Originally posted by Marc Summers
this site is bull.
Congratulations, Marc, you are tonight's winner for ad hominem attacks!
Come on down!
Marc Summers ladies and gentlemen!
Sooo, uh, that addresses the points made how?
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
The only WMDs that count are those that are explicity approved by the Democratic party.
Or the Kay report, or the Duelfer report, or any ing report that has come out substantiating the supposed threat that led our asses to war with this country that supposedly had WMD pointed at our ing heads.
quote:
Sorry, these simply don't count as a left-wing blog tries to circumvent their verifiable existence with more smoke-and-mirrors rationalizations.
Nor do they count as substantial evidence of any sort by Duelfer or any other report, nor do they constitute evidence for going to war by our own Defense Dept.
Bummer.
quote:
Had this kind of stuff been found in the pre-war period, Liberals would be singing a completely different tune.
What, old defunct chemical weapons that are no longer usable left over from the Iran/Iraq war, and THAT would somehow change the toon of, say, reality of suposedly going to war over THAT?
C'mon, Shakka. I know we've gone down this road many times before. What exactly is new about this report that wasn't repeated and debunked by Duelfer and the rest of the intelligence community?
Fir3start3r
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Fir3start3r, c'mon dude, you still believe there are WMDs there? WMDs (biological wepons) which were not sold to Sadaam by our beloved goverment and who's shelf life isn't long over?
Whatever's left will only be reminants.
Everyone knows they were moved out of the country.
Weapons were sold by France, Russia and China as well let's not forget, the U.S. is far from being the only country involved in all of this.
In fact, France moreso than any other.
Why do you think they were stalling and vetoing the U.N. vote to go into Iraq? They knew it would dig up too much dirt.
Iraq is like a bad stain on everyone's hands that not going to wash out...
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Agreed.
Chemical weapons are chemicals weapons people.
The fact that they might be 'older' surely doesn't make them any less dangerous so that's not even an arguement.
Uhh, yes it does and this has been addressed. These weapons were useless, and as the Defense Dept. analyst mentioned:
quote:
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."
What more need be said?
quote:
If any of the naysayers actually READ the document you'd see why these findings are important.
I did read it. What exactly are you pointing out that hasn't already been covered and shown moot by intelligence and defense analysts and reports?
quote:
That document is hardly fake.
I never claimed it was fake. Rather, it is a mere handjob to old debunked data that demonstrates absolutely nothing. I repeat exactly what Renegade posted by the Defense Dept. official:
quote:
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."
quote:
The fact that the MSM isn't splashing it all over the front page should tell you something about the MSM.
Get the over the ing MSM being ing liberal argument for once. I can just as easily demonstrate how ing conservative and lame this media has been to Bush and his bull talking points over the years, but I know how irrelevant that is to the point of context.
I would hope that you can one day have an argument and do the same.
And incidentally, that darn "librul" media has been running your favorite story today regardless, so quit your bellyaching for 's sake.
quote:
You actually believe Iraq destroyed their stockpile simple because they were simply asked?? (by a toothless U.N. AND while madhatter Saddam was in power no less)
Me thinks you expect too much.
And methinks you need to point out where I have ever believed such an idea. I don't recall ever saying this, nor is it pertinent to what is or is not being addressed by Santorum's bull here.
But since you asked, of course not. I believe what both the Kay and Duelfer reports mentioned about what happened to Saddam's WMD: that he had a relatively good stockpile of WMDs, we took many out during the first war and took out the vast majority in the subsequent years that followed. The sanctions crippled his ass to reconstitute any nuke program even though he had ambitions of doing so. The biol. and chem. WMDs over time proved worthless as the 1/2 life ran out.
It's all in the Duelfer report. Long ass read, but you can skim the good parts:
It's funny the links one chooses for 'debunking' because the EXACT same video is looked at with a different perspective on a different blog but for a very different reason. http://hotair.com/archives/top-pick...talk-wmd-on-hc/
What's so funny about it? Hannity doesn't address the fact that the Dept. of Defense and Duelfer debunked the out of it. That's not a "different perspective." That's clear avoidance to the obvious point:
quote:
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."
quote:
So how many weapons have to be found to dint the head of the Left?
