything. Economies, histories, politics, and I'll even say the war was not handled correctly, we could have avoided war but it does take two to tango.

They are too busy demonizing the US. Watch out the US is going to come get you and all that stupid nonsense. *rolls eyes* And too busy watching their favorite movie star. Lord have mercy. Man its crazy.
 

NtheSticks

Active member
Actually, if you'd edit your typing, quandolak, even your 'regurgitation' could be bearable. I am waiting for you to learn to think for yourself, and that might include what the mass media presents to you. But let's have an argument based on YOUR thought processes, with how you arrived at said opinion. Not just a media statement reiteration.

Then you might have a leg to stand on - discussion wise.

SALUTE to your brother - dmolinet. Thank You - to him. I know soldiers who don't necessarily agree with the orders they follow, but the follow them. That's their job. They will tell you that's their job, and their opinion doesn't count. I have many military ties. I hear the stories from Afghanistan and Iraq that are both good and bad, and the guys and gals who are 'pounding the ground' who I've talked to will say that they'd rather fight it there than here. Generally speaking, I've asked questions from them, and gotten answers to those questions. But I can also say one soldier who wasn't necessarily prejudiced before being in Iraq is now VERY prejudiced.

Iran.....Yep, they are a threat.

N. Korea.....yep, they are a threat as well.

Why is Iran a bigger threat? Because they are in an unstable area and don't have someone bigger who is their neighbor who won't put up with their crap like N Korea has. N Korea has a very big neighbor to deal with if they get really stupid.

BUT - - - let me throw this into the discussion kiddies - - - -

IF you look at a night picture of the earth - a satellite picture of the globe - you will notice areas of darkness. Some of those areas are in highly populated countries - N Korea being one. Places in Africa being another.
Why is that? Have you ever thought about that?
Why would it matter?

Why is it that the garbage is thrown where ever in places like Korea and China - and those places have issues with public health?
Ever think about that? And THOSE countries are developed, at least somewhat. S Korea is commercial/capitalist and is lit, etc. So what does that say? (I'm not going to say it has clean air, because THAT is a lie!)
Because in places that don't have the internal structure of a stable government that cares more about the people of the nation than their own pocketbook the people of that nation suffer greatly.

So...Why does it matter to me what happens in some sandbox in the mid-east? Because until they learn to govern themselves and 'agreeably disagree' then the bullies and egocentric idiots will run over the less able people and then export their idiocy for whatever reason to other places....USofA and other areas that have more....when ever they like.

No body with an ounce of sense likes to fight. But ANY BODY with that same ounce of sense knows there are times you must be willing to fight. Fighting is painful. If I hit you, odds are you're going to hit me back. If you hit me, you can count on that I'm going to hit back. And if I hit back, I'll probably get hit again. BUT since I've learned a few things, if I am threatened, I'm not going to waste time talking. I will take you down in the fastest way in the least painful method to ME. I don't give a flying fig about you if you are the threat. I will neutralize you in any means I have at my disposal. Period. End of statement.
 
Top