This is interesting.
Noteworthy:
"The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction is in fact false," Santorum said. "We have found over 500 weapons of mass destruction and in fact have found that there are additional chemical weapons still in the country."
The only way the "progressives" can in on this issue is for the U.S.A. to suffer defeat in Iraq. Accordingly, they will spin or ignore all evidence to the contrary.
ReplyDeleteThe WSJ addressed this subject.
The Dems have been all agog in recent times at the possibilty of regaining political power in Congress in november's election.....I think they are being optimistic.
Here's what The Defense Department is doing(from "Powerline")
ReplyDelete"'In From the Cold', written by a former intelligence agent, has more. He suggests that "intel bureaucrats were apparently uncomfortable with the revelation that they had been wrong on Iraqi WMD, not once, not twice, but a total of three times."
UPDATE: The reporter who asked the question of Rumsfeld emphasized that the canisters "may be quite old," as I did last night. An extremely plugged-in reader with sources on the Hill writes:
It is only partially true to say that the wmd counted in the report are old--There are NEW "things" which have NOT been uncovered before, and which MAY all be from that period, but some of it is in pristine condition.
The same reader adds, concerning the legacy media stories on the WMD report:
Someone ought to be asking about the Department of Defense official who has been downplaying this, trying to bury the story. Rumsfeld came out with a big statement about this this afternoon and still the DoD "official" keeps namelessly trying to be named president of the Bush Lied League. If you check you will see that in all the articles where they go to someone to downplay it, it is always a DoD intelligence official.
Whoever this person is should be fired not only for deliberately trying to mislead the American people but also endangering our security.
We've written about this countless times. Liberals in the press go to liberals in the federal bureaucracy, especially the intelligence agencies, for leaks and anonymous commentary. The reporters then present this "information" as though it were objective and authoritative. In fact, the liberal leakers/commentators are no more objective and no more authoritative than the liberal reporters themselves."
Here's the "In From The Cold" link from above.
Noteworthy:
"The discovery of these weapons suggests (surprise, surprise) that Saddam planned to retain at least a portion of his WMD capability, and would have likely resumed full-scale development and production, had UN sanctions been removed."
Read the whole thing.
More:
ReplyDeleteUndeniable Truth:
"Reliance on dual-use technology and facilities, coupled with Iraq's extensive deception efforts (and possible pre-war shipments to Syria) made our pre-war "expectations" unrealistic. Moreover, the continuing discovery of chemical weapons in Iraq highlights fundamental flaws in weapons searches conducted by the U.N. and the Iraq Survey Group. The fact that U.S. troops are routinely finding weapons that supposedly don't exist underscores Saddam's apparent ease at hiding WMD. The fact that many of these weapons remain unlocated affirms the fact that the final chapter on WMD in Iraq is yet to be written--despite liberal efforts to close the book, once and for all."
Here's somethingabout the weapons find that nobody else is talking about.
ReplyDeleteSo am I any less dead if I'm killed with OLD mustard gas than if I'm killed with FRESH mustard gas??
ReplyDeleteThe liberal apologizers and excusers exemplify the quintessential "But Monkey" so popular on Laura Ingraham's show.
Ha! I'd forgotten about Laura's Butt Monkey.
ReplyDeleteI need to divide my listening time equally between Laura and Boortz in the mornings. Both are really worth the time.
By what definition is mustard a WMD? It's not a WMD.
ReplyDelete"By what definition is mustard a WMD? It's not a WMD."
ReplyDeleteReally?
From Dictionary.com
WMD
W.M.D. n : a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons) [syn: weapon of mass destruction, WMD, W.M.D.]
Do you want to tell us Mustard Gas does not fall into one of the categories listed in the definition?
Pretty broad definition from dictionary.com. Every weapon we have uses chemicals except I guess a knife. That isn't the military definition. And, even by the military definition we are using WMD. Depleted uranium rounds are more dangerous than mustard.
ReplyDeleteBe realistic, we are talking about a weapon that kills beyond the normal capacity of the detonation.
Good rationalization, Shuffler.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure you're not one of those sacrificial Lefty Talking Heads that Hannity devours every night?
Your excuses are certainly lame enough to qualify as one.
The United Nations has classified mustard gas (among other agents) as WMD's.
ReplyDeleteUNSC Resolution 687 (United Nations Security Council) required that Iraq destroy it's Chemical Weapons which the UN classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction.
You seem to forget that we entered into this was after Iraq failed 17 times over 12 years to comply with UN sanctions and requirements regarding WMD's.
Here's a pretty full text of Iraq's capabilities and weapons stockpile: http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iraq.htm
Cute bubba, the only heads Hannity devours are back stage after the show (not the talking kind). I don't need or offer excuses - I'm not wrong.
ReplyDeleteJaycee, that is a full text including the sources at the bottom of the page that discredit the entire list. I know for a fact what we left Iraq with at the end of Desert Storm. I know what they were capable of doing with what we left them over the next 12 years. I know people in the DOD, CIA and NSA knew what I did and more. And, we were well into this long before Desert Storm. Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan have been our little war toys for decades.
I'm sure you are a proud supporter of the UN, but mustard isn't a true WMD.
Shuffles, mustard gas is considered a chemical weapon, aka Weapon of Mass Destruction, as defined by international law and the United Nations and every civilized country.
ReplyDeleteBury your head in the sand if you like, but them's the facts.
If you have information to the contrary, please post it. Specifically, anything that shows that the UN or any other legal body or sanctioning entity has declared Mustard Gas to be an acceptable weapon under the rules of land warfare.
Jacie, The point is, the definitions and laws are all over the place on what a WMD is. They are so broad that you would have to conclude the US uses WMD daily. By your reasoning you have chemical weapons (=WMD) in your house. You probably have a remote detonator (cell phone) and a delivery system (car).
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to aid your terrorist capabilities with specifics, but the chemicals around the house could do more damage than mustard. This isn't WWII when there wasn't any way to counter the effects of mustard or detect it.
"Cute bubba, the only heads Hannity devours are back stage after the show (not the talking kind)." I don't need or offer excuses - I'm not wrong."
ReplyDeleteAnd you were complaining about personal attacks on the other thread?
"I don't need or offer excuses - I'm not wrong."
No ego or arrogance in THAT statement, is there?
Keep on posting, Shufflet.....
shuffles, the definition of Chemical Weapons/Weapons of Mass Destruction are pretty clear. Part of it is the substance itself, part of it is how it's used as a weapon.
ReplyDeleteFor your reference:
Geneva Protocol of 1925
http://fas-www.harvard.edu/~hsp/1925.html
Chemical Weapons Convention:
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html
Please cite a source that gives a lawful use for mustard gas. Please cite any source that says it is OK under international law or the Geneva Convention to use mustard gas in war.
Sorry bubbles, I didn't realize you took references to Hannity personal.
ReplyDeleteWhoooooosh...
ReplyDeleteJaycie, It isn't 1925 any more and Iraq doesn't belong to the UN. And, The US and Iraq aren't members of the OPCW.
I never said it was legal, or whatever, to use mustard. I said it isn't a WMD.
So, shuffles, what you're hanging your hat on is your interpretation that the worldwide authority on WMD's is the old Iraq government that doesn't exist anymore? That's pretty thin, don't you think?
ReplyDeleteDid you read the link where the worldwide bodies responsible for determining rules of land warfare declared that mustard gas was a Chemical Weapon and WMD?
I'll challenge you a third time:
SHOW ME WHERE THE UN OR ANY OTHER LEGAL BODY OR SANCTIONING ENTITY HAS DECLARED MUSTARD GAS TO BE AN ACCEPTABLE WEAPON UNDER THE RULES OF LAND WARFARE.
You can't, can you?
Yes Jacie, You are absolutely right in your own mind about your interpretation of what I said.
ReplyDeletePlease give me a quote from any of your links that states mustard is a WMD. Not that I would care much about erroneous information, but it would be a testament to your sanity.
When you checked "THE RULES OF LAND WARFARE" did you also check the rules of aquatic and air warfare? Or, did you get your information from the 'INTERGALACTIC BOOK OF THE RULES OF MUSTARDIZING' by The Grand Decider?
ReplyDeleteI was right. The Shuffler and cohorts HAVE revised the "No WMDs" Talking Point again.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work, Shuffles.....what would we do without people like you?
"shuffles said...
ReplyDeletePlease give me a quote from any of your links that states mustard is a WMD"
Earth to shuffles...helooooo??
Did you read the links I posted? They specify that mustard gas is a Chemical Weapon WMD.
When you ask questions that've already been answered you show your lack of attention to the truth. But that's not surprising.
"shuffles said...
ReplyDeletePlease give me a quote from any of your links that states mustard is a WMD"
Earth to shuffles...helooooo??
Did you read the links I posted? They specify that mustard gas is a Chemical Weapon WMD.
When you ask questions that have already been answered you show your lack of attention to the truth. But that's not surprising.
For the FOURTH time, shuffles, I challenge you:
SHOW ME WHERE THE UN OR ANY OTHER LEGAL BODY OR SANCTIONING ENTITY HAS DECLARED MUSTARD GAS TO BE AN ACCEPTABLE WEAPON UNDER THE RULES OF LAND WARFARE.
Thanks Bubbles, What would you do without people like me? Continue right along in the alternate reality of deep thought inspired by sound bites?
ReplyDeleteI don't have any cohorts and I haven't revised anything. I'm just trying to deal with truth and the facts. That's something Sen. Santorum may not be qualified to do. He is a professional politician with no military knowledge.
I guess you know what the Pentagon said about the same 500 reportedly WMD? Not that the Pentagon is always reliable (especially at this time), but if you had to pick based on subject knowledge?
Mustard being an acceptable weapon is irrelevant my dear Jaycie. I never said it was. I said, according to me and other knowledgeable people, it isn't a WMD.
ReplyDeleteI saw the links you posted. You lied about the content and you have proven it by not being able to provide the quote to back up your comment: "Did you read the link where the worldwide bodies responsible for determining rules of land warfare declared that mustard gas was a Chemical Weapon and WMD?". I didn't read that and neither did you. And, you haven't answered any questions. In fact, you don't even have an argument, or any demonstrated grasp of the subject.
Mustard being an acceptable weapon is irrelevant my dear Jaycie. I never said it was. I said, according to me and other knowledgeable people, it isn't a WMD.
I saw the links you posted. You lied about the content and you have proven it by not being able to provide the quote to back up your comment: "Did you read the link where the worldwide bodies responsible for determining rules of land warfare declared that mustard gas was a Chemical Weapon and WMD?". I didn't read that and neither did you. And, you haven't answered any questions. In fact, you don't even have an argument, or any demonstrated grasp of the subject.
shuffles:
ReplyDelete1) I told you the truth.
2) I showed you where the truth could be found so you could read it yourself.
3) I urged you to go read the truth if you didn't believe me.
If you insist on ignoring the truth, don't blame me for your ignorance.
Toodles.
Don't worry Jaycie. I will never blame you for my ignorance. How could I, I don't believe anything you say.
ReplyDelete"I don't believe anything you say."
ReplyDeleteHence, a contributing factor to your ignorance.
Stick around here, Shuffler.....we'll take on the task of educating you.
I don't need an education in the level of ignorance around here. It's obvious, you have a doctorate and Jaycee is a student.
ReplyDeleteHey, I resemble that remark!!
ReplyDelete