[quote]harris447 wrote:
So, we’re changing the definition of WMD’s to “unusable semi-dangerous toys buried and forgotten about 15 years ago?”
[/quote]
If you think these are toys you probably bought your kids Bag o Acid, Bag o Broken Glass and Johnny Switchblade Action Punk for Chistmas.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If you think these are toys you probably bought your kids Bag o Acid, Bag o Broken Glass and Johnny Switchblade Action Punk for Chistmas.[/quote]
OH MY GOD!!!
GREAT STUFF!!!
dirty harry, back to your hole.
JeffR
Hey Zap,
Amazing how far these liberals (harris/pox) will go.
They’ll hit you with “No WMD in Iraq.”
Once that has been refuted, you get “Oh, they weren’t that dangerous. We knew all about THOSE.”
You watch, “bin laden really wasn’t that important after all.”
Any bets?
JeffR
pox,
You accuse me of “glossing over” the officals statement.
Here is your original sentence, [quote]“Why would you leave out the following from the same article?”[/quote]
You know, and I know, that you didn’t read what I posted.
Why not admit that your go to move is to read headlines, and infrequently will you delve into the meat of the matter.
Hell, I’d even accept, “I hate you Jeff. I don’t read your stuff.”
Then at least have the grace to say, you were right, you didn’t “leave” anything out.
I’m not holding my breath.
Oh, I love how you are parsing the WMD issue. It’s like your pal (who you voted for) john “I voted for the war, I lost the election, now I’m against the war” kerry who claimed "Well, we might find some medium range WMD, but they really aren’t that important.
He either had banned weapons that he didn’t declare and the U.N. didn’t find, or he didn’t.
The inspections were either containing him (aka…he wasn’t an immediate threat(as you once told me in the Alternatives thread)) or they weren’t.
Your position must feel like riding an iceberg on the equator.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
pox,
You accuse me of “glossing over” the officals statement.
Here is your original sentence, “Why would you leave out the following from the same article?”
You know, and I know, that you didn’t read what I posted.
Why not admit that your go to move is to read headlines, and infrequently will you delve into the meat of the matter.
Hell, I’d even accept, “I hate you Jeff. I don’t read your stuff.”
Then at least have the grace to say, you were right, you didn’t “leave” anything out.
I’m not holding my breath.[/quote]
Dude, I not only read your article, I looked it up online at FOX to read the original myself. If anything, I miswrote the statement. I should have written, “how the fuck did you skip over this part to scream out about FOUND WMD’s?!”. As far as hating you, there are few people in the world I could say I truly hate. I consider you near retarded, emotionally repressed, easily led, someone who doesn’t lift weights and an overall joy to laugh AT, but I don’t hate you.
My position? I keep quoting the same guy who works in the Department of Defense and you say it is my position?
“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”
That would be a definite position, but it isn’t just mine.
Still nothing on cnn.
However, on the front page, you can find a link titled, “teen chained to bed for bad grades.”
Ah, that’s why dirty harry is so nasty!!!
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Still nothing on cnn.
[/quote]
LOL
I’ve said it before, whether or not there are weapons in Iraq is irrelevant.
The premise that Bush was going off of was that Hussein was still building and had WMDS. This doesn’t, to me, mean weapons that were made in 1991 and then buried, it means evidence that the guy was still making and planning to use the weapons.
As I said, though, to me, the whole thing is complete bullshit. If Hussein had them (which it doesn’t seem like he did), he would not have used them, for the same reason that no other country has used them against us or Israel -they’d be blown off the map.
Hussein was a very smart, capable guy. He wanted to keep living in lavish palaces, keep holding power in his country. You don’t do that by picking a fight with the country that has enough nukes to blow the world up four times over.
This “find” doesn’t change much, especially considering that even though it’s front page news to FauxNews, it’s barely on anything else.
Not to start a war against the left and right here, but this article is poorly written and rather vague.
[quote] 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. [/quote]
Which two lawmakers? Rick Santorum and who else?
Since 2003? Why report it now? Or was the aim to have 500 WMDs before reporting?
An unnamed Defense Department offical? Was that a General or the Typist for the Motor Pool?
Overall a very poorly written article.
Might I point out that Foxnews was the only one to make this news, to make these claims stick there needs to an alternate news site that agrees with this article’s claims. Even the English speaking Arabic websites don’t have this information.
One source of information does not make the facts true.
Now I shall go back to my ghosting of these boards.
