Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 8, 2006

'I THINK THE JURY IS STILL OUT ON WMD'....I can appreciate that many Republicans are slightly embarrassed that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, but that's no reason for lawmakers to go into denial.

Last night, Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) faced off in a debate against Joseph Sestak (D), a former deputy chief of naval operations and the first director of Deep Blue, the Navy's anti-terrorism group. Naturally, the war in Iraq was a major topic, and the two debated the principal reason used to launch the invasion.

While Sestak said Iraq was "not a clear nor a present danger" because no weapons of mass destruction have been found, Weldon said he knows of four sites in Basra and Nasiriyah that have yet to be searched for biological or chemical weapons.

"I think the jury is still out on WMD," said Weldon.

It's been three years, Charles Duelfer said Iraq did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, but Weldon wants his constituents to hold out hope that he was right all along.

Did I mention that Weldon is the vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee?

Steve Benen 11:59 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (152)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

John Stewart had a guy on a few weeks ago trying to sell the "they're in Syria" line.

faith is a tough nut to crack.

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

I go over to RedState occasionally, just for the reality check of how my arguments hold up against right-wing partisans. (Or did; I think they cut off my posting privileges yesterday.) Even nowadays, posters there believe WMDs were found over there - as if the Bush Administration wouldn't make sure the whole freakin' world knew about it, if that had happened.

It's some sort of right-wing dementia, like believing there's no connection between human CO2 output and global warming.

Posted by: RT on June 8, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Searching for WMD in Iraq is like searching for a specific matchbook in the state of California. Even if you know it's there, it's very difficult to find.Is a little patience while our troops continue to search too much to ask?

Posted by: American Hawk on June 8, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure it's fair to call it denial. It's more a conscious strategy to appeal to the stupider members of the Republican base.

Posted by: grh on June 8, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

What a frickin' looney.

Absence of evidence.

Evidence of absence.

Evident intelligence is absent.

Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on June 8, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

WMD's were just one of many reasons to continue hostilities with Iraq. As many on this thread will say Bush and this administration lied to the American public, I say you are lying to yourself.
With Saddam in power, the sanctions being bypassed, eventually Saddam would try and restore his Bio, Chem, and Nuclear arms as Deulfer said as well.

Posted by: Clinton Era on June 8, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure it's fair to call it denial. It's more a conscious strategy to appeal to the stupider members of the Republican base.

This was aimed directly at American Hawk, right?

Posted by: Nikki on June 8, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Searching for WMD in Iraq is like searching for a specific matchbook in the state of California.

WTF? Is that WMD in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

Posted by: ckelly on June 8, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

I think Curt Weldon is still out to lunch.

Posted by: ckelly on June 8, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Hawk nails it! As long as there are troops in harms way, you must not question any Republican!!!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on June 8, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

This was aimed directly at American Hawk, right?

Actually no. I hadn't seen that when I wrote my comment. But I knew people like him and "Clinton Era" would show up. It's like there's some kind of bat signal.

One thing that's interesting about the internet is it's made it clear how much the U.S. right wing thrives on the manipulation of the stupid. It's something the people at the top of the food chain do relentlessly and with some real skill.

Posted by: grh on June 8, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Searching for WMD in Iraq is like searching for a specific matchbook in the state of California

a matchbook the size of 30,000 chemical munitions, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin , 25,000 liters of anthrax and several "mobile weapons labs" ?

yeah. those 30,000 artillery shells are under a couch cushion at a couscous restaurant somewhere in Basra.

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with American Hawk.
WMDs are very tiny.

I believe that women from Saddam's harem smuggled the WMDs into Syria under those long skirts -barkas.

Posted by: Pierre Asciutto on June 8, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

grh: It's like there's some kind of bat signal.

Yes, a sort of electronic dinner bell summoning the batty.

One thing that's interesting about the internet is it's made it clear how much the U.S. right wing thrives on the manipulation of the stupid. It's something the people at the top of the food chain do relentlessly and with some real skill.

Indeed. Before, you could only encounter criminally stupid people if you sought them out in their haunts of stupidity, encountered them on the street or at work, etc. Now, they conveniently show up online at all hours to display their idiocy for the entire world's entertainment.

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

AH: Searching for WMD in Iraq is like searching for a specific matchbook in the state of California. Even if you know it's there, it's very difficult to find.Is a little patience while our troops continue to search too much to ask?

Well, not exactly because Iraq and California are very nearly the same size, so it would be like looking for a number of ammo dumps in California. Which certainly wouldn't be easy, but since we have been looking for three years now, how much longer do you think we should look?

Posted by: cyntax on June 8, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

I have read the Able Danger things Weldon has brought forward, and the terrorists that the program knew about, but was not followed up upon.

Weldon had been honest in these house transcripts, as far as one can tell, being a sheople.

Why he is just now bringing this WMD up is curious.

Posted by: Mesell Malkintent on June 8, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

but since we have been looking for three years now, how much longer do you think we should look?

Until after the elections, at the very least.

Iraq -- it's not a war, it's a campaign ad!

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on June 8, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

[The] right wing thrives on the manipulation of the stupid.

Thats going on a bumper sticker as a concise critique of my neighbors in my very Republican neighborhood.

Grh, you rule!

Posted by: Keith G on June 8, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

Hey on another note, how come Republicans like Weldon can argue with and impugn former military commanders like Sestak without being considered treasonous bastards? Does military service only make you a subject matter expert if you stick to Republican talking points?

Posted by: cyntax on June 8, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Does military service only make you a subject matter expert if you stick to Republican talking points?

Yes. Jack Murtha told me so.

Next question.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on June 8, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

"Charles Duelfer said Iraq did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons"

This sounds like a plan to me (from the linked article):

"The official said Duelfer will tell Congress in the report and in testimony today that Hussein intended to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction programs if he were freed of the U.N. sanctions that prevented him from getting needed materials.

Duelfer's report said Hussein was pursuing an aggressive effort to subvert the international sanctions through illegal financing and procurement efforts, officials said. The official said the report states that Hussein had the intent to resume full-scale weapons of mass destruction efforts after the sanctions were eliminated, and details Hussein's efforts to hinder international inspectors and preserve his weapons of mass destruction capabilities."

Posted by: c on June 8, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

The search for WMD (Weldon's Mental Disorder) was successful long ago...

Posted by: adios on June 8, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK
Does military service only make you a subject matter expert if you stick to Republican talking points?

The data would seem to support this keen observation.

Posted by: Windhorse on June 8, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

"Searching for WMD in Iraq is like searching for a specific matchbook in the state of California."

We start bombing California in five minutes.

Posted by: Kenji on June 8, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

It seems clear that Saddam didn't have WMDs in 2003, but a mystery remains: What happened to the large store of chemical weapons that the UN inspectors confirhe had when he kicked them out in 1998?

Until this question is answered, I'm unwilling to mock Weldon.

Posted by: ex-liberal on June 8, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

"display their idiocy for the entire world's entertainment"

Entertainment might be too strong a word.
But, you make your point, their idiocy is definitely out there, way out there.