Of course not enough, because of there's no threat on U.S. soil, it doesn't matter or is just discredited as meaningless.
And if something catastrophic on U.S. soil did happened, they'd just blame old GB anyways...
It's a convenient arguement that's for sure.
How about enough that constitutes taking our eye off the ing bastard that killed almost 3,000 people on our soil and invade the country that had absolutely nothing to do with that bastard that attacked us? How about anything that constituted those 16 words in Bush's 2002 SOTU address? How about anything that demonstrated unmanned flying airplanes that could reach our coast with WMD attached to them? How about anything that demonstrated "operational ties" to the bastards that actually attacked us? How about those mobile biological weapons laboratories? How about knowing with absolute certainty where Saddam was keeping his WMDs, "somewhere around Tikrit" maybe? How about anything reliable whatsoingever from a highly dubious and suspicious source named "Operation Curveball"?
And how about you stop insulting my ing intelligence and not pretend I'm in a ing memory hole as to what was said and sold to me and the rest of my country as to why we were supposedly going to war in that country in the first place? That would also be greatly appreciated, if you don't mind.
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by stevieboy32808 How do you guys explain this video?
By hitting the "search this forum" thingy on the bottom right for Georges Sada, and realizing I had discussed him before?:
Ahh yes, Rick "I love creationism" Santorum is soooo good with science, that we should completely discard that which Renegade posted:
quote:
Iraqi mustard gas was of very high quality and, therefore, even unstabilised, it could still have a relatively long shelf-life. Analysis undertaken by Unscom, however, showed that Iraqi mustard gas was prone to undergo polymerisation over time, thus reducing its effectiveness. Even pre-1991 Iraqi chemical munitions that were filled with mustard gas, if used against an armoured and protected force,
therefore, were likely to have proved relatively ineffective.
And lest we all forget what the Dept. of Defense believes here:
quote:
"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."
quote:
The bottom line is that until a live nuclear warhead covered in Saddam's fingerprints, loaded with so much weaponized uranium is found in pristine condition and pointed directly at Israel, no amount of evidence will be enough to appease the left on this subject.
What ing part of "dead wrong" by the Kay report do you not comprehend?
What ing part of "almost all wrong" by Charles Duelfer is incoherent to you Bush apologists?
This is NOT a lefty issue. Jesus ing Christ, how many ing intelligence reports do you need to tell you that no ing WMD were found in Iraq, ESPECIALLY that which constituted a ing pre-emptive invasion on our part?
This should not even be a point of contention anymore. It's ing pathetic you guys continue to carry that torch. But hey, by all means go right ahead. I sure won't tell you that you're running in the buck. Not that you'd listen to me anyway.....
stevieboy32808
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
By hitting the "search this forum" thingy on the bottom right for Georges Sada, and realizing I had discussed him before?:
lol, not really. I actually remember seeing that episode so I went to youtube and typed in some keywords and viola!
pkcRAISTLIN
ok everyone. i think the central problem in this thread is people cant spell.
its remnants not reminants. cheers :cool:
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Don't worry.
The Left has already written this guy off for whatever reason that happen to float in their coffee that morning...
A legitimate general of Saddam's telling us he HAD THEM, tells us WHEN and WHAT they did, and the Left shrugs it off???
Apparently the weapons have to buried in their own front yard with a really big red arrow sign saying, "Look HERE".
And where were you in our conversation that I linked to earlier? I didn't seem to notice your contribution to any counterargument given back then. Now you come out beating your chest on this?
Nice.
quote:
"Degraded" doesn't mean "useless" either so let's not split hairs on definitions just to confuse the issue.
The danger is/was that these could have easily been sold or found by terrorist groups to use; 'degraded' or not.
Lest we forget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_...he_Tokyo_subway
The only reason more people weren't killed is because that stunt was barely pulled off by a bunch of amateurs.
The possiblity of this happening again is very real.
Lest we forget:
quote:
Sarin 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.
or
quote:
"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."
