I will expect multiple mea culpas and self-flagellation from the far Lefties who've been attacking the Bush Administration because WMDs were not found in Iraq, since four litres of Sarin liquid were used just a few days ago in an attack.

'Course, like pictures of Nick Berg's beheading, don't look for this news in the so-called "mainstream" media.  It would tend to lend support to the President, and hence, is not newsworthy.

The fact is, this was a single, very old weapon, that didn't even have a sufficiently viable Sarin supply to be very dangerous, which is why the two folks who were injured sufferred from only minor exposure symptoms.

Nobody EVER claimed that Saddam NEVER had chemical weapons.  Only that he no longer maintained ACTIVE, VIABLE stockpiles, such that would represent a threat to the U.S.  If this is the most dangerous WMD that Saddam ever had, then Bush ought to be ashamed of himself for getting over 750 brave American troops killed in order to find one old, dud Sarin shell that somehow escaped being destroyed with the rest of Saddam's obsolete weaponry.

See link.

-- Modified on 5/19/2004 6:28:40 PM

Iraq admitted that it produced sarin gas and put it into warheads.  They also destroyed the massive stockpiles as part of the actions that they were required to take after the first gulf war.  It is entirely that the shell that exploded and released the gas, if it is in fact sarin gas, could have been a stray shell that somehow did not get destroyed, either because it was hidden of because it was simply missed.
    I know I will be accused of having flawed logic by some, but my logic tells me that if the insurgents had or knew of large stockpiles of nerve agent containing warheads, they would have used them in droves by now.  Until further evidence convinces me other wise, I believe that the unmarked warhead that exploded was picked up by some creep who just wanted to setup a roadside bomb to kill US soldiers, that person or persons did not know what was in the shell.

Here are two things I am sure of about Iraq and WMD's.

1. The intel was incorrect & overplayed by everybody, not just EvilBush(tm)
2. Iraq had some stockpiled chemical weapons in the form of arty shells, precise number unknown, and Iraq had precursor materials for producing chemical and biological agents. This was clearly stated in the Kay Report.

Details on the 155mm arty shell that was discovered are still sketchy. One sure thing is that 4 liters of Sarin can kill a shitload of people if it is properly dispersed.

But what really interests me is who provided the VX nerve agent that was discovered in the foiled Al Queda/al-Zarqawi terror attemp in Jordan last month? Syria has been indirectly implicated. In his testimony before Congress last year, weapons inspector Kay said U.S. satellite surveillance showed substantial vehicular traffic going from Iraq to Syria just prior to the U.S. invasion. There are still alot of unanswered questions about WMD's. It'll be interesting to see how things unfold over time.

RLTW

You've once again gone off half-cocked about something without knowing the facts. Kind of like the "wedding" post above.

Nothing about the age of that 155mm arty shell has been verified as of yet. What is known is that it was a binary agent delivery warhead which, if properly deployed would have a very high killing potential. On a strict by volume basis, four liters of Sarin has the potential to kill upwards of 50,000 people. That's a five, followed by alot of zeroes. Acknowledging all of the variables that successful dispersion of Sarin from an arty shell would require, a conservative estimate of the effective killing potential of one successfully deployed shell is easily in the range of several thousand people, i.e. "mass" destruction.

That the terrorists who tried to use the shell did not know what they had is almost certain. But the claim that it is the only one left in all of Iraq is ludicrous.

You are becoming redundant and predictable.

RLTW

I didn't really expect the far Lefties on this Board to issue any "mea culpas" or engage in any "self-flagellation."  In fact, I expected exactly what we've seen here --- excuses, excuses, excuses.  One of our resident Lefties even claims to have conceded that Iraq had WMDs "at one time," even though the evidence seems to be otherwise, and he consistently beats up an Administration which merely was enforcing existing UN mandate.

I love the Left.  Never let the facts get in the way of your hatred of EvilBush.

There are probably several of these, that were removed from the old stockpiles by various insurgent groups.  But pretty clearly, this was NOT intentionally deployed as a sarin bomb by whomever had it.  It certainly is NOT compelling evidence of an existing stockpile of viable weaponry of Mass Destruction, which is what various Bush apologists went off half cocked, claiming it was.

What I said was, they NEVER had an imminent NUCLEAR threat, and that their chemical and biological programs were no longer a threat because Saddam had given up trying to make them into a threat because of the U.N. Sanctions.



-- Modified on 5/20/2004 7:02:17 PM

Good to see you agree with the Bush Administration, which likewise never said it was an "imminent NUCLEAR threat."  Precisely the opposite was true, since the argument was that we should deal with the threat before it became "imminent."  And to assert that "their chemical and biological programs were no longer a threat because Saddam had given up trying to make them into a threat because of the U.N. sanctions" is simply Pollyannaism, and perhaps narcissism, at its finest.   Threat to WHOM?  We shouldn't care because he only used them against his own people, or other Muslims (i.e., Kurds, Iranians, and those pesky Sunnis in his own country?

But you asked for "evidence."  Since you ignore it when presented by the Bush Administration, I suspect you'll like it even less when presented against yourself.  You know, that nasty, illegitimate Conservative tactic of using Liberals' own words against them.

Posted by sdstud  , 4/27/2004 9:23:32 AM

"...WHATEVER public utterances were made by the Clinton administration, It is clear that they DID NOT have enough of a CONCLUSIVE WMD CASE...."

"...Saddam had no active WMD programs of ANY type, and CERTAINLY no active Nuclear program...."