Posted by: Pierre Asciutto on June 8, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

sestak's real problem was that he knew what he was talking about, while arguing with a hack.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on June 8, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

What happened to the large store of chemical weapons that the UN inspectors confirhe had when he kicked them out in 1998?

seems like something else happened in 1998... something to do with airstrikes maybe ?

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Until this question is answered, I'm unwilling to mock Weldon. ~ ex-liberal

Mock him? The guy's a total nut job.

Which part of Total Nut Job don't you get?

Posted by: adios on June 8, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Until this question is answered, I'm unwilling to mock Weldon.

Fortunately, we have no such reticence about mocking you.

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

From my vantage point here in the 50th District in San Diego, none of this matters any more.

The Repub support is set in concrete. These guys will vote for a Republican candidate even if he molests their six year old in the public square in front of a thousand people. The democrats' gutlessness and inability to run a winning campaign is a part of their DNA now. They will not be able to win the majority even if Republicans are demonsrated to be the agents of the devil himself.

So bringing attention to all these outrageous and idiotic comments by Republicans is not going to change anything.

I am outta here.

Posted by: lib on June 8, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal:

What happened to the large store of chemical weapons that the UN inspectors confirmed he had when he kicked them out in 1998?

The U.N. inspectors never "confirmed" this. This was an idiotic administration talking point that apparently can never be killed off.

By the end of 1991, Iraq had essentially nothing except some hidden paper. (The 1998 Desert Fox airstrikes had no effect on Iraq's WMD programs, because none existed; even the paper had been turned over to the U.N.)

Posted by: Jon on June 8, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

It seems clear that Saddam didn't have WMDs in 2003, but a mystery remains: What happened to the large store of chemical weapons that the UN inspectors confirhe had when he kicked them out in 1998?

Until this question is answered, I'm unwilling to mock Weldon.

Who gives a fuck? Chemical weapons aren't 'weapons of mass destruction'. They can be cooked in a very modest laboratory with widely available chemicals. Some of them you can make in your kitchen. One of the lunacies of the run up to war was watching people talk about chem weapons as if they represented a state-level threat.

Posted by: tavella on June 8, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

By the end of 1991, Iraq had essentially nothing except some hidden paper

cite ?

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

c,

This sounds like a plan to me (from the linked article):

"The official said Duelfer will tell Congress in the report and in testimony today that Hussein intended to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction programs if he were freed of the U.N. sanctions that prevented him from getting needed materials."

[emphasis added]

To me that sounds like an intent not a plan, and it shows that sanctions were working. Which might explain why another military expert like General Zinni (in charge of CentCom before Franks) also thought Saddam was contained.

But why listen to the experts?

Posted by: cyntax on June 8, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

What happened to the large store of chemical weapons that the UN inspectors confirhe had when he kicked them out in 1998?

Some were destroyed by Clinton's cruise missiles. Some degraded. Some weren't really there. But, in any case, it was clear at the time of Blix's pre-war report to the UN that there was no pressing danger from enormous stockpiles, that there might well have been none at all and that there was no nuclear program, at all.

It was absolutely clear, before the war started--before Bush told the inspectors to leave--that there was no threat whatsoever from Iraq, to the US or to the region.

Posted by: JayAckroyd on June 8, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

rh: It's like there's some kind of bat signal.

Yes, a sort of electronic dinner bell summoning the batty.Posted by: shortstop

And, of course, just like Pavlov's dog (no, not that fucking horrible band Bob) they drool as well.

Posted by: JeffII on June 8, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

But Cheney told us that he/we knew exactly where they were!

Posted by: mat1492 on June 8, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Searching for WMD in Iraq is like searching for a specific matchbook in the state of California. Even if you know it's there, it's very difficult to find.Is a little patience while our troops continue to search too much to ask?

But I don't understand. Don "Sun Tzu" Rumsfeld told me he knew where they were, with a pretty fair degree of precision. Hasn't anyone searched the Tikrit vicinity, and areas north, south, east and west of it? Those grunts need to quit cowering behind the Kevlar, and vindicate the wisdom of their beloved Don! Get searchin', boys!

Posted by: sglover on June 8, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop: The best summation of the phenomenon we see with the trolls around here I have heard thus far is as follows:

"Before the Internet, the idiot tended to stay in his own village."

Posted by: S Ra on June 8, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

"Before the Internet, the idiot tended to stay in his own village."

Telecommuting really works!

Posted by: sglover on June 8, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

"Before the Internet, the idiot tended to stay in his own village." ... Telecommuting really works!

yow. like i'm not gonna use that the first (and second, and third, and fourth) chance i get.

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Weldon is shirking his duty if he "knows" there are sites that weren't searched and is only bringing them up in an offhand riposte in a debate a year and half after Duelfer issued his final report. Why hasn't he been shouting this from the rooftoops, or at least every FOX gabfest that'd have him? I'll tell ya why. It's all bullshit.

Posted by: Mark Garrity on June 8, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Me:

By the end of 1991, Iraq had essentially nothing except some hidden paper

cleek:

cite?

It's sort of amazing to me that, even among people predisposed to dislike Bush, this isn't common knowledge. It may be that it's SO embarrassing for the U.S. generally (including the Clinton administration) that no one wants to discuss it.

Here's the Duelfer report on Iraq's nuclear program:

Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

Chemical weapons:

ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.

Biological weapons:

ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent.

Paper:

Saddam had hoped to gain favor after a massive turnover of WMD-related documents that the Regime discovered at Husayn Kamils chicken farm [in 1995]

That's why this statement by JayAckroyd:

Some were destroyed by Clinton's cruise missiles. Some degraded.

is incorrect. Nothing WMD-related was destroyed by Clinton's cruise missiles, unless you want to define all of Iraq's military and industrial infrastruture as "WMD-related." Nor did anything degrade. Iraq was disarmed of everything but paper by the time Clinton took office.

Again, this is embarrassing for EVERYONE, so perhaps that's why these imaginary factoids circulate.

Posted by: Jon on June 8, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

It seems clear that Saddam didn't have WMDs in 2003, but a mystery remains: What happened to the large store of chemical weapons that the UN inspectors confirhe had when he kicked them out in 1998?

The R & D, manufacture, transportation and storage of that kind of weaponry leaves extensive footprints. I guess one could hid it under a rock, but it not be a safe or effective weapon after a short while.

No, Ex Lib, The whole WMD issue was opiate for the masses.

Posted by: Keith G on June 8, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Jon, thanks. i agree, it is amazing that doesn't get much discussion.

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

"slightly embarrassed that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction"

Huh? Everyone thought that Iraq had WMDs back then. I remember during the invasion where everyone watching TV expected chemical assaults on our troops to happen at any moment. The left is obsessed with the WMD question instead of figuring out where we should go from here in Iraq.

Posted by: Dan Morgan on June 8, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

I think Rep. Curt Weldon's brain is still out of his skull.

Posted by: Jon Karak on June 8, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Rummy said he knew where the WMD was! Even if Weldon turns out right, it is lousy intel to have to wait that long to zero in on the right spot.

