who lied?
 

500 warheads with banned gas found


And this wont be the last of it.

Re: who lied?
 

I'll believe it when I see it on CNN.

Re: who lied?
 

Those were the degraded, decomposed, mustard gas shells that were too dangerous to move and were blown up in place right after the invasion. Left overs we sold Saddam from the Iraq/Iran conflict.

Crazy rat bastard Santorium must really be desperate if he is grabbing at those straws.

I have some Liquid Plumber under my Kitchen Sink, RIGHT NOW!!!

Re: who lied?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Those were the degraded, decomposed, mustard gas shells that were too dangerous to move and were blown up in place right after the invasion. Left overs we sold Saddam from the Iraq/Iran conflict.

Crazy rat bastard Santorium must really be desperate if he is grabbing at those straws.

I have some Liquid Plumber under my Kitchen Sink, RIGHT NOW!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, they werent blown up. They found the filled warheads, that SH CLAIMED were destroyed. Of course they were degraded. Sarin degrades after a matter of months after the precursors have been mixed.

Re: who lied?
 

WE blew them up, pinhead. What do you think was done with them, they were placed in the National Archives?

And please explain how some degraded Mustard Gas shells forgotten about in an Iraq dessert posed a "real and imminent" threat to the shores of America. What was Saddam's plan for delivering those degraded shells to America?

I think if you search between France and Germany, you will find a much larger imminent threat there. There is still a lot of unexploded ordinance left over from WWI still in farm fields there. Let's invade Berlin!

Re: who lied?
 

Here, read some old news.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3407853.stm

Re: who lied?
 

[ QUOTE ]
WE blew them up, pinhead. What do you think was done with them, they were placed in the National Archives?

And please explain how some degraded Mustard Gas shells forgotten about in an Iraq dessert posed a "real and imminent" threat to the shores of America. What was Saddam's plan for delivering those degraded shells to America?

I think if you search between France and Germany, you will find a much larger imminent threat there. There is still a lot of unexploded ordinance left over from WWI still in farm fields there. Let's invade Berlin!

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that SH said they were all destroyed, and the Duelfer report believed him. Prior to this there was never information released that 500 filled warhead were found. There was talk of 6, 11, 17. More importantly this is only the recently declassified portion of the documents and Santorum clearly implied that there is more information to come as the documents are declassified.

You can theorize, possibly correctly, that the timing of the release of further information will be timed to influence the election, but I will lay 3:1 we hear a lot more specifics before November.

Re: who lied?
 

Does the right wing nut crazy loon party have any theories of how he was going to attack America with these decomposed shells?

From the AP news wire, about 2 years ago
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Caches "dumped"

Altogether 50 of the 120mm unmarked shells were recovered by Danish engineers in the desert area, north of Basra, which was a flashpoint in the Iran-Iraq War.

About 50 more shells are thought to still be buried in the area.

Local residents told troops they had recovered about 400 shells in recent years and had thrown them in the Tigris river, AP reported.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: who lied?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does the right wing nut crazy loon party have any theories of how he was going to attack America with these decomposed shells?

From the AP news wire, about 2 years ago
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Caches "dumped"

Altogether 50 of the 120mm unmarked shells were recovered by Danish engineers in the desert area, north of Basra, which was a flashpoint in the Iran-Iraq War.

About 50 more shells are thought to still be buried in the area.

Local residents told troops they had recovered about 400 shells in recent years and had thrown them in the Tigris river, AP reported.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhhh...give them to terrorist, smuggle them across our porous borders and release them in the subway? Real high tech problem.

[ QUOTE ]
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."

Reading from the document, Santorum added, "Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the Black Market. Use of these weapons by terrorist or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside of Iraq cannot be ruled out. The most likely munitions remaining are sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles. And I underscore filled."

Santorum said the "purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions."

While acknowledging that the agents "degrade over time," the document said that the chemicals "remain hazardous and potentially lethal."


[/ QUOTE ]

Read the last sentence. They REMAIN..present tense. If he is being misleading and these were destroyed after the invasion than he should be crucified for it. I dont buy that he's that stupid.

Re: who lied?
 

I bolded the correct response from the very article you posted to the real and imminent threat of 'terrorists' smuggling decomposing mustard gas shells here.

QUESTION: And can you talk at all about where these munitions were found, where in the country?
SANTORUM: I can't.
HOEKSTRA: I can tell you, but then we couldn't leave the room.

(LAUGHTER)

Try to come back to reality.

Re: who lied?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I bolded the correct response from the very article you posted to the real and imminent threat of 'terrorists' smuggling decomposing mustard gas shells here.

QUESTION: And can you talk at all about where these munitions were found, where in the country?
SANTORUM: I can't.
HOEKSTRA: I can tell you, but then we couldn't leave the room.

(LAUGHTER)

Try to come back to reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont get the point...he cant release classified information, so?

Re: who lied?
 

[ QUOTE ]
500 warheads with banned gas found


And this wont be the last of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make any sense, if this story were being accurately portrayed, why wouldn't it be on any major networks? Must be that liberal media bias over at fox news, stopping this story from getting out.

Re: who lied?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I dont get the point...

[/ QUOTE ]

(LAUGHTER)

Re: who lied?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont get the point...

[/ QUOTE ]

(LAUGHTER)

[/ QUOTE ]

in other words, there is no valid point

Re: who lied?
 

[ QUOTE ]
in other words, there is no valid point

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. These were shells manufactured pre-1991, before Gulf War I. They were decomposed and forgotten, buried in the Desert. This was reported 2-3 years ago when they were literally "uncovered".

How whacked out are you to think this justifies an Invasion?

You, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Powell, inter alia
 

In your sourse, Santorum doesn't say "warheads." He calls them "weapons munitions," with "degraded" elements. This would include abandoned, pilfered and looted shells with trace amounts of sarin and mustard gas rendered harmless more than a decade ago. Santorum's attempt to slap the "WMD" label is just another attempt to maintain the facade, offered up for the likes of people like you, who think the Palestinians are responsible for the Nazi holocaust and otherwise lap up any excuse to slaughter Arab civilians.

If the case for war had been built on degraded munitions, it would have been laughed out of court. The hundreds of thousands who suffered death and injury from this imperial lark would be alive and well. So of course they never talked about the sort of "proof" Santorum proffers, they said things like this: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets" (Colin Powell, Feb. 2003).

Of course there was no such "conservative estimate" by the intelligence community and we know now that Powell was lying in his teeth to sell the war as something other than a criminal act of aggression.

Santorum's spinning "disclosure" isn't even news. The CIA's Duelfer Report noted that such munitions have been located but didn't consider them what the White House was scaring everyone about. "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

This is why Santorum has to dodge the follow-up questions that ask him, in effect, if this is proof of WMD, then why don't all those who are accused of having lied say so?

Re: You, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Powell, inter alia
 

[ QUOTE ]
In your sourse, Santorum doesn't say "warheads." He calls them "weapons munitions," with "degraded" elements. This would include abandoned, pilfered and looted shells with trace amounts of sarin and mustard gas rendered harmless more than a decade ago. Santorum's attempt to slap the "WMD" label is just another attempt to maintain the facade, offered up for the likes of people like you, who think the Palestinians are responsible for the Nazi holocaust and otherwise lap up any excuse to slaughter Arab civilians.

If the case for war had been built on degraded munitions, it would have been laughed out of court. The hundreds of thousands who suffered death and injury from this imperial lark would be alive and well. So of course they never talked about the sort of "proof" Santorum proffers, they said things like this: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets" (Colin Powell, Feb. 2003).

Of course there was no such "conservative estimate" by the intelligence community and we know now that Powell was lying in his teeth to sell the war as something other than a criminal act of aggression.

