Document Details WMD Recovered In Iraq

[rmnunez]

"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." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

This was not in doubt, was known, but its omission was indicative and tendentious.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Wow! Seems a story about WMDs found in Iraq receives a bit more skepticism than a report of American soldiers killing an Iraqi man and staging the scene to make the man look like an insurgent.

Well the military did see fit to charge these soldiers with murder. They are innocent until proven guilty, even if the military has been treating them like convicted criminals. I have asked for your comment more than once about their treatment. The military kept these 8 in solitary confinement in leg irons and shackles for weeks without being charged for anything.

By your silence I presume that this treatment by the military is OK with you. You only seem to get upset if congressmen make statements that you consider out of line. When the military mistreats its own personel, you stand silent.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp Well the military did see fit to charge these soldiers with murder. They are innocent until proven guilty, even if the military has been treating them like convicted criminals. I have asked for your comment more than once about their treatment. The military kept these 8 in solitary confinement in leg irons and shackles for weeks without being charged for anything. By your silence I presume that this treatment by the military is OK with you. You only seem to get upset if congressmen make statements that you consider out of line. When the military mistreats its own personel, you stand silent.

I recall no such question. However the answer is simple. The case against these 8 men is a case of he said, he said, with the prosecution having no testimony of a witness to the shooting.

As such, the treatment of the soldiers, shackles and maximum security, is ridiculous

[rmnunez]

Did the 8 suspected soldiers endure torture and sexual humiliation during their idefinite detentions too?

[underbear1]

Santorum was laughed at on Keith Olbermann's show over his "weapons of minor discomfort"
http://newsbusters.org/node/6050

independent experts and the level-headed staggering in amazement tonight that deteriorated mustard gas cannisters, at least 15 years old and as much as 18 years old, could be pawned off by desperate politicians as some kind of rationale for the deaths of 2500 American Servicemen and women in Iraq. Republican Senator Rick Santorum, down 18 percent in the polls in his own reelection bid in Pennsylvania, joined by the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, in pimping part of a two-month-old military intelligence report describing the existence of old munitions shells with chemical weapons that are degraded, unusable, and nonthreatening. 'We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons,' Santorum told a news conference. Gullible news organizations treated the story with slightly less fervor than they might the Second Coming."

[bishop]

big surprise how little traction this reject story has garnered.. i'm not sure how much b.s. news can be thrown at the public to make them begin to support this war again..

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: bishop big surprise how little traction this reject story has garnered.. i'm not sure how much b.s. news can be thrown at the public to make them begin to support this war again..

The public better be careful. This is an election year, and if desperate politicians can't regain backing for the war by innocuous news reports and other means, we may be treated to some major event designed to remind the public that terrorists can strike again.

[underbear1]

The only thing that could shock and awe the American public to sending back Republicans to Congress, would be massive troop reductions in Iraq, and if Bush did that he'd be called CUT and RUN.
damned if you do, damned if you don't

[bishop]

ineffectual democrats can also give the republicans a helping hand. the current frontrunners in the democratic party are not impressive to say the least, with the exception of fiengold.

Quote by: zeebs The public better be careful. This is an election year, and if desperate politicians can't regain backing for the war by innocuous news reports and other means, we may be treated to some major event designed to remind the public that terrorists can strike again.

it'll either happen by their own design, or by individual fanatics who are either unknown to intelligence agents - or are given enough rope to hang themselves with.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/23/miami.raids/index.html

i would hope that our government isn't so vile as to kill civilians in order to win an election.. if they dared do such a thing, and the public found out about it there would be one hell of a shit storm.

[Osborn F Enready]

Ape said: Wow! Seems a story about WMDs found in Iraq receives a bit more skepticism than a report of American soldiers killing an Iraqi man and staging the scene to make the man look like an insurgent.

I say:
Now do you see the damage of a bruised and broken national image, and how it changes the "status quo" perception of America?

As they say, when you do something right it seems as though nobody notices. When you do something wrong, everyone and their brother is staring at you wondering what you did.

Our government, has allowed MANY MANY wrong things to happen since November 2000. This is the result in media acceptance.

The Bush administration is questionable, AT BEST in its legitimacy. A large percentage of whistleblowers are saying the same things, and it all points to corruption at all levels of the Bush administration.

Stop trying to make the soldiers the scapegoat for Republican politics. They are paying enough in blood for Republican agenda already.(not like the Democrat agenda is ANY different, it's not.)

We need about 430 new members of Congress, and about 200 new Senators, and a new President, all from neither major party. Then, then, you may start to see the U.S. looking like its old self again. Home of the free, land of the brave. Then we can again start earning some international respect again, and stop degrading our name and our ideals into a global order of criminals.

[deedee]

Quote by: RickSp Three years, 2507 dead, 20,000 wounded, hundreds of billions wasted, a deepening quagmire and a growing civil war and this is the best you've got? Degraded sarin and mustard gas. Old shells with traces of degraded nerve gas? That's it? Just demonstrates the fundamental point - Saddam was no threat imminent threat to the US as claimed. The war was unneccessary and illegal.

Correction........over 600,000 Shia people dead and missing. We could have prevented another 600,000.

yippe ki yay! we will find more i'm confident. i am on record for saying that it will be a matter of time before we find MWD's......we will find more. wait and see.

[Osborn F Enready]

Yea DeeDee, keep looking under chairs, tables in the oval office. There are plenty of WMDs.

This war was built on bad intelligence, that the intelligence people told them was bad intelligence.

They "had a hunch" there were WMD in Iraq, and there was not.

Artillery shells, please, that is not WMD, nor does it constitute an "imminent threat" either in the form of a mushroom cloud, nor our borders.

[brien]

Quote by: underbear1 The only thing that could shock and awe the American public to sending back Republicans to Congress, would be massive troop reductions in Iraq, and if Bush did that he'd be called CUT and RUN. damned if you do, damned if you don't

This business of CUT AND RUN and LIE AND DIE is just election year rhetoric.

The US has managed to get itself into a situation in Iraq that mirrors Veit Nam more as each day passes. Those of us old enough to remember, and those who fought in the Viet Nam war, realize that the similarities are haunting.

1) An unrecognizable enemy that is, at many times, indistinguishable from the allies in Iraq.

2) A hostile enviornment that most US soldiers, unless they are from the US desert, have never lived in during their entire short lives.

3) A government that refuses to prosecute the war to the fullest extent due to domestic and world wide criticism.

4) A substantial and influential population that is growing in numbers who refuse to continue to support the commitment that it will take to win the "war".

5) This is an undeclared "war" .

6) There is no clear cut reason for the US to be engaged in this conflict unless one agrees with an imperialist occupation of a sovereign nation in order to gain and retain a foothold in the oil rich middle east.

7) The US has no stomach for the returning soldiers in body bags that have died for reasons Americans can't even understand, much less agree with here.

8) The current American government is trying to export "Democracy and Freedom" and transplant it to another nation that will not, according to its history, accept it.

9) The cost of the "war" is bankrupting the nation. The deficit is exponentially increasing and will soon be the reason for major tax increases.

10) The American public has been misled when it comes to the entire "war". The American society has been told that if we don't stop terrorism in Iraq, it will be at our shores soon. Another lame "domino" theory. Events, reasons, and strategies have all been shaped by the current administration to mold them for a favorable public opinion to win support for action that has no clear cut benefit for the American society.

Enough is enough.

Solutions:

1) Pull out the troops over a one year peroid.

2) Pull out the troops over a extended plan that eventually hands over the control to the Iraqi government whether they are "ready" or not.

3) Renounce the Geneva Accords and prosecute the war by pouring one half million troops into the country.

4) Plan to occupy the country for the next 25 years.

5) Partiton the country in three distinct nations. Sunnistan, Shiistan and Kurdistan.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready ..... about 200 new Senators.......

Are we getting some new states?

[Osborn F Enready]

If Bush or the next Democrat elect gets their way, we will be annexing Mexico, so yes.

(btw, that was a typo)

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: deedee Correction........over 600,000 Shia people dead and missing. We could have prevented another 600,000.

Hmm I see numbers here, that aren't supported by any facts, and yet for some reason I am not surprised. Wonder why...

yippe ki yay! we will find more i'm confident. i am on record for saying that it will be a matter of time before we find MWD's......we will find more. wait and see.

If it wasn't so tragic it would be humorous - using cowboy slang to celebrate a "victory" that looks more and more like Little Bighorn every day.

I'm glad you're "on the record" that we will find more WMDs. I'm just not clear where they are going to be. Our troops control every military base, government building, palace, and pretty much everything else in the country. All of the Baath leaders are either dead or captured/surrendered. Where exactly would they be hiding at this point? Given the thousands of troops there and the state of "lockdown" in that country, don't you think we'd notice, say, a Soviet-era missle truck with a Scud-B on it's bed driving down the street?

The US has managed to get itself into a situation in Iraq that mirrors Veit Nam more as each day passes. Those of us old enough to remember, and those who fought in the Viet Nam war, realize that the similarities are haunting.

This is absolutely the case. I'm not old enough to remember, but I do study history and am dismayed by the similarities.
Whenever anyone talks about "bringing democracy to Iraq" I'm reminded of this quote from Full Metal Jacket:

We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: brien 5) This is an undeclared "war"

I agree. Congress signed the Iraq war resolution on the condition that junior comply with the UN. Junior ultimately told the UN to git out, or die. that doesnt sound like compliance. But he did "Declare" war. That war ended. The war ended years ago:

Reclaim The Issues - "Occupation," Not "War" by Thom Hartmann Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "War in Iraq" they are promoting one of Karl Rove's most potent Republican Party frames. There is no longer a war against Iraq. It ended in May of 2003, when George W. Bush stood below a "Mission Accomplished" sign aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and correctly declared that we had "victoriously" defeated the Iraqi army and overthrown their government. Our military machine is tremendously good at fighting wars - blowing up infrastructure, killing opposing armies, and toppling governments. We did that successfully in Iraq, in a matter of a few weeks. We destroyed their army, wiped out their air defenses, devastated their Republican Guard, seized their capitol, arrested their leaders, and took control of their government. We won the war. It's over. What we have now is an occupation of Iraq. The occupation began when the war ended, and continues to this day. According to our own Pentagon estimates, at least ninety five percent of those attacking our soldiers are Iraqi civilians who view themselves as anti-occupation fighters. And last week both the Defense Minister and the Vice President of Iraq asked us for a specific date on which the occupation would end. The distinction between "war" and "occupation" is politically critical for 2006 because wars can be won or lost, but occupations most honorably end by redeployments. <snip> On the other hand, an "occupation" is something that logically should one day end, and, if it's an expensive occupation in lives or money, will find popular support to end as soon as possible. <snip> If Democrats can succeed over the next three months in making it clear to average Americans that the "War In Iraq" ended in 2003, and that we're now engaged in an "Occupation Of Iraq," then Democratic suggestions to end or greatly diminish the occupation will take on a resonance and cogency that will both help them in an election year, and help to bring our soldiers to safety and Iraq to stability. On the other hand, if Democrats are perceived as pushing for America to "lose the war in Iraq," they will be vilified and damned by Republicans and many swing voters, and could thus lose big in 2006. The "War" is over. The Occupation has now lasted 3 years and one month - far longer than necessary. Here's a "for example" scenario - fictitious at this moment - of how Democrats should play it out: Quote by: Example Dialogue [Tim Russert]: So, Senator Reid, what do you think of this most recent news from the War In Iraq? [Senator Reid]: The war ended in May of 2003, Tim. Our military did their usual brilliant job, and we defeated Saddam's army. The Occupation Of Iraq, however, isn't going so well, in large part because the Bush Administration has totally botched the job, leading to the death of thousands of our soldiers, and dragging our nation into disrepute around the world. I'd like to see us greatly scale down the current Occupation of Iraq, redeploy our Occupation Forces to nearby nations in case we're needed by the new Iraqi government, and get our brave young men and women out of harm's way. Occupations have a nasty way of fomenting civil wars, you know, and we don't want this one to go any further than it has. [Tim Russert]: But isn't the War In Iraq part of the Global War On Terror? [Senator Reid]: Our Occupation Of Iraq is encouraging more Muslims around the world to eye us suspiciously. Some may even be inspired by our Occupation of this Islamic nation to take up arms or unconventional weapons against us, perhaps even here at home, just as Osama Bin Laden said he hit us on 9/11 because we were occupying part of his homeland, Saudia Arabia, at the Prince Sultan Air Force Base, where Bush Senior first put troops in 1991 to project force into Kuwait and enforce the Iraqi no-fly zone. The Bush policy of an unending Occupation Of Iraq is increasing the danger that people will use the tactic of terror against us and our allies, and, just like George W. Bush wisely redeployed our troops from Saudi Arabia, we should begin right now to redeploy our troops who are occupying Iraq. [Tim Russert]: But the War... [Senator Reid]: Tim, Tim, Tim! The war is over! George W. Bush declared victory himself, in May of 2003, when our brave soldiers seized control of Iraq. That's the definition of the end of a war, as anybody who's ever served in the military can tell you. Unfortunately, our Occupation Of Iraq since the end of the war, using a small military force and a lot of Halliburton, hasn't worked. We should take Halliburton's billions and give them to the Iraqis so they can rebuild their own nation, the way we helped Europeans rebuild after World War Two. And go from being an occupying power to being an ally of Iraq and the Iraqi people, like we did with Japan and Germany. [Tim Russert (bewildered)]: I can't call it a war anymore? We have to change our NBC "War In Iraq" banners and graphics? [Senator Reid (patting Russert's hand)]: Yes, Tim. The war is over. It's now an occupation, and has been for three years. And like all occupations, it's best to wrap it up so Iraq can get on with their business. I'm sure your graphics people can come up with some new logos that say "Occupation Of Iraq." It'll be a nice project for them, maybe even earn them some much-needed overtime pay. The "War In Iraq" graphics are getting a bit stale, don't you think? After all, soon we'll be able to say that we fought World War II in less time than we've been in Iraq. Wars are usually short, but occupations - particularly when they're done stupidly - can be hellish. [Tim Russert (brightening)]: Ah, so! Now I get it! I even wrote about wars and occupations in my book about my dad. Thanks for coming on the program today and clarifying this for us. If the Democrats don't shift the discussion from "war" to "occupation," the Republicans will succeed in painting them as being "in favor of losing a war," which will destroy their electoral possibilities. Instead, every time a Republican or a member of the press uses the Rove slogan "War in Iraq," Democrats need to correct them by saying, "You mean the Occupation of Iraq..."