PS - Kos is reminding us that altho it is cool to pop Zarqawi, Bush had a chance to nail him before and didn't (perhaps for crass triangulational reasons) and etc. Naturally the dextrocranks will complain how much the left is "disappointed" that Iraq might turn out better despite the clear relief about getting the jerk.

Posted by: Neil' on June 8, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Did I mention that Weldon is the vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee?

This sort of lurid fantasy and refusal to admit reality is why people don't trust Republicans when it comes to our national security.

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Dan, you wrote:

The left is obsessed with the WMD question instead of figuring out where we should go from here in Iraq.

I would feel a lot better, if the current administration could actually figure out "where we should go from here in Iraq."

Posted by: Keith G on June 8, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

I remember during the invasion where everyone watching TV expected chemical assaults on our troops to happen at any moment. ~Dan Morgan

Erm...you remember polling "everyone" during that invasion to find out what they were thinking? Could you describe how?

What difference would it make anyway...TV watchers are misled all the time by propogandists, PR flacks, official lies. The existence of WMD is unrelated.

No one's "obsessed" with the WMD question. We're just interested in who's been telling the truth and who's been lying, so as to know who has no credibility vis-a-vis "where we should go from here in Iraq."

Posted by: adios on June 8, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Now that the trolls have been dispatched, a new contest:

Other juries that are still out?

Posted by: Friend of Labor on June 8, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Dan Morgan:

Huh? Everyone thought that Iraq had WMDs back then.

I understand why people feel they have to repeat something as egregiously false as this. (The faux-naive "Huh?" is a particularly nice touch.) But here in 2006 it's really getting on my nerves.

Posted by: Jon on June 8, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

It is so hilarious when Admin. apologists like Dan want us to quit thinking about Admin. mistakes. You know they wouldn't brush off Clinton mistakes, or a Dem after '08 should he/she get elected.

BTW Dan et al - if you want to help us go somewhere better from here, try enlisting and fighting - prove the "chickenhawk" critics wrong!
I am out of the loop as an old man in any case...

Posted by: Neil' on June 8, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Huh? Everyone thought that Iraq had WMDs back then. I remember during the invasion where everyone watching TV expected chemical assaults on our troops to happen at any moment. The left is obsessed with the WMD question instead of figuring out where we should go from here in Iraq.

That word, "everyone," I don't think it means what you think it means....

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

dan, let us try one more time: most people thought it was not unreasonable to assume that saddam still had some stocks of chemical and biological materials, perhaps in weaponized form.

many fewer people believed that saddam had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, but that was the big sell the bush administration used, and of course, the few people that did believe that claptrap were largely in positions of power in the bush administration.

Jon, thanx for beating me to the punch: i was going to quote the duelfur report too. it's amazing how few people who believe that saddam must have had wmds have bothered to look at the report.

Posted by: howard on June 8, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK


It wasn't about WMDs. Again, it's not about WMD. Bush used it as a cover story. Let's stop debating this as if Bush truly cared about it. If Bush truly cared about WMDs, why isn't he preparing to invade Iran, who actually possesses the infrastructure to develop it? Iraq was at least 5-10 years away from Iran now. Even if we knew for a fact that Saddam DIDN'T have WMDs, Bush would've still come up with some reason to attack him.

Posted by: Andy on June 8, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

"Before the Internet, the idiot tended to stay in his own village."

Holy smoke, that's good, S Ra!

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Huh? Everyone thought that Iraq had WMDs back then

not me

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

The best argument that has been made about this was by Rummy.

To paraphrase, he said that if everyone did not believe there were WMDs, the troops would not have worn protective gear as a precaution when they went into Iraq.

Of course they wore the protective gear on their own, without orders from the brass of Rummy's military.


The second best argument for the war was made by the President himself, when he claimed that Saddam wouldn't let the UN inspectors in, proving once and for all that what we all heard and saw in the TV to the contrary was a delusion brought on by our hatred of freedom and democracy and the people of Iraq.

Posted by: nut on June 8, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Andy:

It wasn't about WMDs. Again, it's not about WMD. Bush used it as a cover story.

Right. Project for a New American Century was kind enough to tell us thisin fact, they said Saddam's regime as a whole was essentially irrelevant. I wish people would quote this over and over again:

While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Posted by: Jon on June 8, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK


Bush has said many times, "knowing what I know now, I would've still invaded Iraq." So knowing that there is scant evidence of WMDs, Bush would've still invaded Iraq. Why are you guys still buying his cover story?

Posted by: Andy on June 8, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

The R & D, manufacture, transportation and storage of that kind of weaponry leaves extensive footprints. I guess one could hid it under a rock, but it not be a safe or effective weapon after a short while.

Bingo. And don't forget that back when invading Iraq was just a glimmer in the Idiot Prince's brainstem, it was common knowledge that Iraq's economy was blasted by disastrous, back-to-back wars, and years of sanctions. From first principles, it was always evident that Iraq was nothing like the "threat" that Bush and Cheney and Rice and their shills hyped. Outside of Saddam's fever dreams, here in the real world, Iraq's atomic program was done.

But the shills were careful to do one thing, which still muddies the discussion today. While Rice mentioned "mushroom clouds", and Cheney warned about "reconstituted nuclear programs", on the whole war advocates stuck to the obfuscating term, "WMD". Unfortunately, nobody ever called them on it, or demanded more specific terminology. As a consequence, some folks can still keep a straight face while saying idiotic comments like:

Huh? Everyone thought that Iraq had WMDs back then. I remember during the invasion where everyone watching TV expected chemical assaults on our troops to happen at any moment. The left is obsessed with the WMD question instead of figuring out where we should go from here in Iraq.

Under this clown's expansive definition, a mustard gas mortar shell is no different from a nuclear warhead. I suppose that, in a semantic sense, he's perfectly correct. But I don't think most Americans would call a trillion dollar chemical weapons cleanup* money well spent.

* A cleanup that wasn't even done effectively, since the military genius Rumsfeld never bothered about securing arsenals or, well, much of anything.

Posted by: sglover on June 8, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Dan Morgan wrote: The left is obsessed with the WMD question instead of figuring out where we should go from here in Iraq.

I don't know what you mean by "the left" or whether I qualify, but I admit that I am "obsessed" by the fact that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell and other principals of the the Bush administration deliberately, repeatedly, blatantly, and elaborately lied to the American people, the United States Congress, the United Nations Security Council, and the entire world about what they knew to be nonexistent Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" in order to lead the USA into an illegal war of unprovoked aggression, which has now killed thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, and has maimed and impoverished many thousands more.

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell et al are thieves, liars, gangsters, war criminals and mass murderers, and they all deserve to be in prison for their crimes. And that should never, ever, ever be forgotten.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 8, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Dan Morgan wrote: The left is obsessed with the WMD question instead of figuring out where we should go from here in Iraq.

I would add that it is a ludicrous falsehood that "the left" is not interested in "figuring out where we should go from here in Iraq."

Where "we" should go from here in Iraq is home. Complete withdrawal of all US military personnel as quickly as that can be practically accomplished while minimizing any additional harm to the Iraqi people.

Followed by payment of massive reparations to the Iraqi people for the tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed, and the enormous destruction of property, and the blatant theft of Iraq's wealth and resources resulting from Bush's illegal war of unprovoked aggression.

Those reparations to be paid for by retroactive cancellation of Bush's huge tax cuts for his wealthy financial backers.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 8, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

The best argument that has been made about this was by Rummy.

To paraphrase, he said that if everyone did not believe there were WMDs, the troops would not have worn protective gear as a precaution when they went into Iraq.

Which shows just how lame the case for war really was, because it's a bullshit argument.

Chemical weapons were never the "threat" that war advocates tried to hype. How could they? The entire history of modern chemical warfare shows that it's a far cry from a world-beating weapon. Only the profoundly ignorant would consider an arsenal of gas shells a sensible reason for an invasion on the other side of the globe. This is why war shills still cling to the term "WMD", to deliberately conflate chemical weapons with the genuinely serious (and nonexistent, in Iraq) threat of atomic weapons.

Posted by: sglover on June 8, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, Secular. My thinking is: If these people were so deeply, thoroughly untrustworthy (out of lies, incompetence, greed, stupidity, or who the hell knows) on WMD, not to mention the whole "sweets, flowers, yogurt, cheap oil, troops-home-by-October" invasion and occupation plan, then why should I trust them to lead us on Iraq, now? I here Condi Rice is a football fan. Well, our franchise had three seasons that averaged four wins, and now it wants the fans to draw up the playbook. I don't think so.

Posted by: Brian C.B. on June 8, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

"I am "obsessed" by the fact that..."

Those two paragraphs need to be saved
& copy-pasted here
every time the turds start trolling
and into every "Red State" blog on a weekly basis.

Posted by: Pierre Asciutto on June 8, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Hold the phone. When everybody thinks about WMDs they are thinking about the first-generation 20th century WMDs.

Well, what if Saddam had himself some of the second-generation 21st century nano-WMDs?

Now those suckers would be very hard to find wouldn't they? Very hard indeed. Hmmmmmm.

Posted by: Tripp on June 8, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

.Is a little patience while our troops continue to search too much to ask?
Posted by: American Hawk on June 8, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

A little patience while the weapons inspectors searched was apparently too much to ask.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 8, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Well, what if Saddam had himself some of the second-generation 21st century nano-WMDs?

Or what about Hussein's faith-based WMD? You can only see them if you believe in them, which accounts for the fact that we haven't found them yet -- we just aren't believeing hard enough....

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Well, what if Saddam had himself some of the second-generation 21st century nano-WMDs?

Now those suckers would be very hard to find wouldn't they? Very hard indeed. Hmmmmmm.

Hehe. Guess the "match box" was a better analogy than I thought.

Posted by: cyntax on June 8, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Damn! Only if Congress has followed GWB in privatizing social securirity.

The steller returns of the mutual funds in my social security accounts would have allowed me to retire by now.

bastard dems.

Posted by: nut on June 8, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

LOL sglover and tavella:

Chemical weapons are NOT 'weapons of mass destruction'?! Tell that to the next victims of a chemical weapon attack.

Posted by: Don P. on June 8, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Or what about Hussein's faith-based WMD? You can only see them if you believe in them, which accounts for the fact that we haven't found them yet -- we just aren't believeing hard enough.... Posted by: Stefan

I've always thought that this was possble, but in a less spiritual manner, Brother Stefan. Wishful thinking as opposed to going on faith. I wondered if certain scientists and the like responsible for weapons programs simply lied to Saddam about progress with an eye to "job" security.

Posted by: JeffII on June 8, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

I am reminded of OJ, going door to door looking for the real killer.

Posted by: Matt on June 8, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

P.S. Osama_Been_Forgotten (but not al-Zarqawi ; )

The UN weapons inspectors had YEARS more than we've taken thus far - also, you think our troops are allowing "Oil for Food" corruption?

Posted by: Don P. on June 8, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Rummy said he knew where the WMD was!

Yeah, but all those Halliburton options and the cushy "consulting" gig will make his legacy of looking like a stupid ass to the rest of the world easier to live with.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 8, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

In case someone hasn't already stated the obvious, if Weldon thinks there might be WMDs in Iraq in specific areas, why hasn't Bush secured and searched these areas rather than leaving these alleged WMDs available for terrorists, insurgents, or anybody else who might want to pick up a few?

And how lame is an administration, or a congressman, that has waited for more than three years to look for the very things that allegedly made Iraq so dangerous to the world and which we had to immediately invade to secure and destroy?

This isn't denial.

It's an admission of utter and complete contempt for either the truth or American security; an admission that partisan politics rules conservatives and national security and honesty take a back seat to every self-centered and self-serving desire they have.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons

Thats right! He gassed the Kurds with Nitrous Oxide. And he didnt have a massive program we never knew about and subsequently uncovered after gulf war one. And he complied fully and promptly with all U.N inspections to the worlds satisfaction! No other countries intelligence agencies thought he was developing a program either.

After that of coarse he turned over a new leaf and became a born again Christian. He was paying off all those U.N. officials so he could get out from under the sanctions and move in with Mother Teresa of Calcutta and help the starving children.

Posted by: Zarquwi Done Dead on June 8, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

You can only see them if you believe in them, which accounts for the fact that we haven't found them yet -- we just aren't believeing hard enough....

The President should establish a Day of Prayer on 9/11 on which the Americans pray to God Almighty that WMDs materialize in Iraq.

Posted by: nut on June 8, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

I hate myself so much that sometimes I cry.

Posted by: Clinton Era on June 8, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

The WMDs were in their minds all along...we're still looking for their minds.

Posted by: parrot on June 8, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Don P., i can cause as many deaths with a machine gun as i can with a chemical attack, and i don't call either of them "weapons of mass destruction," a term which most (although not all) sudents of the matter suggests should be reserved for nuclear weapons, about which there is no dispute as to the mass destructiveness.

Posted by: howard on June 8, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Don P: The UN weapons inspectors had YEARS more than we've taken thus far - also, you think our troops are allowing "Oil for Food" corruption?

Not only a lie, but utter disregard for the fact that we are in control of the country with thousands of troops and absolutely free access to every area as long as we're willing to expend lives, something which Bush has shown he is perfectly willing to do for less useful ends, while the UN inspectors did not have tens of thousands of individuals who could search, didn't have free access to the country, and didn't have the immediate force of arms to back them up.

Fairly dishonest even for you, Don P.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Chemical weapons are NOT 'weapons of mass destruction'?! Tell that to the next victims of a chemical weapon attack.

Ah. So I guess you must lump high explosives into the WMD category as well. When do we lauch the crusade against dynamite?

Posted by: sglover on June 8, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Ignore Charlie.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on June 8, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Tripp wrote: Well, what if Saddam had himself some of the second-generation 21st century nano-WMDs?

You fool. There is no such person as Saddam Hussein. He is an old out-of-work Jewish actor that I myself recruited decades ago to play a foreign dictator on TV whenever the government needed to terrify the American public with some sabre-rattling to keep them submissive.