Qivalon~
Two Republicans claim WMD found in Iraq
Santorum, Hoekstra cite sarin-laced shells produced before ?91 Gulf War
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 26 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Two Republicans lawmakers who insist Iraq may have had weapons of mass destruction are pointing to a newly declassified report.
The document says coalition forces have found 500 munitions in Iraq that contained degraded sarin or mustard nerve agents, produced before the 1991 Gulf War.
Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan on Wednesday cited the report in an attempt to counter criticism by Democrats who say the decision to go to war was a mistake.
[b]But defense officials said that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age. Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering up in Iraq for the past several years, and “not the WMD we were looking for when we went in this time.”[/b]
Democrats say a report from the top U.S. weapons inspector contemplated that older munitions bearing traces of chemical agents would be found.
Sorry Jeffry. Try again, and maybe next time you should look elsewhere than the Weekley Standard or FauxNews
Hey little irish:
Welcome to another area in which you come up short.
Here is the declassified information that the two Congressmen were referencing:
www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf
Oh, please read the underlined portion stating that the munitions are still potent and dangerous.
Type in www.msnbc.com.
The Good Guys will laugh out loud.
If you can find little irish’s article, you will smile at the difference in the reporting.
little irish, who are the defense department officials?
I’m curious.
JeffR
[quote]Qivalon wrote:
Might I point out that Foxnews was the only one to make this news, to make these claims stick there needs to an alternate news site that agrees with this article’s claims.[/quote]
You could. But, you would be wrong.
[quote]Now I shall go back to my ghosting of these boards.
Qivalon~
[/quote]
Thanks.
JeffR
[quote]little-irish wrote:
I’ve said it before, whether or not there are weapons in Iraq is irrelevant.
The premise that Bush was going off of was that Hussein was still building and had WMDS. This doesn’t, to me, mean weapons that were made in 1991 and then buried, it means evidence that the guy was still making and planning to use the weapons.[/quote]
Reasonable people could conclude that he wasn’t actively BUILDING WMD. Reasonable people could not debate that he was planning on using them again. He was. He did. He was going to.
Even after today? irish, that’s sick.
Wrong. See scuds fired at Israel. See supporting palestinian terrorists. See trying to assassinate our President. See arming and supporting al qaeda. See firing on our planes.
Pretty aggressive posture to hold if you are trying not to be “blown off the map.”
irish, do you respect hussein? As to “picking a fight,” see above.
Are you quite serious? You cannot mean that?
Sadly, I think you are serious. You honestly believe that your liberal sources are not capable of an agenda.
You wonder why they are breaking apart at the seams. You wonder at the huge popularity of alternative media sources.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
JeffR
DOD disavows Santorum’s WMD claims
June 22, 2006
The DOD flatly disavowed the Congressmen’s WMD claims. ThinkProgress: "Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/37966/?type=blog
Congrats, jeffy. You’ve managed to out-jackass even yourself.
[quote]The bottom line is that there were WMDs and they had programs in place to produce more.
This undercuts much of the shit said by some of the Dems.
Saddam’s programs were not as advanced as we believed but they existed.
Saddam’s stockpile of WMDs were not nearly as big as we believed and were not in immediately useable condition.
Anyone that tries to claim there were no WMD’s in Iraq is a bigger liar than Bush. [/quote]
Zap,
I’m ashamed of you for towing the party line on this and not paying attention to both the DoD and the White House.
To claim some old expired and unusable munitions represent an active WMD program or a capability to develop WMD’s is absolutely shameful and puts you right in line with Jerffy for being the biggest cheerleader on these boards.
Come on, you have more brains that that! Don’t you?
You are buying spin, hook, line and sinker… and I suspect you like to think of yourself as a thinker, not a party line kind of man.
You’d better reassess yourself.
Senators Santorum and Lieberman Produce Iraqi Mustard Canister for Disbelieving Press
06/22/2006 10:05:07 AM EST
Washington, DC (Rotters) - After being rebuffed by the press yesterday for disclosing a two-month old report on the Army’s continued destruction of deteriorated pre-1991 munitions containing evidence of mustard gas and sarin, Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum accompanied by Connecticut Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, as a sign of bipartisan support, produced one of the actual recovered canisters at a follow up press conference this morning. Santorum and Lieberman went on to reiterate that this was clearly evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion of Iraq, therefore justifying the Bush administration’s actions.
“We have also clearly been able to discern that there was indeed a French connection involved in Saddam Hussein’s WMD development program after all.” stated Santorum. “We must support the president and our troops on the ground until their original mission is fulfilled and all of Iraq is free from the threat of mustard gas and saffron.”