Santorum's spinning "disclosure" isn't even news. The CIA's Duelfer Report noted that such munitions have been located but didn't consider them what the White House was scaring everyone about. "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

This is why Santorum has to dodge the follow-up questions that ask him, in effect, if this is proof of WMD, then why don't all those who are accused of having lied say so?

[/ QUOTE ]

That points out the danger of claiming someone "lied". You are correct, the transcript doesnt say "warheads". However the new report (either ABC or NBC, I was switching back and forth) did use the term warheads. I didnt see the press conference..did he dodge questions?

I think Palestinians are responsible for the holocaust? Now you are the one "lying"

Re: You, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Powell, inter alia
 

My post in the other thread crossposted here:

counter,

As noted in your joke thread, the link is now working. The following excerpt covers the important issues in this:

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.


So to summarize:

1) WMDs have indeed been found.
2) They weren't in useable condition when found and were made prior to 1991.
3) Thus they aren't proof of an ongoing program at the time of invasion, but they ARE proof Saddam lied about not having any.
4) Their existance shows the dumass inspectors who later criticized the administration were incompetent.

Re: You, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Powell, inter alia
 

I find some errors in your summarization.

They missed the cache of liquid plumber. Using these standards for the presence of WMDs, every nation on earth, in fact any village with over 10 people in it, has WMDs.

Continue to be Afraid.

Re: You, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Powell, inter alia
 

[ QUOTE ]
My post in the other thread crossposted here:

counter,

As noted in your joke thread, the link is now working. The following excerpt covers the important issues in this:

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.


So to summarize:

1) WMDs have indeed been found.
2) They weren't in useable condition when found and were made prior to 1991.
3) Thus they aren't proof of an ongoing program at the time of invasion, but they ARE proof Saddam lied about not having any.
4) Their existance shows the dumass inspectors who later criticized the administration were incompetent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good summary Bluff, except it gives too much credibility to an unnamed DoD source who may or may not have seen the recently declassified information. His version and Santorums version are clearly different unless Santorum chose his words to Congress very poorly.

His website says hes on Hannity & Colmes tonight. I'll stay up and watch it and see how he responds.

Re: You, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Powell, inter alia
 

[ QUOTE ]
"So to summarize:
1) WMDs have indeed been found."

[/ QUOTE ]
They are "WMD" although not even "usable" or the sort of weapons "for which this country went to war," according to the Defense Dept. So they must be some other kind of "WMD." One hint: Santorum uses this label and Fox parrots it, but the original report that Santorum relies on refers to them as only "potentially lethal." So these are the WMD that don't necessarily kill people. You know, the kind of war-justifying urgent threat that vindicates mass slaughter and desolation in Iraq.

Of course, for people that want to murder Arabs en masse, any excuse will serve.

[ QUOTE ]
"they ARE proof Saddam lied about not having any"

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps he foolishly assumed that weapons were something that one could "use" to actually kill people. In any case, he must have been an idiot to think he could trick you with his transparent lies and propaganda.

BTW, your source doesn't actually say that any of these weapons were found under the control of the Iraqi government. As the Duelfer report mentions, some munitions were thought to have been pilfered or looted both during Saddam's reign and after the U.S. invaded.

Re: who lied?
 

This thing will be vetted over a period of time methinks. The funny part about this is that it's really not that meaningful either way. There's no question that Saddam Hussein was a murderous despot as he showed this many times including using chemical weapons. There's also no question that Hussein was willing to attack and wage war against other countries. It's just hilarious that some leftists portray him as a passive and impotent leader.

Re: who lied?
 

"It's just hilarious that some leftists portray him as a passive and impotent leader."

That would be Powell and Rice who portrayed him that way. Nothing about Hussein, nor his portrayal, was hilarious. Both were sad and disgusting.

Re: who lied?
 

"We don't know that yet. We don't know that yet, Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance." -- Howard Dean's reply to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, when asked if Iraq was better off without Saddam Hussein, April 23,

Yeah you're right. Ludicrous statements like these (from the DNC chairman no less) are pathetic and sad. Sometimes they strike my as funny because they're so ridiculous.

Re: who lied?
 

Come on people, they could find hundreds of nuclear warheads and the lib's would find some way to spin it in order to continue the "Bush lied" mantra. It doesn't mix well in their screwed up ideology so they will manufacture any way possible to discredit the report. They'd much rather believe that Bush lied rather than Saddam.

Let's not forget:
"A liberal is a man much too broadminded to side with himself in an argument". Robert Frost

Re: who lied?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Come on people, they could find hundreds of nuclear warheads and the lib's would find some way to spin it in order to continue the "Bush lied" mantra. It doesn't mix well in their screwed up ideology so they will manufacture any way possible to discredit the report. They'd much rather believe that Bush lied rather than Saddam.

Let's not forget:
"A liberal is a man much too broadminded to side with himself in an argument". Robert Frost

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn those libs! When will they learn that Bush is a man of truth?!? Saddam was about to attack the US and, pardon me if I'm a little overflattering here, our superhero, 'W' stopped it.

If the troops stumbled across Saddam's fleet of planes set to fly around the world in a moment's notice spraying chemical attacks... those libs still wouldn't believe it.

Damn you, libs! Will you ever learn?

Re: who lied?
 

The reason Republicans find statements like this so ridiculous is that it is generally undisputed that more Iraqis are violently dying now under Saddam's last decade. Since the goal is to kill Arabs to avenge 9/11, they can't comprehend the objection to tens of thousands of dead Iraqis. So what if U.S-backed forces grab people off the street and torture them to death? By GOP morality, the more the merrier.

Re: who lied?
 

Howard Dean didn't make the decision to invade Iraq. You said that it was the liberals who claimed Hussein was not a threat. In fact Condi Rice and Colin Powell said that.

Howard Dean is not making decisions in Iraq. While the quote you have cited is not eloquent or even articulate, certainly we can find a ton of less eloquent and articulate statements from the administration, particularly from the president. It is the administration that has urged patience, that rebuilding Iraq is a longterm project. If that is so, then how can one definitively state whether or not Iraq is better off with or without Hussein? If things degenerate into a civil war, or if the country splits up, things could get exceptionally ugly.

While many of Dean's statements strike me as ridiculous as well, none come close in import to those of the administration that led us into war misinformed, ill-prepared, arrogant, and deceitful. Right after 9/11, virtually nobody in the United States thought Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. On the eve of the invasion, a clear majority did.

How did that happen?

For someone who was such a danger to us, Hussein sure didn't do very well in the "war."

And yet you worry about the rantings of Howard Dean, an irrelevance who may indeed be slightly amusing, instead of the hubris of an administration that refused to heed the advice of governmental and outside experts on what would happen during the occupation. "Stuff happens" is good enough for its Secretary of Defense and, by virtue of his vote of confidence in Rumsfeld, for the president too. It shouldn't be good enough for our nation.

Re: who lied?
 

Andy writes in part:
[ QUOTE ]
Howard Dean didn't make the decision to invade Iraq. You said that it was the liberals who claimed Hussein was not a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, what I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
It's just hilarious that some leftists portray him as a passive and impotent leader.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've added bolding to two key words. Some does not mean all and portray is current tense I believe.

Re: who lied?
 

Wow, this story has really taken the mainstream media by storm, huh?

Must be that pesky librul media covering it up, right?

Can someone please post another link to a Washington Times or Fox News story? The word clearly isn't getting out.

Re: who lied?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The reason Republicans find statements like this so ridiculous is that it is generally undisputed that more Iraqis are violently dying now under Saddam's last decade. Since the goal is to kill Arabs to avenge 9/11, they can't comprehend the objection to tens of thousands of dead Iraqis. So what if U.S-backed forces grab people off the street and torture them to death? By GOP morality, the more the merrier.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now we are killing innocent Iraqis? You seem so worried about our servicemen and women torturing people "snatched" off the street with no proof of such, but just this week two of our own were found in such bad shape that they couldn't identify them without DNA samples, but you show no outrage about that. Beyond Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or whatever, how about supporting our side, (i.e. America)?