So there's an argument as to the toxicity of these weapons. You know what, I'll even grant you that.
Can you please tell me why the Dept. of Defense believes these munitions are "not thhe WMDs for which this country went to war" over?
Can you please just try to explain that all that hubub back in 2002 and 2003, all that hype about WMDs and "mushroom clouds" and WMDs pointed at our coastlines, and al Qaeda-Saddam 9/11 ties somehow are supposedly justified by this little arsenal of weaponry?
Do you have an idea of just how many other countries out there, many whom we aren't particularly fond of or, more importantly, aren't particularly fond of us, have similar and even much greater stockpiles of weaponry?
So whom shall we be invading next on such a similar rationale? Strange that Dept. of Defense official. He must be a lefty loony too.
Same with Duelfer for that matter, right?
quote:
Or what about this list of 10 from the White House that have been thwarted:
I know, I know.
They didn't happen so they don't count right?
Let's see, I can help answer a few of them:
quote:
1. In 2002 the United States disrupted a plot to use shoe bombs to hijack a commercial airliner to attack the tallest building in Los Angeles. The plot was "set in motion" by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks.
"Rather than use Arab hijackers, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed sought out young men from Southeast Asia whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion," Bush said.
Interesting that local L.A. officials never knew of this:
quote:
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said Thursday he was blindsided by President Bush's announcement of new details on a purported 2002 hijacking plot aimed at a downtown skyscraper, and described communication with the White House as "nonexistent."
"I'm amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels," the mayor told The Associated Press. "I don't expect a call from the president - but somebody."
And it's also strange that an FBI Counterterrorism Official knew nothing of those attacks. And after a CIA official claimed that the gov't "probably prevented a few aviation attacks against both the East and West Coasts" since 9/11, John Pistole, the FBI's counterterrorism director, said he was "not sure what [the CIA] was referring to.":
Notice the sincere lack of details here? Strange that.
3. Jose Padilla case:
quote:
In May 2002 the United States disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the alleged plotters, Jose Padilla, allegedly discussed the possibility of using a "dirty bomb" inside the United States. Bush has designated him an "enemy combatant."
Hmmmm-
quote:
“Paul Wolfowitz, Mr. Rumsfeld’s deputy, stressed on Monday that ‘there was not an actual plan’ to set off a radioactive device in America and Padilla had not begun trying to acquire materials. Intelligence officials said his research had not gone beyond surfing the internet.” Since being detained in O’Hare airport in 2002, Padilla has not been charged with any crime or permitted to talk to a lawyer.
In spring 2003 the United States and a partner disrupted a plot to attack westerners at several targets in Karachi, Pakistan.
Again the evidence is conspicuously absent, but who woulda thunk it to have terrorists in Pakistan?
Gee, that wouldn't happen to be the home of one of our favorite terrorist leaders, would it? Or how about one of our favorite black market nuclear arms guy named Khan, would it?
Hmmm, what a conveeeeenient time to drop a "trust us, we protect you" headline in there by foiling al Qaeda attacks.
quote:
And yes I know they've been finding stuff since day 2 in Iraq; that's not the point.
The point is, there are STILL weapons out there that need to be found.
WE need to find them before THEY do, so no, I'm not going to appologize for these facts however, when will the Left realize these threats to be real.
Well gosh, call me and the rest of that darn reality-based community crazy, but I guess we here on earth would just like to see the evidence before us rather than invade and completely up a country and THEN try and find the evidence.
But then again, you wouldn't happen to know anything about "Operation Curveball", would you?
But I tell ya what, champ, when you find those darn elusive WMDs around, I'll be waitin right here for ya, kay?
quote:
Do you guys really need to go through another 9/11 to snap out of whatever is glazing your eyes down there?
Will you please do me the honors, sweetie, and try not to insult us by tying another ing 9/11 threat to our bull invasion based on dubious and manipulated intelligence into Iraq?
Honestly, that's beyond the pathetic pale by now.
quote:
Hell, here in Canada we're just waking up because we though the same thing, "It'll never happen to us"...
Well good for you. So since you found your terrorists, I guess you'll be invading England now? Or how about France? N. Korea? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan?
Because last I checked, these guys had some chemical munitions somewhere in their country. Go get 'em you crazy cowboy Canuck!
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
While the age of the WMDs may be true...
Ahh yes, good ol' Assrocket and friends. Nothing like a little credibility gap from this lovely wrecking crew.
If I read through powerline's blog right, let's see what else he says in there:
quote:
. . . . but what they're talking about is old munitions left over from, presumably, before the first Gulf War. This doesn't appear to constitute evidence that Saddam's regime had continued to manufacture chemical weapons in more recent years.
And I also wanted to point out what Pete Hoekstra mentioned today on Faux:
quote:
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.
So let's see if I got this straight. The president had evidence that Iraq had WMDs in their possession, news that would certainly justify every action he has taken going into war, but at that time he simply didn't have time to discuss it because he was "forward-looking" and concentrated too much on trying to stabilize Iraq?
Jesus, that's so incredibly hilarious I really don't know what more to add.
But I'm digressing a bit. I wanted to hit on your "real point" from Powerline:
quote:
...What it does demonstrate is that the picture with respect to Iraq's WMDs is much more nuanced than the usual "he didn't have any" mantra. There is no doubt about the fact that Saddam had, and used, chemical and biological weapons.
Nor is there any doubt as to who gave it to him to help fight off the Iranians, nor is there any doubt how Rummy and Reagan regarded him as an ally during that time, nor is there any doubt how Reagan and his Administration looked the other way as he gassed his own people, but regardless.....
quote:
Nor is there any doubt about the fact that he eagerly pursued nuclear weapons.
Nor is there any doubt that according to all government intelligence reports, such pursuance was successfully stopped by us through attacks and sanctions.
quote:
Further, the Iraq Survey Group report says that he had every intention of resuming his programs as soon as the coast was clear and the U.N. sanctions were behind him.
Which calls into question as to why we needed to invade him, rather than continue with the sanctions.
But then again, I keep forgetting that we pre-emptively invade those countries who have intention, rather than actual evidence.
Boy, Bush's last 2 years are gonna be busy with all these invasions of countries with intention, aren't they?
quote:
Add to that the fact that hundreds of chemical weapons, at a minimum, were secreted in various locations around Iraq--as also shown by this document--and it is reasonable to conclude that, even though the CIA and nearly all other observers over-estimated Iraq's WMD capabilities, the fear that Saddam might use such weapons, or slip them to a terrorist group, was well-founded.
Ahh yes, no need to grasp at straws or anything there powerline. Once again, I keep forgetting that we invaded that little fella because of intention to do bad things.
Such incredible foreign policy.
quote:
The source above also mentions that the unclassified document is also a small fraction of a much larger document that the CIA is keeping close to their chest.
Apparently Santorum is going to push to have the whole thing released probably to keep from looking like an ass.
Nothing can save Santorum from that. And what exactly would the CIA be releasing that the 9/11 Commission report, the Kay Report, Duelfer, etc. hasn't already mentioned about and concluded upon?
Seriously, just one small apology will do.....
MisterOpus1
quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Whatever's left will only be reminants.
Everyone knows they were moved out of the country.
Weapons were sold by France, Russia and China as well let's not forget, the U.S. is far from being the only country involved in all of this.
In fact, France moreso than any other.
And the evidence to support such assertions come from which government intelligence reports again?
quote:
Why do you think they were stalling and vetoing the U.N. vote to go into Iraq?
Ummm, wouldn't multibillion dollar oil deals have anything to do with it more than unsupported assertions that WMDs were moved there?
Jesus, are you being serious with this ? I honestly don't know if you're kidding anymore. Please tell me you have something, ANYTHING substantive outside of unsupported assertion from Assrocket's blog that backs you up here.
quote:
Iraq is like a bad stain on everyone's hands that not going to wash out...
The biggest skiddies on the tighty-whities, of course, go to us for our wonderful invasion based on dubious and manipulated intelligence as well as our terrific post-invasion plan.
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
ok everyone. its remnants not reminants. cheers :cool:
