2
   

Officials: U.S. didn't find WMDs, despite claims

 
 
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 05:52 am
Officials: U.S. didn’t find WMDs, despite claims
Comments are response to claims by GOP senators

NBC News and news services
Updated: 10:04 p.m. ET June 22, 2006

WASHINGTON - Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday they have no evidence that Iraq produced chemical weapons after the 1991 Gulf War, despite recent reports from media outlets and Republican lawmakers.

Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan on Wednesday pointed to a newly declassified report that says coalition forces have found 500 munitions in Iraq that contained degraded sarin or mustard nerve agents.

They cited the report in an attempt to counter criticism by Democrats who say the decision to go to war was a mistake.

But defense officials said Thursday that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age, which they determined to be pre-1991.

Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering in Iraq for the past several years, and "not the WMD we were looking for when we went in this time."

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

"We were able to determine that [the missile] is, in fact, degraded and ... is consistent with what we would expect from finding a munition that was dated back to pre-Gulf War," an intelligence official told NBC. "However, even in the degraded state, our assessment is that they could pose an up-to-lethal hazard if used in attacks against coalition forces."

‘A bit suspicious’
Democrats said a report from the top U.S. weapons inspector contemplated that older munitions bearing traces of chemical agents would be found.

A leading Democrat on intelligence issues said Santorum's assertion that there were in fact weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was politically motivated.

"It's a bit suspicious that this was rolled out the night before" the debate and vote in the Senate on withdrawal from Iraq "by a senator in a close political race," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.

Santorum is down 18 points in his Senate re-election contest, according to a poll released Wednesday.

Harman said it was "unfortunate" that people have "not learned the lesson about hyping ... and cherry picking" intelligence to suit their own aims.

For his part, Hoekstra, appearing before cameras on Thursday, reiterated his assertions of Wednesday evening, saying, "Iraq is NOT a WMD-free zone" and it "amazes me" that members of Congress still say that there was no WMD in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/

Way to GO, Santorum! Not only did you come off looking like an idiot, but you made the lies about Iraq's WMDs a current topic going into the Midterm elections!

Fedral, you can stop masterbating now! Laughing
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,969 • Replies: 35
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 05:54 am
But then we already knew there were no weapons of mass destruction there before the war began.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 08:06 am
edgarblythe wrote:
But then we already knew there were no weapons of mass destruction there before the war began.


I would say finding close to 500 WMDs says that they did have them. The shelf life of said weapons might have been past but we found them and the inspectors didn't. Do you think that if they were used they would do nothing? They were always dangerous regardless of what their shelf life was. They might only kill 200 people instead of the planned 2000 but they are lethal none the less.

To say none were found is a bold face lie some were found and they continue to find them.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 08:12 am
Baldimo, you have a point: technically, those were weapons of mass destruction, even though they couldn't cause any mass destruction, and were produced in 1991. but touting them in conjunction with a debate about the Iraq war is disingenuous. no one has denied that Iraq had WMD in 1991; a stated objective of the war was to locate & destroy stockpiles of WMD created after 1991. that's why the administration knew about these munitions in april but said nothing, because they're not the WMD they were looking for.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 08:30 am
yitwail wrote:
Baldimo, you have a point: technically, those were weapons of mass destruction, even though they couldn't cause any mass destruction, and were produced in 1991. but touting them in conjunction with a debate about the Iraq war is disingenuous. no one has denied that Iraq had WMD in 1991; a stated objective of the war was to locate & destroy stockpiles of WMD created after 1991. that's why the administration knew about these munitions in april but said nothing, because they're not the WMD they were looking for.


Really? Seems that Saddam, as part of the cease fire agreement, was supposed to dispose of ALL WMD's and provide evidence that he had done so to the UN. Finding WMD's is evidence that Saddam had failed to meet those objectives.

Could you provide a link that backs up your statement?
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 08:39 am
no, not at this moment. perhaps he ingeniously hid all the WMD by burying 500 here, 500 there, and so forth, or else a few of them weren't destroyed due to an oversight, and no harm was done, since their shelf-life had expired before 2003. supposing they were concealed, after all, do you propose scouring every inch of Iraq territory, looking for buried WMD that are probably inoperable?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 08:41 am
Ah...this crap was in my Snopes com mail list as an email thing.....I didn't know that people who ought to know better were also in on it.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 09:50 am
dlowan wrote:
Ah...this crap was in my Snopes com mail list as an email thing.....I didn't know that people who ought to know better were also in on it.


What crap do you refer to?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 11:24 am
yitwail wrote:
no, not at this moment. perhaps he ingeniously hid all the WMD by burying 500 here, 500 there, and so forth, or else a few of them weren't destroyed due to an oversight, and no harm was done, since their shelf-life had expired before 2003. supposing they were concealed, after all, do you propose scouring every inch of Iraq territory, looking for buried WMD that are probably inoperable?


That's about what I'd expect to hear from a Saddam apologist...
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 11:26 am
McGentrix wrote:
That's about what I'd expect to hear from a Saddam apologist...

A truly reprehensible statement, McG. That's about what I'd expect from you.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 11:42 am
McGentrix wrote:
That's about what I'd expect to hear from a Saddam apologist...


can you provide examples of my posts that back up your claim that i'm a Saddam apologist? i'll save you a little time, the only posts by yitwail at a2k with Saddam or Hussein in the text have to do with remarks by Pat Robertson about taking out Hugo Chavez. there are 24 posts, including this one, that mention iraq. good luck.

joe, reprehensibility aside, McG is really going out on a limb, it seems to me. how much time has passed since Santorum made his announcement, with no comment from the White House? could it be that they agree with the DOD assessment that these weren't the WMD they were looking for? would that make the administration Saddam apologists?
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 03:20 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Really? Seems that Saddam, as part of the cease fire agreement, was supposed to dispose of ALL WMD's and provide evidence that he had done so to the UN. Finding WMD's is evidence that Saddam had failed to meet those objectives.

Could you provide a link that backs up your statement?


Want a link? Sure. In fact, I'll even quote the relevant section:

Quote:
The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

Linky linky

Santorum is making an idiot out of himself for trying to pass off old shells from a war during a time when we supported Iraq that are long past their shelf life and were not the reason we were given for going to war. In fact, even the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE issued a response to Santorums comments:

Quote:
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."

Clicky clicky

Calling what was found WMD's is incredibly misleading and false.

If I said to you, "Hey, lets go for a ride in my car!" and then I led you to a useless, rusted out shell of a 1956 Chevy, would you jump in? Or would you call "bullshit!"?

Baldimo is way past the point of reason, but you seem smart enough to tell hte difference, McG. You should know better than to buy into this crap.

In the lead up to war we got constant threats of "mushroom clouds" and nuclear capabilities, and the best Santorum can give us are worthless pre-1991 shells that were buried and forgotten about by Iraq.

Please.
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 03:23 pm
Lessee...If some kid digs up an arrowhead in his backyard, does that mean the local tribe is planning an uprising? Better call up the cavalry...
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 04:06 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
Lessee...If some kid digs up an arrowhead in his backyard, does that mean the local tribe is planning an uprising? Better call up the cavalry...


No problem, we can fend them off with some of the guns that were found with those "WMD's"!

Here, I've got a picture of one... its in about as useful condition as the weapons Santorum was talking about...


http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/5905/gunnnnn0sj.jpg

Laughing
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 04:31 pm
Actually JustanObserver, that gun could be very dangerous, what if our soldiers weren't immunized against tetanus?

Sadam could have won the war...
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 04:46 pm
Just an Obs:

Quote:
Calling what was found WMD's is incredibly misleading and false.

If I said to you, "Hey, lets go for a ride in my car!" and then I led you to a useless, rusted out shell of a 1956 Chevy, would you jump in? Or would you call "bullshit!"?

Baldimo is way past the point of reason, but you seem smart enough to tell hte difference, McG. You should know better than to buy into this crap.

In the lead up to war we got constant threats of "mushroom clouds" and nuclear capabilities, and the best Santorum can give us are worthless pre-1991 shells that were buried and forgotten about by Iraq.


I, like you, think McG smart enough to see the bullcrap. Problem is, he stands on a foundation of Bush lies and has to keep all the bricks in place to keep the whole pile from collapsing - its a common ailment these days, it seems.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 04:57 pm
snood wrote:
Just an Obs:

Quote:
Calling what was found WMD's is incredibly misleading and false.

If I said to you, "Hey, lets go for a ride in my car!" and then I led you to a useless, rusted out shell of a 1956 Chevy, would you jump in? Or would you call "bullshit!"?

Baldimo is way past the point of reason, but you seem smart enough to tell hte difference, McG. You should know better than to buy into this crap.

In the lead up to war we got constant threats of "mushroom clouds" and nuclear capabilities, and the best Santorum can give us are worthless pre-1991 shells that were buried and forgotten about by Iraq.


I, like you, think McG smart enough to see the bullcrap. Problem is, he stands on a foundation of Bush lies and has to keep all the bricks in place to keep the whole pile from collapsing - its a common ailment these days, it seems.


Hey snood your a medic why don't you tell everyone what would happen if our troops came into contact with these WMD's.

Does the make up of these WMD's after a certain period of time just make them useless or would they still pose a threat. Don't play the left wing game either. Put on your SSgt hat and be honest. I want the info from an NCO.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 05:02 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
That's about what I'd expect to hear from a Saddam apologist...

A truly reprehensible statement, McG. That's about what I'd expect from you.


That especially logically ridiculous and ethically unspeakable crap just keeps rearing its head, along with WMD fairytales, doesn't it?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 05:07 pm
I don't know what you're talking about, Baldimo. The only weaponry that I can think of that would pose an "exposure" threat after several years inactive would be mines that are still armed, depleted uranium shells without protective coating, or some chemical, radiological or biological agent that had retained stability enough to contaminate - I don't remember hearing about anything like that being found.
Just a buncha rusted-out old husks of shells, and some things that may or may not even have been weapons - that's the big whoopdedo 'find' the right is trying to crow about.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jun, 2006 05:59 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Hey snood your a medic why don't you tell everyone what would happen if our troops came into contact with these WMD's.

Does the make up of these WMD's after a certain period of time just make them useless or would they still pose a threat. Don't play the left wing game either. Put on your SSgt hat and be honest. I want the info from an NCO.



Baldimo, you have the entire internet at your fingertips. Here, I did the work for you:

Sarin shelf life:

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.

Wiki link


Mustard shelf life

Quote:
STABILITY: Stable at ambient temperatures. Decomposition temperature is 149 DEG C to 177 DEG C. Mustard is a persistent agent depending on pH and moisture, and has been known to remain active for up to three years in soil.

Gulf War veterans site link


Translation: Santorum is a decietful piece of **** who is grasping at straws.

I know you'll STILL refuse to admit that what was found was anything less than "Oh my God! WMD's!! This proves us right!!!!" no matter how wrong you may be, but at least this will answer the question in case anyone else here was wondering.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to lick the insides of those shells, but they are a LONG way off from being as dangerous as Santorum would like to have us to believe.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Officials: U.S. didn't find WMDs, despite claims
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 05:23:32