who lied?

[Copernicus]

[ 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?

[jman220]

[ 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.

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont get the point...

[/ QUOTE ]

(LAUGHTER)

[Copernicus]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

(LAUGHTER)

[/ QUOTE ]

in other words, there is no valid point

[cardcounter0]

[ 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?

[Chris Alger]

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?

[Copernicus]

[ 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"

[BluffTHIS!]

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.

[cardcounter0]

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.

[Copernicus]

[ 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.