The entire invasion and occupation of Iraq was staged in a remote area of New Mexico, with the top-secret assistance of George Lucas's Industrial Light and Magic.

It's all a hoax. Everyone in the world knows this except the US public.

Posted by: Man In Black on June 8, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

you think our troops are allowing "Oil for Food" corruption?
Posted by: Don P. on June 8, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

I know they are.

FYI: Far more money was "lost" by the CPA in the first year after the invasion, than was involved in OfF.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 8, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Is the "Man in Black" Dickless Cheney?

If so, then I believe it!

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Don P, rather ignorantly, wrote: "Chemical weapons are NOT 'weapons of mass destruction'?! Tell that to the next victims of a chemical weapon attack."

Why yes, and we can tell that to the next victims of a machine gun attack and to the next victims of an airplane attack and to the next victims of an explosives attack and to the next victims of, well, just about any weapons attack.

No, Don, the few decaying shells with mustard gas that Saddam possessed were not, by definition, WMDs. Do try to keep up.

Posted by: PaulB on June 8, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie posting as "Don P" wrote: also, you think our troops are allowing "Oil for Food" corruption?

You are an ignorant idiot. "Our troops" are standing by while billions of dollars of both Iraqi and US taxpayer's money are blatantly stolen, and Iraq is subjected to corruption that dwarfs anything that happened under the oil for food program (and all the corruption that occurred in that program was known to, and approved by the US anyway).

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 8, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk, displaying his cluelessness, wrote: "Is a little patience while our troops continue to search too much to ask?"

Um, Hawkie, dear, the U.S. troops aren't actively searching for weapons anymore, mostly because the search is over and they weren't there. That effort was shut down some time ago.

Posted by: PaulB on June 8, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

FWIW: A warehouse full of cheap Chinese-made machetes in Rwanda killed more people than mustard gas ever did.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 8, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Pretty funny, Man in Black. Capricorn One (I'm showing my age--but hey, I was just a little child then) for the fear-drenched, illiterate, submissive new millennium.

And Alek is right as usual. Listen up. (I'll start doing it myself.)

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Chemical weapons are NOT 'weapons of mass destruction'?! Tell that to the next victims of a chemical weapon attack.

wow! it looks like you manage to sneak one under the (already very low) bar. so congratulations! you've won the Dumbest Post Of The Day award!

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

I know this has been suggested before but I`ll toss it out one more time.

Since Field Marshall Rumsfeld & Weldon (NutCase-PA) are sooooo sure they know where the missing "WMDs" are I say let us send them over there and let them find them w/the entire planet watching (live 24/7 feed for everyone that wants it).

And let there be no mistake with what I am suggesting. We are to give both of these individuals all the hoes, picks, shovels etc they desire (pith helmets too !) to dig out all those missing "WMDs"; no sending others to do a job (apparently) only they can do correctly. I`ll even let them have GPS receivers so they can be sure where they are down to the exact centimeter.

If it was up to me, I`d send Mr. "Humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent" (Sun Myung Moon for those not keeping score at home) along with them so we can keep track of what he is up to as well. (I`m sure his criminal enterprises would take care of themselves)

"There are three kinds of men:
1. The ones that learn by reading.
2. The few who learn by observation.
3. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves." - Will Rogers

Posted by: daCascadian on June 8, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist wrote: "'Our troops' are standing by while billions of dollars of both Iraqi and US taxpayer's money are blatantly stolen"

Of course, Don's question was dishonest from the beginning because this has little to do with "our troops" and everything to do with the incompetent bureaucrats installed by Georgie-boy. "Our troops" mostly aren't in a position to know or do anything about this.

Posted by: PaulB on June 8, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Hell, for that matter, that warehouse full of cheap Chinese-made machetes killed more people than nuclear weapons.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 8, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

"To paraphrase, he said that if everyone did not believe there were WMDs, the troops would not have worn protective gear as a precaution when they went into Iraq."

Of course, the counter-argument to that is that if everyone did believe that there were WMDs, the troops would have been tasked with actually searching them out and locking down the sites where we suspected they existed.

In any case, I seem to recall the troops having protective gear on standby but not that they wore it. Is my memory correct?

Posted by: PaulB on June 8, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Since Field Marshall Rumsfeld & Weldon (NutCase-PA) are sooooo sure they know where the missing "WMDs" are I say let us send them over there and let them find them w/the entire planet watching (live 24/7 feed for everyone that wants it).

I always kinda liked the idea of Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc., moving along Iraqi roadsides on their bellies, probing for mines with bayonets. It's a classic scene from the kind of war movies that evidently gave the neo-cons their deeper military insights.

Posted by: sglover on June 8, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Keith G wrote: "The R & D, manufacture, transportation and storage of that kind of weaponry leaves extensive footprints. I guess one could hid it under a rock"

Not to mention that we had custody and the cooperation of the scientists and bureaucrats who would have been responsible for such weapons programs and they all agreed that no such programs existed. That's why this whole, "Iraq is huuuuge! We have to give them more time!" meme is so absurd.

Posted by: PaulB on June 8, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB >"...I seem to recall the troops having protective gear on standby but not that they wore it. Is my memory correct?"

Your memory is incorrect according to the public record. Our troops wore protective gear during the initial period of the attack.

"War is the easy part" - Anthony Zinni

Posted by: daCascadian on June 8, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the correction, daCascadian.

Posted by: PaulB on June 8, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Of coarse, nobody on this blog could confidently assert that There were no WMDs in Iraq

If it wasnt for the fact that we invaded the country and searched it thoroughly!
(proving the vast majority of world intelligence agencies, the U.N. Bush and Kerry and other prominent Democrats wrong)

Its nice to know for certain, isnt it:)

Posted by: Zarquwi Done Dead on June 8, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Wow! Touched a nerve here, I see. Just a partial list of people killed by chemical weapons over the years:

Japanese sarin attack;

Kurds and others in Iraq / Iran;

Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals; and (going back even further)

During World War I, chlorine and phosgene gases were released from canisters on the battlefield and dispersed by the wind. These chemicals were manufactured in large quantities by the turn of the century and were deployed as weapons during the protracted period of trench warfare. The first large-scale attack with chlorine gas occurred 22 April 1915 at Ieper in Belgium. The use of several different types of chemical weapons, including mustard gas (yperite), resulted in 90,000 deaths and over one million casualties during the war.

http://www.opcw.org/

http://dtirp.dtra.mil/CBW/news/HH/hh_02may06_1.pdf

Yeah - I can see how none of those millions killed are from "WMD" - none of you have friends or relatives killed like that?

Posted by: Don P. on June 8, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

If there are still WMDs in some form in Iraq, our troops (if they are still actively looking for them) would not be the only ones looking. There are plenty of militants besides Zarqawi who would like to find them and use them in some fashion against us.

Posted by: Qwery on June 8, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

But, daCascadian, don't you just know that Karl Rove had the troops wear protective gear in the 100 degree desert heat so that he could use that after the fact to prove we thought there were WMD? Come on, get with the program; Huffington covered all this already!