BUT "...Bush could still have logically concluded that Saddam had hidden stockpiles of bio or chemical agents,..."

"...a WMD case that was fully known in advance to be inaccurate...."

"...nobody in the Administration actually CARED what the real information was, so long as a proper WMD case could be cooked up to justify overthrowing Saddam."

All of which adds up to the functional equivalent of Holocaust deniers.  Saddam had, stockpiled, and used WMDs.  You want to accuse the Administration of lying, and repeatedly say that it said that the threat was "imminent," but it never did so, and the entire point (and controversy) of a policy of preemption is to deal with a threat before it becomes "imminent."

The behavior of Saddamites post-fall is graphic evidence of the lengths to which they will go once their power is threatened/dissipated.  And the point of preemption is better now and there than later, and here.

Three thousand dead Americans and guests stand as stark testimony to the folly of waiting until a threat is "imminent" in a world where technology is making mass murder on a grand scale attainable by well-organized small groups.

Including using all types of state of the art sensor devices that can detect the stuff from a distance, despite it being well hidden.  And we did not find anything.  And the expert, David Kay, who ran the search effort, who started out with a FIRM BELIEF that the stuff WAS there, was forced to conclude from the evidence that in fact there no longer WERE stockpiles.

Whether or not they used the words Imminent, they CERTAINLY used the terms "gathering storm" and Implied an Imminent threat.

And if fact, the problem with your entire hypothesis is that the U.N. inspectors, and later David Kay, effectively established NO ACTIVE WMD programs at all.  Not NEVER, Saddam certainly USED to have them.  But the evidence was, by the time we went to war, CLEAR, that Saddam did NOT represent ANY threat to the U.S.

Anything that the Bush Administration said to the contrary was designed to sell a war to the American Public, based on either dubious or completely fabricated information.

The FACT is, there are MANY nations that represented and STILL represent MORE of a threat to the U.S. than Saddam Hussein did in circa 2002.  These include, China, Chechnya, North Korea, Iran.  As well as other nations, that UNLIKE IRAQ, actually harbored Terrorist groups who hate us, including Syria, the Sudan, Yemen, and even Saudi Arabia.

Your revisionism cannot hide the fact that this war has done NOTHING to benefit the U.S., and at HUGE cost to the U.S.  (in both lives and money) and it was an ill-concieved idea from the beginning of the Bush Administration's term, when it was first proposed in the Administration.  

And, BTW, you wrote a nice missive which still never answered the point I made in my prior post.  I NEVER said that Saddam never had any WMDs.  All I said was that the evidence was compelling to anyone who actually looked at it, that in 2002, Iraq represented NO threat to the U.S.   I cannot, however, say that in 2004.  Because NOW, Al Qaida is there, and clearly planning to do us future harm.   So George Bush DOES get credit for CREATING a nation in Iraq which NOW represents a substantial AND IMMINENT, threat to U.S. security, and which was not one before.

-- Modified on 5/21/2004 6:56:49 PM

Oh, it's so refreshing to see sdstud finally admit that, when he is busily accusing the Bush Administration of lying and calling it an "imminent threat," he is merely confusing what he was was inferring with what the Administration was actually saying, graphically demonstrating the difference between what they "imply" and what he, in his far Left fog, chose to infer.

I do agree that "by the time we went to war, CLEAR, that Saddam did NOT represent ANY threat to the U.S."  Like the Administration, I was unwilling to wait until he did represent a threat.  Congratulations, sdstud: you seem to understand "preemption."

And of course, sdstud demonstrates the finest 20/20 hindsight about Kay's claims, which were not "effectively established" prior to the war, since it was abundantly clear to everyone, even Hans Blix, that Saddam had not met HIS BURDEN of demonstrating that he neither had an active WMD program, nor that he had WMDs stockpiled.

Likewise, sdstud demonstrates the far Left's tactic of demanding action anywhere but where the Administration thought we should go, a strategic decision which --- while certainly subject to debate --- was within the power of the President to make, as primary official charged with responsibility for foreign policy.  Of course, the point of the far Left's criticism is not to actually achieve any action, but merely to muddy the waters and prevent ANY effective execution of foreign policy.

Are those countries threats?  Save for possibly Chechnya (which is not a country), to be sure.  I wonder what sdstud thinks we should do or should have done about them?

Finally, it's nonsense to assert that Iraq "NOW represents a substantial AND IMMINENT, threat to U.S. security, and which was not one before."  Americans are dying, and that's a tragedy, to be sure.  But no foreseeable Iraqi regime is likely to launch or provide to terrorists WMDs for an attack upon the United States.

And any claim to the contrary is simply a lie.  See the post at the top of the forum for the documentation of several occurrances of the Administration perpetrating this lie.

I was unable to open the link, and I don't know why.

However, the far Lefties at MoveOn.org have a reputation for telling only half of the story, and probably neglected to mention the post-interview clarification/withdrawal.  It did it before, with regard to a comment by Ari Fleischer, as I recall.

Of course, who's telling the lie here?  You say that "the post at the top of the forum for the documentation of several occurrances of the Administration perpetrating this lie," when it is one interview.

Perhaps a lie.  

-- Modified on 5/25/2004 5:22:46 PM

BTW, James86 we are still waiting for your documentation of
the legitimate shortcomings of the Bush Administration.

Did they include the incompetence and derilection of duty cited by Anthony Zinni?

Did they include the fiscal irresponsibility cited by Dick Lugar and John McCain in the recent budget debates?

We are still waiting.  


-- Modified on 5/25/2004 7:17:25 PM