You know what, go on and continue to think that the U.S. is the enemy. That way none of us has to worry about those that share your ideology taking control of a damned thing this November.

Re: who lied?
 

The fundamental difference between the U.S. and terrorists is the fact we have and will continue to prosecute any military service person who commits war crimes and they will not.

A recent comparative example:
9 Marines and 1 Navy person are being held for court martial
for murder

The terrorists who just tortured and killed 2 American servicemen will never be brought to trial in any Muslim country.

Re: who lied?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fundamental difference between the U.S. and terrorists is the fact we have and will continue to prosecute any military service person who commits war crimes and they will not.

A recent comparative example:
9 Marines and 1 Navy person are being held for court martial
for murder

The terrorists who just tortured and killed 2 American servicemen will never be brought to trial in any Muslim country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should be edited to say: When its not sufficiently covered up and we are caught. If, for instance, people in the administration okay torture and the military brass requests it... they will not be held accountable. It will be hidden. If people find out about it, they will deny it. If sufficient evidence is released that they can deny it no longer, then they will punish a few people at the bottom. Then resume pretending they're morally superior.

Re: who lied?
 

Why don't you America hating (censored) leave then? Go and support those that you have sympathy for.

Re: who lied?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you America hating (censored) leave then?

[/ QUOTE ]

The liberal-Socialist-Marxist-Communist-Islamofasict-terrorist agenda we seek to foist upon all red-blooded Americans is only possible if we remain. Don't you realize we have to stay? How else do we maintain our strangehold over the media, academia, and the courts? From France? Silly boy.

mu ahahahahah

Re: who lied?
 

I got ya boy pansy.

Re: who lied?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I got ya boy pansy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love it when new trolls come to this board. Welcome! I'm sure you'll provide plenty of entertainment to the rest of us.

To the rest of the board:

My money says that Steve9789 ends up being better than BillUCF.

Re: who lied?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you America hating (censored) leave then?

[/ QUOTE ]

The liberal-Socialist-Marxist-Communist-Islamofasict-terrorist agenda we seek to foist upon all red-blooded Americans is only possible if we remain. How else do we maintain our strangehold over the media, academia, and the courts? From France? Silly boy.

mu ahahahahah

[/ QUOTE ]

You cant maintain it even if you stay. Alternative media are exposing the liberal outlets for what they are, and the courts are slowly making progress away from activism. There are even signs on campus that conservative students wont lay down to bullying by staff and other students as readily.

France is a good place to start two colonies..a liberal/socialist colony and an AC colony. Give them starting capital with no debt and see how long they last or how prosperous they become. Since my guess is that they will prefer success with compromise to admitting total defeat, and they will become near mirrors of the USA within 3 generations.

Re: who lied?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are even signs on campus that conservative students wont lay down to bullying by staff and other students as readily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reminds me of the time I was on the local college campus in '04 immediately before the election. I heard one of the students there commenting about how he was considering voting for George W. Bush. Little did he know we liberals have eyes and ears everywhere on campuses.

It wasn't long before I contacted one of our faculty members on the inside (I mean, they're all 'on the inside', but I suppose that's besides the point), and we had the student picked on between classes. One of the Gender Studies professors gave him noogies and a really sick 'Pink Belly' until he cried uncle and promised to vote for Kerry. We also took his lunch money and donated it to the DNC.

I feel for the plight of persecuted conservative students everywhere, but frankly having the faculty bully them is the only way in which we can achieve total mind control. Our allies in the media and in the courts do the rest. The fact that you think you can escape us just proves how little you understand about our far-reaching power.

Re: who lied?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you America hating (censored) leave then? Go and support those that you have sympathy for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Dittohead.

I doubt anyone here hates America. Though they can hate some of its ugliness. Take you for instance. Ugly American.