Posted by: Don P. on June 8, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

The ABC program in Uganda works well.
Abstinence, fidelity and reinforcing other traditional sexual norms have a common sense, obvious, and effective place in reducing AIDS transmissions.

Posted by: Zarquwi Done Dead on June 8, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Part of the thing about WMDs is it's such a broad category. Artillery shells containing chemical agents aren't equivalent to a nuclear bomb in terms of destructive power, or ease of delpoyment. All chemical agents need a pretty massive delivery system to truly be weapons of mass destruction. If you've got 30,000 artillery shells and one cannon, you don't have much mass destruction capability.

This isn't to say the effects of these weapons aren't horrofic and that the use of them isn't morally repugnant, but in many cases explosives are going to be much more efficient at killing a large number of people.

Posted by: cyntax on June 8, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

cyntax:

The FBI also considers conventional weapons (i.e. bombs) as "WMD": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction

Posted by: Don P. on June 8, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

You know - their failure to search for WMD in Iraq kind of reminds me of how the DOJ sat around with their thumbs up their butts while Enron shredded truckloads of evidence. Bush's buddies Lay and Skilling probably got off easy.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 8, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

The ABC program in Uganda works well.
Abstinence, fidelity and reinforcing other traditional sexual norms have a common sense, obvious, and effective place in reducing AIDS transmissions.
Posted by: Zarquwi Done Dead

It appears American Chickenhawk has changed his sobriquet, but he still can't spell. Newsflash, chickenhawk, The abstinance program is most certainly not working, as AIDS transmission rates have climbed since Dumbya took office. In fact millions of condoms go unused because distribution would leave them unable to receive US funds. That's Christianity?

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on June 8, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Don P: Yeah - I can see how none of those millions killed are from "WMD" - none of you have friends or relatives killed like that?

Interestingly enough leaves off his list the fire-bombing of Dresden.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

The FBI also considers conventional weapons (i.e. bombs) as "WMD": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction
Posted by: Don P. on June 8, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Like the 300 TONS of high explosives that were looted from Al Qa Qaa AFTER US troops had been there, and left? Some of which was later used to kill US troops?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 8, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah - I can see how none of those millions killed are from "WMD" - none of you have friends or relatives killed like that?

you can't seriously be claiming that if a lot of people have been killed with method X, that X is then a 'WMD'. can you ?

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Don P: The FBI also considers conventional weapons (i.e. bombs) as "WMD"

So, that's why we attacked Iraq.

They had conventional weapon WMDs.

If only the American people had known that Saddam was about to attack us with conventional bombs (delivered how no one knows, but nevertheless . . .) and em>that's what Bush was referring to when he claimed we'd found the WMDs!

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 8, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

also, you think our troops are allowing "Oil for Food" corruption?

The troops, no, but the Bush regime and its gangster henchmen seem to have made off with at least $9 billion (yes, that's billion with a "b") of American taxpayer money:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday.

An inspector general's report said the U.S.-led administration that ran Iraq until June 2004 is unable to account for the funds.

"Severe inefficiencies and poor management" by the Coalition Provisional Authority has left auditors with no guarantee the money was properly used," the report said.

"The CPA did not establish or implement sufficient managerial, financial and contractual controls to ensure that [Development Fund for Iraq] funds were used in a transparent manner," said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., director of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

Cleek wrote: "you can't seriously be claiming that if a lot of people have been killed with method X, that X is then a 'WMD'. can you ?"

That is precisely what he is claiming. We're talking about Don P, remember? Of course he can claim idiotic things like this. The fact that this renders "WMD" entirely and completely useless matters not a whit to dear little Donnie (not that WMD really means much anymore, anyway -- Georgie-boy took care of that).

Posted by: PaulB on June 8, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Its nice to know for certain, isnt it:)

Yes, it's nice to know for certain -- unless, of course, you're one of the tens of thousands of dead and/or maimed US and Iraqi casualties, or if you're one of the US taxpayers contributing to the $10 billion a month we're spending in Iraq. For them, it's not so nice....

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah - I can see how none of those millions killed are from "WMD" - none of you have friends or relatives killed like that?

Nice job of moving the goalposts, Don. The bottom line is, whether or not Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, many of us felt a) that he wasn't an imminent threat, and b) that taking him out would not be worth the cost to do so (in money and in lives). Guess what, Don, we were right in both cases. So you can log on here to get into semantic discussions, but it doesn't change the fact that we were right and you were wrong!

I know admitting you're wrong can be a difficult experience, Don, but you'll feel much better when you do.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on June 8, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Don P. wrote: "Wow! Touched a nerve here, I see"

Stupidity and trolling has a way of doing that. Funny, that. Of course, you were the guy who insisted that the airplanes crashing into the WTC weren't WMDs, despite the fact that several thousand folks were killed, so consistency has never been your strong suit.

Posted by: PaulB on June 8, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

you can't seriously be claiming that if a lot of people have been killed with method X, that X is then a 'WMD'. can you ?

Um, yeah, that's pretty much the sum of his "argument". Given the number of Americans who die in traffic accidents, I'm not sure why the guy isn't calling for pre-emptive strikes against Toyota and General Motors, but, well, I guess it makes sense -- if you're a moron.

Posted by: sglover on June 8, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Calm down, people. I was just telling cyntax what the FBI thinks (not me personally). Of course, we did not invade Iraq over conventional explosives - even though in hindsight we should have secured those better - I've always considered "WMD" to be:

N-uclear

B-iological

C-hemical

Next attack?

Posted by: Don P. on June 8, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

ZDD wrote: "Of coarse, nobody on this blog could confidently assert that 'There were no WMDs in Iraq'"

Nice try at reframing the argument but it won't work.

1. We could, and did, confidently assert that the Bush administration had vastly overstated the case.

2. We could, and did, confidently assert that Saddam had, at most, a few decaying stockpiles of chemical and/or biological weapons and no major weapons programs.

3. We could, and did, confidently assert that Saddam had no active nuclear program.

4. We could, and did, confidently assert that Saddam was not a threat.

We were right on all counts.

Posted by: PaulB on June 8, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Don P wrote: "Next attack?"

Sure, when you get around to handling the other responses. So far, you haven't said anything substantive yet.

Posted by: PaulB on June 8, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

I have a feeling the jury will have a verdict for Rep. Weldon in November.

Posted by: Powerpuff on June 8, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK
The FBI also considers conventional weapons (i.e. bombs) as "WMD"

Unless we're debating the response of US federal law enforcement to Saddam's actions, I'm not sure why how the FBI defines terms really matters to the discussion at all.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 8, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

Don P., I think you've established your bona fides as a logic-challenged ignoramus pretty well, so you'll get no more attacks from me. You're boring.

Posted by: sglover on June 8, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Next attack?
Posted by: Don P. on June 8, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah - funny that "NBC" designation was what military folks used to use to describe them throughout the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's, then, suddenly, they were talking about "WMD" - as if to cloud the issue. "NBC" is precise. You know exactly what you're talking about. "WMD" permits dishonest scum like DonP. to use a Toyota Factory (or Machete warehouse) as a justification to invade, jack the price of oil up to $70/bbl, and cause at least 100,000 "collateral" civillian casualties.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 8, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, this "Don P" is not Don P. This "Don P" is Charlie, who used to post as "Charlie" and now posts as "Don P" and as "Cheney".