“There is a story circulating that these canisters are largely empty or that the contents are no longer potent and long since expired,” stated Senator Lieberman. “This is a dangerous assumption to be making. As you can see, on this particular canister, it is clearly marked that the contents will remain potent through 2008.”
“We have further evidence,” continued Santorum," that the insurgency in Iraq has been clandestinely hording stockpiles in refrigerated devices throughout the country, perhaps waiting for the right moment to spring a lethal trap. Our independent investigators have also concluded that this particular type of mustard as it deteriorates actually produces a far more noxious compound than the original."
The White House refused comment on Santorum and Lieberman’s presentation, stating only that it relished the support from the two. White House sources stated that the president may have something to say on the issue after his return from Europe later today, but for now they were merely playing catsup on the story.
Critics immediately blasted Santorum and accused him of hot dogging for the press. Liberal blogs across the Internet seized upon Lieberman’s support for the story and began referring to him as “Joe Condimentum” in anger and frustration.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey little irish:
Welcome to another area in which you come up short.
Here is the declassified information that the two Congressmen were referencing:
www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf
Oh, please read the underlined portion stating that the munitions are still potent and dangerous.
Type in www.msnbc.com.
The Good Guys will laugh out loud.
If you can find little irish’s article, you will smile at the difference in the reporting.
little irish, who are the defense department officials?
I’m curious.
JeffR[/quote]
Like I said. Frontpage on FauxNews, not even on the page anywhere else. Yea, that’s really valid information.
Your “good guys”, it seems, are delusional.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
DOD disavows Santorum’s WMD claims
June 22, 2006
The DOD flatly disavowed the Congressmen’s WMD claims. ThinkProgress: "Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/37966/?type=blog
[/quote]
This has been posted multiple times.
It does not change the fact that there were WMDs in Iraq and Saddam was hiding them.
While they were not in useable condition as is, they could have been put to good use by the kind of terrorist that learns to fly a plane so he can crash it into a building.
The type of terrorist they drug, strap a bomb to and send into a mosque would not have been able to cause much harm with the WMDs found.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
little-irish wrote:
I’ve said it before, whether or not there are weapons in Iraq is irrelevant.
The premise that Bush was going off of was that Hussein was still building and had WMDS. This doesn’t, to me, mean weapons that were made in 1991 and then buried, it means evidence that the guy was still making and planning to use the weapons.
Reasonable people could conclude that he wasn’t actively BUILDING WMD. Reasonable people could not debate that he was planning on using them again. He was. He did. He was going to.
[/quote]
Where are they? And give me something other than FauxNews that concludes that they were there and able to be used. Oh, wait, you can’t. Nevermind.
No, it isn’t. Today isn’t groundbreaking or amazing. It’s another FauxNews grab at something that just isn’t there, meant for people like you that will believe anything that is posted on their website.
True, but this was when we invaded him. I doubt he would have just done this again, knowing well that we would attack him in turn, and this time, we would not stop at Iraq’s borders as we did in 1991.
[/quote]
See supporting palestinian terrorists. See trying to assassinate our President. See arming and supporting al qaeda. See firing on our planes.
I don’t know enough about the first two assumptions, but there has NEVER BEEN TIES BETWEEN him and Al-Queda. Did you read that on FauxNews also? Because I missed it.
There’s a difference between firing on planes from another country that have set up “No Fly Zones” in your country and nuking innocent civilians. Not that Hussein wouldn’t have done this, of course, but he would not do it to the US because he knew the retribution that would come of it.
Yea, I have a big fucking hard on for him you dumb shit.
He’s not much different than any other dictator. Do I respect him? Not as a good person, but the guy, like all people who seize control of countries, is not a dumb man. To think that he is is idiotic.
Other countries have done far worse. Hell, Al-Queda did far worse, and we ignored them until 2001, when they became the first…“nation” (or maybe organization, I guess) to strike continental American soil since 1815.
It is too early to tell whether or not this was a significant find, but from the looks of it, and being that it’s only on FauxNews, it isn’t.
Your conservative sources aren’t guilty of an agenda? You posted some bullshit article from the Weekley Standard a couple of months ago that said the exact same thing as this one did- and what came from it? Nothing. Most likely, just like this one will.
So liberal sources are slanted, but neocon ones tell the truth? Does this play into your “We’re the good guys” delusion, or did you walk into a door again?