I apologize if this is still too long. I deleted some large chunks of pertinent info. I recieved this in a email newsletter, last night. If I find it posted on the web, I will come back with a link. Thom Hartmans articles appear on Common Dreams and Truthout, regularly. Thom Hartmann is the champion of the middle class. A national radio host for the radical middle. Right now hes talking about the super secret "Super Highway" from Mexico to Canada (Listen now) Bernie Sanders is his regular guest on Fridays.

Edit to add:
Heres that article

[Apeman81]

The reaction to this story is as expected. Those who oppose “this” war have used the “say it til they believe it” method of pushing the idea of WMDs as the sole reason for toppling Saddam.

Forget about his refusal to live up to the cease-fire agreement, forget his interfering with the weapons inspectors, forget his support of international terrorism ($50,000. for the families of suicide bombers), and forget the mass graves, rape rooms, and generally tyrannical rule. Forget his thumbing his nose at the U.N. and 17 resolutions they passed that he ignored. Forget that the war could have been avoided by his stepping down from power. The war was only about WMDs.

The hue and cry of “No WMDs found” started as soon as possible. Anyone who cared to know could read about the truck convoys and ships leaving Iraq for Syria and elsewhere with unknown cargo on board during the months preceding the start of hostilities. I guess it was dried dates.

It doesn’t require an exceptional IQ to realize that given the size of the country of and the continued skirmishes with terrorists that the search for WMDs was not the highest priority, and would require a lot of time. Besides, the real goal of the war, the removal of Saddam and allowing the establishment of a new government in Iraq required more attention than the straw man reason of WMDs.

So now we find that as time passes, more and more data is collected. As well, we can realize that we simply do not have all the data that has already been collected.

Knowing that we are ignorant of all the facts, and knowing that not all of the facts have been collected, we are left with a quandary. Do we adopt a cautious wait and see attitude? Do we blindly ignore the obvious and continue to rush about, shrilly screeching about “there are no WMDs”? Do we continue to try to make political hay out of the issue?

You are free to choose your path.

[deedee]

Quote by: brien Desperate people do desperate things.

Uh huh......we are desperate.....it is good to be desperate in taking care of those who can do 'mass'ive harm.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel I agree. Congress signed the Iraq war resolution on the condition that junior comply with the UN. Junior ultimately told the UN to git out, or die. that doesnt sound like compliance. But he did "Declare" war. That war ended. The war ended years ago: I apologize if this is still too long. I deleted some large chunks of pertinent info. I recieved this in a email newsletter, last night. If I find it posted on the web, I will come back with a link. Thom Hartmans articles appear on Common Dreams and Truthout, regularly. Thom Hartmann is the champion of the middle class. A national radio host for the radical middle. Right now hes talking about the super secret "Super Highway" from Mexico to Canada (Listen now) Bernie Sanders is his regular guest on Fridays. Edit to add: Heres that article

This is rich. "we're not getting enough traction from our antiwar base! What do we do now?" "I got it! Don't say war, say occupation!"

Fine. Ignore the "occupation" of Germany, Japan, and Italy following WWII is which the presence of our military (which is good at "blowing up infrastructure, killing opposing armies, and toppling governments") was essential to rebuilding the infrastructure and helping the people to establish a government.

Just like it's doing now