The real Don P now posts (mostly) as "GOP".

Charlie has some extremely idiosyncratic and very recognizable typographic and rhetorical mannerisms that make it easy to recognize his comments if you read them in the old days.

But to my mind the thing that clearly distinguishes Charlie from the actual Don P is that Charlie's comments, regardless of the inherently offensive nature of their content, are always quite cheerful and friendly in tone, and convey the sense that regardless of his views he thinks of himself as "just one of the guys", whereas Don P's comments are unremittingly bitter, belligerent, hostile, mean-spirited and nasty in tone and convey the sense that he thinks himself superior to everyone else (and has to prove it over and over and over).

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 8, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

That this is being said by the vice chairman of the House Services Committee at this time after everything that has proven this to be so much fiction is very disturbing. It means either he is utterly and completely incompetent and unqualified for his position because he cannot understand the briefings and 2 years of searching post invasion prove that there was no WMDs (and yes that term is highly misleading since the only weapon that actually does massive destruction are nuclear) or he is knowingly lying about a very serious and fundamental issue of national security, almost certainly for political partisan purposes. So either incompetent or willing to lie about national security for political gain, there can be no other explanation at this last date.

I am also not surprised to see the Trolletariat still supporting this nonsense. There was never a nuclear threat posed by Iraq and that was clear to those actually paying attention prior to the invasion in the public so there is no excuse for those getting classified briefings to not have understood this. The chemical and biological threat was deemed minor by those that actually were experts in this field in no small part because it was widely recognized that if there were such weapons they predated the 1991 GW and would have significantly degraded if still potent at all.

This was always bullshit and anyone that at this late date that tries to argue otherwise is showing either or perhaps both their intellectual incapacity or their willingness to lie about anything for political purposes to support their side no matter how unrelated to truth/reality that lie is. Pure and simple.

It also should come as no surprise seeing as the GOP side is the one that routinely mocks the left for intellectual pretension/arrogance preferring to instead trust their gut feelings rather than empirical evidence and actually proven fact. Indeed the strain of anti-intellectualism within the GOP base is the main reason they were able to be played so extensively by Bushco on this and many other issues, and is why they (GOP operatives) spend so much time deriding any opposition if they demonstrate any sign of intellectual capacity. For the idea that the President of the most powerful nation on earth should be the most intellectually proficient/capable candidate available is obvious, except to GOP supporters going by the evidence of the last couple of decades.

Posted by: Scotian on June 8, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

. . .Indeed the strain of anti-intellectualism within the GOP base is the main reason they were able to be played so extensively by Bushco
Posted by: Scotian on June 8, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

This is probably why Bushco chooses this particular group to pander to. The evangelicals, free-market-fundamentalists, and rednecks are "Teh Gullible".

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 8, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

I've always considered "WMD" to be: N-uclear B-iological C-hemical

note the acronym "WMD" is not spelled "NBC", your considerations notwithstanding

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

I'll agree that NBC is quite destructive. Especially when they have that bile-filled hate spewing bitch Coulter featured. Damages the entire nation.

Posted by: ckelly on June 8, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

So either incompetent or willing to lie about national security for political gain

Can't it be both? We are talking Weldon here.

Posted by: ckelly on June 8, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Don P:Calm down, people. I was just telling cyntax what the FBI thinks (not me personally). Of course, we did not invade Iraq over conventional explosives - even though in hindsight we should have secured those better - I've always considered "WMD" to be:

N-uclear

B-iological

C-hemical

Next attack?

Don, I'm in complete agreement with your definition of WMD=NBC.

What I tried to do in a brief manner (not so effective) was highlight the difference between Chemical and Nuclear weapons(setting aside Biological for a moment).

The effectivity of chemical weapons are more closely tied to conventional weapon delivery systems, than nuclear weapons are. A huge stock-pile of sarin still needs to be delivered to its target to be effective. One of the more effective ways to do that is to use a system that allows for an airburst above the intended target, but that pretty much means rockets, artillery, or an airplane (equipped with spraying aparatus).

In contrast you could drive a van with a nuclear bomb in the back to within a couple miles of your intended target (depending on yeild) and just detonate it.

Biological weapons depend obviously on living vectors like rats, insects, and people to disperse them. For this reason there are very difficult to contain and on a battlefield can easily become a problem for the side that deployed them.

All of this was to say that WMD is a very broad term that covers very different types of weapons, so broad that at times it can be pointless to discuss strategies for dealing with WMD without specifying the different approaches needed for security, containment, etc.

And yeah, in hindsight securing more of the plain old explosives in Iraq probably would have been a smart move.

Posted by: cyntax on June 8, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Of coarse, nobody on this blog could confidently assert that There were no WMDs in Iraq

If it wasnt for the fact that we invaded the country and searched it thoroughly!
(proving the vast majority of world intelligence agencies, the U.N. Bush and Kerry and other prominent Democrats wrong)

Its nice to know for certain, isnt it:)


Posted by: Zarquwi Done Dead on June 8, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

ZDD, didn't you read PaulB at 4:34? pay frickin' attention, man....

and no, if knowing for certain that saddam didn't have some old chemical and biological stocks is now the retrospective purpose of the invasion, then it isn't nice, it's an enormous waste of blood and treasure.

Posted by: howard on June 8, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

whereas Don P's comments are unremittingly bitter, belligerent, hostile, mean-spirited and nasty in tone and convey the sense that he thinks himself superior to everyone else (and has to prove it over and over and over).

and fails at it, over and over...and over and over and over..

Posted by: haha on June 8, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

Don P / Charlie / whomever:

Your 3:57 list detailing the "millions" killed by chemical weapons isn't entirely accurate. The first and most obvious point is that the inmates of Nazi death camps weren't killed by weaponized chemical munitions, but by pellets of zyklon-b poured through columns into the gas chambers. If I poured bleach all over you, it would kill you, but that wouldn't make it a weapon of mass destruction.

As for the sarin gas attacks in Tokyo, Aum Shinrikyo coordinated the release of this gas in five subway stations -- underground chambers packed with thousands of people that one might think would make an ideal environment for a gas attack. This succeeded in killing a total of twelve people, although many more were injured.

The fact is that chemical weapons, although they're a scary concept and one that soldiers take pains to protect themselves from, are not very effective as "weapons of mass destruction" . . . and they're not the type of WMD that caused people the most worry when they thought Saddam Hussein might be producing them.

Posted by: keith on June 8, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

And intelligence is evidently absent

Posted by: JEDDI on June 8, 2006 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

And intelligence is evidently absent

Posted by: JEDDI on June 8, 2006 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, Iraq has WMD, so does Iran. And they are further along in their development of WMD. We must attack Iran now.

Thanks for the rant.

Posted by: Mini Al on June 9, 2006 at 2:12 AM | PERMALINK

I disagreed with the Partei line once at RedState and was banned immediately. I sometimes wish we could ban achickenhawk and redass mike, but then they would feel even more victimized.

Posted by: merlallen on June 9, 2006 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK


***Its nice to know for certain, isnt it:)***

"At this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance." - Hans Blix report to the UN Security Council 3/7/03


but bush invaded a week later....

and the costs of "knowing for sure" mount with each passing day...

currently the financial total is more than 350-billion..and counting

and the u-s death toll alone is close to that on 9-11...and counting


6/9/06

WASHINGTON - The death of al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq came as more Americans than ever thought the war in Iraq was a mistake, according to AP-Ipsos polling.

The poll, taken Monday through Wednesday before news broke that U.S. forces had killed al-Zarqawi, found that 59 percent of adults say the United States made a mistake in going to war in Iraq the highest level yet in AP-Ipsos polling.

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 9, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Anyone still want to debate what the definition of "WMD" is? So far, you don't think it's "chemical" or "biological" - I'm sure one of you libs thinks "nuclear" is not "WMD" either - come on, just admit it (or, at least admit that your definition of "WMD" would be different if Gore or Kerry were President).

Posted by: Don P. on June 9, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Don P/Charlie/Nathan:

No, we are arguing that the only true Weapon of Mass Destruction is a nuclear device and to lump chemical and biological weapons into this category was always inherently deceitful. It was done for the purpose of making the most extreme weapon, nuclear appear to be agreed to as being there because there was agreement that chemical and biological weapons left over from pre 1991 likely still existed. There was no such agreement on nuclear capacity, on that America and the UK were pretty much on their own and the vast majority of the world did not believe there was any nuclear threat from Iraq/Saddam by the time this invasion was being sold to the global and American publics.

So stop your lying because you are the only person believing the tripe you write, well you , your sock puppets and the other Trolletariat members here that is. The few honest conservatives that still drop by do not appear to find you any more credible than the rest of us.

Posted by: Scotian on June 9, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Don P:Anyone still want to debate what the definition of "WMD" is? So far, you don't think it's "chemical" or "biological" - I'm sure one of you libs thinks "nuclear" is not "WMD" either - come on, just admit it (or, at least admit that your definition of "WMD" would be different if Gore or Kerry were President).

Like I said upthread, I think that NBC and WMD cover the same set of weapons, and debating it seems like argument for the sake of argument.

What I do find noteworthy is that I think the animus of nuclear weapons has tainted people's understanding of how the other two legs of the tripod function. The ability of a chemical like a nerve agent to actually inflict "mass" casualties is totally dependent on the scale of the conventional weapons systems that deliver it.

For example, upthread someone mentioned the existence of 30,000 chemical artillery rounds in Iraq. Obviously we wouldn't want such munitions to fall into the insurgents' hands, but if they did, the insurgents wouldn't be able to turn around the next day and use them all to wipe out half of Baghdad.

The destructive power of a lone bomber using a nuclear weapon is far greated than the destructive power of a bomber using a chemical weapon. What we're most worried about when we talk about WMD in a civilian type scenario isn't chemical, it's nuclear. After nuclear, it's probably biological.

But to combine the dread of a state having nuclear weapons with the proof that they had chemical weapons as a justification for action is inherently dishonest.

Posted by: cyntax on June 9, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Well, cyntax, you and I may agree (careful, now, or someone may allege we are one and the same person now). As you can see from "Scotian" and others, they indeed have a problem with the very definition of "WMD":

. . . the only true Weapon of Mass Destruction is a nuclear device and to lump chemical and biological weapons into this category was always inherently deceitful.

Posted by: Don P. on June 9, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

"But to combine the dread of a state having nuclear weapons with the proof that they had chemical weapons as a justification for action is inherently dishonest."

Posted by: cyntax on June 9, 2006 at 3:58 PM

Yes it is, which is why so many of us are so offended to this day that the Bush Administration and Tony Blair spent so much time doing exactly that, although to be fair to Blair he was mainly reinforcing what Bushco was claiming more than advancing them on his own. I am well aware of the differences between how chemical, biological and nuclear weapons work and I stand by the differentiation I stated earlier. At most chemical and biological weapons can be fairly described as weapons of mass death (assuming they have been properly weaponized and provided an efficient delivery mechanism to a large populace) whereas only nuclear weapons can be fairly described as true weapons of mass destruction.

That does not take away one whit from how terrifying chemical and biological weapons can be in how they work on the human body. However there is a clear categorical difference between the dangers of these weapons, although I do expect over the next few decades that with the increased bioengineering technologies and understanding being developed to cause bioweapons to become at least as deadly as nuclear weapons on a one to one basis at a warhead level. Right now though they clearly are not, well unless someone has cooked up in a totally black lab something that is that deadly and easily contagious without any means of treatment. Chemical weapons while horrifying in means of working are not all that dangerous on a straight comparison of say one nuclear warhead, one biological warhead, and one chemical warhead.

That is why the idea of Saddam having chemical/biological warheads was never enough of a threat to require this action, especially given the many countries that either have these weapons directly or have more than sufficient dual use capacity in their civilian sectors to create such. Nuclear weapons though are in a category by themselves, especially in terms of the fear of them. This is a direct result of three generations growing up with the threat of impending global thermonuclear war during the Cold War. This is not exactly a big secret. It is also clear that until the nuclear threat started getting pumped up by the Bush Administration starting with Cheney's comments at the end of Aug 2002 followed by the Sept 7 2002 Camp David meeting newsconference that Bush/Blair had where they both claimed the IAEA had warned of Saddam being as close as six months to a working nuclear device. This turned out to be totally untrue as the IAEA had never written any such report but that took three weeks to be noticed by the American media by which time the "smoking gun being a mushroom cloud" rhetoric had been flying fast and furious.

The fact that to this day not Bushco nor the GOP or even most conservative voices in America have been willing to accept this deception despite the clear evidence supporting it is another reason why so many of the left will not let this go. This is the best evidence of Bush lying about a fundamentally important national security information either intentionally or unintentionally because his own staff lied to him. Either way doesn't that scare the hell out of you given the power of the American Presidency? It should, it certainly scares the rest of the world.

DonP/Charlie/Nathan:

Learn to read. I have maintained this point about the term WMD and about the campaign of deception regarding it's usage in terms of Iraq since I first started commenting here three years ago. I also have repeatedly demonstrated a far better understanding of the topics I chose to write about than you ever have, and I never felt the need to make nasty viscious and truly venomous comments like about Edwards and his Jacuzzi lawsuit case with the young child as you have, I have not slandered another by bringing up their sex life in a totally unrelated thread to try and discredit them instead of debating the content of the comment itself as you have, along with many other such comments which I am sure some oldtimers here have kept a record of like perhaps PaulB. That is your specialty. You are in no position at all to be making any evaluations of the intelligence and understanding of anyone here. Give it up chuckles you have been outed repeatedly for the lying pedantic piece of male bovine excrement you are and no amount of trying to fool newer posters will change that fact. You have no credibility except that within your own mind.

Posted by: Scotian on June 9, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly