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 22, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

PAT ROBERTS, PARTISAN HACK....Is Pat Roberts, the weaselly chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, really going to deep six the second half of his committee's investigation of the Iraq war? You know, the part about the administration's manipulation of prewar intelligence? The part that might be a wee bit embarrassing for Roberts' fellow Republicans during an election year?

Apparently the answer is yes, and he's doing it via the most transparently political hackery it's possible to imagine. Greg Sargent has the details. (And further confirmation here.)

Kevin Drum 1:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (110)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Who does he think he is, Orin Hatch?
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on June 22, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Wars have been started over less.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on June 22, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Is Pat Roberts, the weaselly chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, really going to deep six the second half of his committee's investigation of the Iraq war?

Yawn. The American people are sick and tired of Democrats playing the blame game. Why can't liberals think of solutions instead of your constantly negativity about Bush and the troops?

Posted by: Al on June 22, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Coming soon: declassification of the complete CIA report on the 500+ chemical weapons found in Iraq since the invasion. They are old and degraded and of doubtful military value; on the other hand, they are still dangerous and the insurgents are reportedly trying hard to obtain some of them.

What? You didn't know about this report? It's on the other blogs, and in the MSM. Go have a look.

Posted by: republicrat on June 22, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

declassification of the complete CIA report on the 500+ chemical weapons found in Iraq since the invasion.

Even the department of defence is downplaying this:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/dod-disavows-santorum/

Posted by: JJ on June 22, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Remember when Harry Reid shut down the Senate to make Roberts agree to finish phase two of the investigation? Good times, good times.

Posted by: crotoan on June 22, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

What? You didn't know about this report? It's on the other blogs, and in the MSM. Go have a look.
Posted by: republicrat

If you really believe this, why didn't you provide the links?

The very fact that the administration doesn't even talk about them shows their import. Troops found 1980s era shells in the first days of the invasion, and they were dismissed then as worthless then.

Posted by: JeffII on June 22, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

on the other hand, they are still dangerous and the insurgents are reportedly trying hard to obtain some of them.

I'm not even sure that this is true. Do you have any links to such actual reports? What I have read is that while there may be some left over munitions the inssurgents would want, these are not among them since after being buried for over 18 years, any agents are inert. I suppose they may want the conventional explosives but there doesnt appear to be a shortage of those.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/06/santorums-discovery.html

Posted by: Catch22 on June 22, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

declassification of the complete CIA report on the 500+ chemical weapons found in Iraq since the invasion.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

You don't seem to realize that Ricky Santorum single-handedly torpeoed his re-election campaign yesterday by trying to peddle that crap.
But continue to bring it up, and we will continue to laugh our asses off at you.

By all means, continue.

Posted by: Stranger on June 22, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK
Is Pat Roberts, the weaselly chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, really going to deep six the second half of his committee's investigation of the Iraq war? You know, the part about the administration's manipulation of prewar intelligence?

Nope, he's not going to deep six it, it was clear from the outset that it was never going to happen. It was a transparent fake from the beginning, whose only purpose in even nominally being planned was to be pointed to in elections while the issue was recent enough that people might actually vote based on it.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 22, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Ole Potato Nose Roberts is the most worthless (and ugliest) hack to ever besmirch the halls of Congress.

Posted by: Fred Flintrock on June 22, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

When you get right down to it - that fact that Clinton ALSO wanted preemptive war is not irrelevant here. I find it partisan of Frontline, a damaging documentary to be sure, totally left out the fact that Bill Clinton also pushed WMD, and help Bush every chance he got including saying that those 16 words were "just a mistake". Is it clear that those 16 words were NOT just a mistake and Bill Clinton certainly must have known it too?

When George Tenet "fall" on the sword as PBS Frontline said he did - Tenet did it for Bush AND for Bill Clinton too. It is downright partisan of PBS to mention only the Bush administration in this huge lie because if Dick Cheney lied than so did Bill Clinton. Clinton said there were WMD, Pollack wrote the book on cherry-picked fudge evidence, Clinton pushed for preemptive war too. WHY?

Dems can't investigate Cheney without investigating Clinton - that is where the Democrats fail to jusify investigations into the matter, because Clinton lied about more things than just having sex with that woman.

When will Dems come to terms with that? AND those so-called centrest Dems want it least of anyone.

Posted by: Cheryl on June 22, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

And the scary thing is, the same thing may be happening again with Iran:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pentagon_confirms_Iranian_directorate_as_intelligence_0615.html

More background:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

Posted by: JJ on June 22, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Are "chemical weapons" WMD, or not?

"Chemical weapons" containing decomposed chemicals that can no longer kill are definitely not WMDs.

Posted by: nut on June 22, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

"that fact that Clinton ALSO wanted preemptive war is not irrelevant here."

Clinton was commander-in-chief for eight years. I must have missed his preemptive war in Iraq. Tell me all about it, dumbass.

Posted by: brewmn on June 22, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Why are you guys still bringing up Clinton half-way through Bush's second term? Clinton was better on some (many) social issues and domestic policy, but his foreign policy is little different than either of the Bush Boys (He may have been even more aggressive in defending US business interests than Bush 1), but why are we still talking about Clinton's policy? Is it because every one of the decisions made by the current administration has had such horrible results that they are scrambling after six years to find someone else to blame?

Posted by: nutty little nut nut on June 22, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Didja ever have any doubts? I mean, really.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 22, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, spekaing of, just how the fuck is Iraq doing today?

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi soldiers said on Thursday they had found several bodies in a violent area north of Baghdad where factory workers were abducted by gunmen a day earlier. Iraq's Industry and Minerals Ministry said initial police reports that 80 or more workers had been seized were inaccurate. Only 30 had been abducted, it said, most of whom had already been freed. But police in the area insisted on Thursday that their higher figure was correct.

MOSCOW, June 22 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Foreign Ministry said Thursday it had no new information on the fate of four diplomats kidnapped in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, almost three weeks ago.

SUWAYRA - Iraqi police retrieved the bodies of seven people from the Tigris river on Monday in Suwayra, 40 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad, police said. The bodies were handcuffed, blindfolded and bearing signs of torture, police added.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's trade minister threatened on Thursday to reconsider trade deals with wheat supplier Australia after Australian troops killed one of his bodyguards in a shooting incident in the capital.

Five U.S. troops were killed in the previous two days, the military said -- four Marines in two attacks in western Iraq and a soldier in a roadside bombing south of Baghdad.

Elsewhere, police said 16 bullet-riddled bodies had been found in various Mosul neighborhoods over the past 24 hours. Ten of them were identified as soldiers, police, traders and a former Iraqi army officer under Saddam Hussein.

Funny, I remember this same bad scene during the Spanish-American War. Or was it Grenada?

Posted by: trex on June 22, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

GOP: Coming soon: declassification of the complete CIA report on the 500+ chemical weapons found in Iraq since the invasion. They are old and degraded and of doubtful military value; on the other hand, they are still dangerous and the insurgents are reportedly trying hard to obtain some of them.

Warning, Goober on Parade GOP lying again.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

Are "chemical weapons" WMD, or not?
Posted by: Cheney

I don't think they're anywhere near as dangerous as nuclear or biological.

And really, given that you need to have conventional weapons system to deliver chemical weapons, I would put them on par with high-explosives like C-4 and Semtex. So if chemical weapons are WMD then I'd say high explosives are too.

Posted by: cyntax on June 22, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

How about a compromise then - they may be "ineffective", but they are still WMD?

Some great humor from the dark side. Who would have thought?

Posted by: nut on June 22, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

How about a compromise then - they may be "ineffective", but they are still WMD? Posted by: Cheney

No. In fact, most chemical and biological "weapons" have little battle field effectiveness. Both work best in confined spaces with no wind or where they can be "sprayed" directly on the targets. Furthermore, the more "sophisticated" the compound (sarin, for example) the less useful they are. Almost all of them degrade over time, even in sealed containers, and much more rapidly when exposed to light and air.

Now, fuck off Charlie.

Posted by: JeffII on June 22, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney: Are "chemical weapons" WMD, or not?

Is a knife handle without a blade a knife?

No.

Is a nuclear bomb without fissionable material a weapon?

No.

Is Cheney a liar?

Yes.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

I have some fire crackers, diesel fuel and ammonia sulfate fertilizer in my garage, do I have WMDs as well?

Posted by: nutty little nut nut on June 22, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney: How about a compromise then - they may be "ineffective", but they are still WMD?

Remember, Cheney (Charlie) says that the means to produce WMDs are WMDs - e.g., an empty gun factory is a gun.

Remember, Cheney is a liar.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Then Charlie must still be an infant by that reasoning

Posted by: nutty little nut nut on June 22, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Remember also that 2500 Americans died because GWB was pissed with Saddam for having the desire to have intentions to engage in research for WMD related program activities.

Posted by: nut on June 22, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney: How about a compromise then - they may be "ineffective", but they are still WMD?

By definition, a WMD is something that can cause mass destruction.

A shell that has no deliverable, even assuming that the administration and weapons control officials hadn't already publically admitted that these so-called WMDs weren't the ones the administration was referring to when making their case for war, is incapable of causing "mass destruction" and therefore is not a weapon of mass destruction.

Once again, Charlie/Cheney, you are a liar.

And a poor one at that.

Compromising with a liar is like wrestling with a pig: you both get dirty and the pig loves it.

So take your compromise and stick it up Bush's ass so it can join your head.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Are "chemical weapons" WMD, or not?
Posted by: Cheney on June 22, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Long past their shelf-life?

Try "not".

Why are you guys still bringing up Clinton half-way through Bush's second term?

That's okay, because 50 years from now, people are going to be bringing up Bush - because we'll still be paying down the Bush deficit.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 22, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

How to get the Senate to complete the second part of the investigation? Win, baby, win.

And Al (commenter 3), the blame game is the solution (wherein we put all your heroes behind bars).

Posted by: Paul on June 22, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Of course the answer is "YES"...did anyone catch the FRONTLINE broadcast last evening...titled THE DARK SIDE (gotta love it) it examined the leadup to the war and Cheney's influence on the administrations policies leading us into it. BRILLIANT...of course since it was on PBS only bleeding heart liberals will have watched it...sadly the idiot pundits in our MSM SHOULD have been required to view it...put the info into their aresnal for interviews and then FINALLY raise meaningful questions whomever they happen to be talking to...NAH, they'll just continue to pontificate on the position they've selected or been paid to adopt! I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!

Posted by: Dancer on June 22, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

"...keep laughing and playing down WMD"

Nine eleven, twelve or thirteen had nothing to do with those non-existent WMDs.

Never did, never will.

Posted by: Pierre Asciutto on June 22, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

I will simply note that the FBI does indeed consider "high-explosives like C-4 and Semtex" to be WMD. I think most Americans who lose family or friends that way will too.
Posted by: Cheney on June 22, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah.

Too bad Rummy forgot to secure 300 tons of "WMD" at Al QaQaa. It was there when our troops arrived, then they left, now it's gone. Now our troops, and innocent Iraqi civilians are being blown apart by the stuff.

Yay for Rummy.

Heckuva job.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 22, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney: Fine - you guys keep laughing and playing down WMD, until the next strike.

Better put your helmet on so those nasty empty shells don't cause a bump.

You can't afford to lose any more brain cells, Charlie.

Cheney: I think most Americans who lose family or friends that way will too.

If they lose family members to torture in Bush's gulags will they consider that to be the use of WMDs also, Charlie?

I think what they will remember is:

1) Bush lied to them about WMDs being in Iraq;

2) Bush lied to them about finding WMDs in Iraq;

3) Bush made no effort to secure the alleged hidden WMDs in Iraq for weeks after the invasion, despite the fact that he claimed they were in Iraq, available to terrorists, and ready for deployment against US troops and the continental US;

4) Bush didn't even make an effort to secure the known, but secured by the UN, weapons that were in Iraq; and

5) Bush let the real terrorists go while he diverted our troops to Iraq, which his own secretary of state said was a non-threat even to neighboring countries.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

If you really believe this, why didn't you provide the links?

They are not hard to find.

I don't know what to believe since this is only the second day of the story. I am curious as to why the report is classified; I'd have expected the weapons to have been reported publicly as they were found.

I expect that, had one been denotated in an enclosed space by a suicide bomber, even the degraded toxins would have had some effect.

Poor though the weapons probably are in military terms, I think they are a counter-point to the "manipulation of intelligence" theme: first it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMDs; then there were "no WMDs"; now it's "500+ degraded chemical weapons".

Posted by: republicrat on June 22, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Fine - you guys keep laughing and playing down WMD, until the next strike - how far we've come since 9/12. I will simply note that the FBI does indeed consider "high-explosives like C-4 and Semtex" to be WMD. I think most Americans who lose family or friends that way will too.

Posted by: Cheney

OK Cheney, If C-4 and Semtex are weapons of mass destruction, and the willingness to have and use WMDs are sufficient cause for war, then we're going to have gear up for a big war with everyone who isn't our ally and has high-explosives.

Better get the Army out of Iraq now and ready for fighting quite few other countries.

This really is a premanent war that Bush's preemptive policy has gotten us into.

Posted by: cyntax on June 22, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, he is a weasely partisan hack. So is Brownback. Would that they could be dislodged!

Posted by: Scorpio on June 22, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

republicrat: They are not hard to find.

Then they should be easy to find and post.

Poor though the weapons probably are in military terms, I think they are a counter-point to the "manipulation of intelligence" theme: first it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMDs; then there were "no WMDs"; now it's "500+ degraded chemical weapons".

The claim by Bush was that Saddam had new, fresh WMDs ready to deploy from active weapons programs, not that there were some forgotten buried chemical weapons left over from the war with Iran that the government of Iraq had even lost track of and couldn't find to use even if they wanted to.

More bullsh*t by the world's greatest bullsh*t artists, American conservatives.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

I never said "I think C-4 and Semtex are weapons of mass destruction" - but you see how I got you off of Pat Roberts?

Yeah, and onto the idiocy masquerading as policy that your adminstration has been flailing around with for the past 3 years.

Well played.

Posted by: cyntax on June 22, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

They are not hard to find.

Yet still no links. Not real confident, are you?

I don't know what to believe since this is only the second day of the story. I am curious as to why the report is classified; I'd have expected the weapons to have been reported publicly as they were found.

It's not classified. Rick Santorum shot himself in the foot with it yesterday crowing about.

And again, if it were the real deal, the WH would be wetting itself publicly about it from DC to SF.

I expect that, had one been denotated in an enclosed space by a suicide bomber, even the degraded toxins would have had some effect.Posted by: republicrat

Gee, I wonder what killed everyone? Was it the fifteen pounds of plastique or that nasty dust. Maybe some of them had fatal asthma attacks?

Just stay on the porch if you can't keep up.

Posted by: JeffII on June 22, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie: I never said "I think C-4 and Semtex are weapons of mass destruction" - but you see how I got you off of Pat Roberts?

I see how you got caught in a lie and are now trying to rationalize it by pretending your goal was to divert attention from Roberts, as if diverting the discussion in a blog comment section has any real world consequence and as if we care.

But see how we got you to lie and show the public that conservatives are not only mendacious but willing to try to keep the public from turning their focus to matters that would reveal even greater conservative perfidy - it shows the American public the true character (or lack thereof) of conservatives.

Thanks.

It's why Bush is mired in the low 40's in approval and high 50's in disapproval and why Republicans are currently losing in 12 out of 17 senate races.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

You don't seem to realize that Ricky Santorum single-handedly torpeoed his re-election campaign yesterday by trying to peddle that crap.

It's probably a one-week story without any impact; a big yawn like the confirmation hearings of Gen. Hayden.

Posted by: republicrat on June 22, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

I think they are a counter-point to the "manipulation of intelligence" theme: first it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMDs; then there were "no WMDs"; now it's "500+ degraded chemical weapons".
Posted by: republicrat on June 22, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

They're not a counter-point.

They're a point - to the manipulation of intelligence, but the large issue is manipulation of public opinion (ie. lying).

The issue wasn't whether Iraq had "WMD" - over which we're still, 4 years later, arguing on the definition. The issue on everyone's mind behind the statement "Iraq has WMD" - that Saddam was actively brewing chemical, biological, and or nuclear weapons, to supposedly hand over to terrorists for use on US soil, or directly against neigbors (ie. neighbors we care about, like Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and especially Israel) - thus inflating a nasty middle-eastern conflict driving up oil prices and making SUV drivers unhappy.

High Explosives do fall under that heading, because it's really the weapon of choice for suicide bombers. But like cyntax says - this can apply to pretty much any one of over 200 nations in the world today. There was no special reason to put Saddam at the top of that list - if there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda (and there just plain wasn't - and it was pretty obvious and self-evident).

500+ old mustard-gas shells really don't apply. They were military useless (defeats the "direct use against neighbors" argument) - and the indirect argument is pretty weak as well - because of the lack of connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

And again, we still have found no evidence of anything else that could be construed by any stretch of Rush Limbaughs drug-fueled imagination, as a "WMD" or development program, or infrastructure, storage, delivery mechanism, or anything else.

So if you look on the surface, there was no justification for war.

If you look deeper, and examine the facts, and stop relying on a conveniently flexible definition of "WMD" and ignore the fact that it was more complicated than just "WMD" - you see still, that there was no justification for this war.

Then when you look still deeper, at the administration's lies, attacks on dissenters, character assasination, secrecy, coverups, and massive accounting fraud, it becomes plain and obvious that this war was not only not justified, but it was, in fact, a complicated scheme to defraud the US government of hundreds of billions of dollars for personal profit of the BushCo cabal.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 22, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie: What "lie" do you think you caught me in?

. . . you guys keep laughing and playing down WMD . . .

Two, in one sentence no less.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

why don't we name the national debt after bush? it's his legacy to our grandkids!

Posted by: benjoya on June 22, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Goddammit. It's three years that war shills have been playing this semantic game, and looking at the comments here I see that liberals are STILL letting them get away with it.

Do you know why Bush et al clung to talking about "Weapons of Mass Destruction"? Because it is a deliberately vague, catch-all term! It's used to lump together chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. Given the moribund and neutered state that Iraq was in right before the invasion, it was extremely unlikely that Saddam would have been able to run an atomic weapons program on the sly -- and atomic weapons were the only thing that could have been a persuasive cassus belli. But everybody knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons; even though they've never been especially effective in a military sense, it was possible to talk about "Saddam's WMD's" with a straight face.

Think back to the beginning of the Iraq clusterfuck, when a cache of rusty mustard gas mortar shells might turn up in some abandoned (and unsecured, of course) arsenal -- and all the chickenhawks would bleat "WMD! WMD! Bush vindicated!" Little Senator Ricky's just pulling out the same bullshit for its last palsied stumble around the track. His problem is that he's just too dumb or desperate to notice that nowadays the stunt won't pass the laugh test.

I hope Pennsylvanian Dems play Ricky's stunt up, so that he can get a solid 70-30 stomping. He deserves nothing less.

Posted by: sglover on June 22, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

OK,

Here is the summary letter from John Negroponte:

http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/NEGRPONTELETTER.pdf

Posted by: republicrat on June 22, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

cyntax:

"My" Administration never said C-4 and Semtex in Iraq were WMD.

No but what was the point of bringing up the FBI's assesment?

The issue, and we've hashed this out on previous threads, is that it's misleading to have talk about not wanting the next smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud before the war, and then use the presence of old, degraded chemical weapons as "proof" that the invasion was justified.

Posted by: cyntax on June 22, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Hitler or Coulter?

I only got 10 of 14 right.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on June 22, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

P.S. to AOG - even cyntax agrees that "chemical weapons" are WMD.

I do Cheney, but only with the caveat that that definition should also include high explosives (apparently I'm in agreement with the FBI according to you), which really only highlights how broad and useless the term "WMD" is.

Posted by: cyntax on June 22, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

I expect that, had one been denotated in an enclosed space by a suicide bomber, even the degraded toxins would have had some effect.

Sheah, what's the suicide bomber gonna do - take one of the shells and smack it with a hammer?

"Degraded" = no longer effective.

It's probably a one-week story without any impact; a big yawn like the confirmation hearings of Gen. Hayden.

C'mon, now. Freakin' Fox News - the Propaganda Arm Of The GOP - shots holes in Santorum's gambit, live on air. When Fox can't even support such a cheap stunt, you know Lil' Ricky's in trouble.

Granted, you may be right that it's a one-week story nationally - but Santorum's running for re-election in PA. And you know people there took notice of his pathetic Dance Of The 500 Shells.

Santorum was toast before his little show yesterday. Today, he's a pile of dust that used to be toast.

Posted by: Stranger on June 22, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

you're right, cheney, the national debt is a fiction created by michael moore. now back to the mushroom cloud

Posted by: benjoya on June 22, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie: Next alleged "lie"?

They are still lies.

You did nothing but provide additional proof of that.

Thanks, again.

So, don't need to go to the next "lie", since there are two still on the table.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Regardless of how broad and useless the term "WMD" is, I will continue to use it for Nuclear, Biological, and
Chemical only - call me old school

Well I guess I can't blame you for not abadoning a misleading that term that provides a rhetorical fig leaf to cover the deceptions used to get us into the war.

But from my perspective, it's just bait and switch to talk tough about nuclear capabilities when you need to swing the public behind your position prior to war, only to hold up old chemical artillery rounds after the war as "proof" that the invasion was necessary.

Guess we'll agree to disagree... again.
; )

Posted by: cyntax on June 22, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney: P.S. to AOG - even cyntax agrees that "chemical weapons" are WMD.

I doubt he would agree that "chemicial weapons" without "chemicals" are still "chemical weapons" and probably not even "weapons", much less WMDs.

If he does, then I would conclude he's as nutty as you.

Charlie: Regardless of how broad and useless the term "WMD" is, I will continue to use it for Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical only - call me old school - I brought up the FBI definition to remind some who keep laughing and playing down even "real" WMD that said weapons are not the only threats facing America.

That's a lie.

You also call any means to produce a WMD a WMD.

Call me old school, but an automobile factory is not an automobile and an empty automobile factory is even more removed from the idea of automobile.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

Hitler or Coulter?

I only got 10 of 14 right.Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten

Me too.

Posted by: JeffII on June 22, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active.

Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

And for the mendacious republicrat who uses weasel words to try to portray this as stunning recent news, rather than GOP liars trying their hardest to use the fully-released report to resurrect as new an event long ago disclosed and dismissed . . .

The U.S. military announced in 2004 . . .

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Pat Roberts is a partisan hack. Partisan hacks are WMDs, and need to be deactivated.

Posted by: Nemo on June 22, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Hitler or Coulter?

I only got 10 of 14 right.Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten

A little editing would've made that test a lot harder, and more effective. For instance, it doesn't take a genius to guess that pretty much any quote that talks about American society probably isn't coming from Hitler. I only got one wrong, but there were several that would have been toss-ups if not for some vocabulary give-aways.

Posted by: sglover on June 22, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie: "HAHAHAHAHA" is not "laughing"?

It's not laughing at WMDs.

It was laughing at Santorum.

Trying to microparse your own post to pretend that you were simply saying that people were laughing about something, but not WMDs, is fairly pathetic even for you.

As for "playing down", your reference was to "playing down WMDs" and playing down "real WMDs".

Since these are not "real WMDs" or even WMDs (and even I, familiar as I am with your bizarre use of the English language, am unclear what the difference between "real WMDs" and simply "WMDs" is, other than in the context of the "imaginary WMDs" in Bush's mind), since they are "no longer active", no one could be playing down "WMDs", much less "real WMDs".

Thus, you lied.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

No, Charlie. It's not a matter of "disagreeing." You make shit up, you misdirect, you do anything to avoid admitting that you are wrong, at best, or lying, because that's what people like you do. You are as blinded by ideology as any Nazi, Soviet appratchik, or Shining Path Maoist.

To parapharse what Patrick Moynihan once said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Posted by: JeffII on June 22, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

. . . . filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.

"Assessed" means "believed" to still exist.

It does not mean "found" to exist.

Which is why they speculate with the use of "the most likely".

Proving again how you and republicrat deliberately take information out of context and misequate terms to mislead the casual reader into thinking that your conclusions are supported.

They are not.

You are proven, again, to be a liar and a dissembler.

CRAP" + laughing our asses off = WMD.

Even if your tortured interpretation were correct concerning what the laughter was directed at, since they weren't really WMDs at all, there was no laughing at WMDs.

Still a liar.

Still trying to talk (type) your way out of it with tortured and mendacious interpretations of your posts, others' posts, and the text from the various articles about this matter.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney: The largest mushroom clouds to be photographed resulted from the impact of fragments of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 on the planet Jupiter, some of which rose hundreds of kilometers above the cloud layers.

So... when Condi mentioned mushroom clouds you're thinking she meant meteors not nuclear weapons? Guess we're invading space next.

Mars, bitches!

Posted by: cyntax on June 22, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Although "mushroom clouds" are most commonly associated with nuclear explosions, any sufficiently large blast above ground will produce the same effect...

Good God man you really have nothing left. You now are defending this administration by redefining down WMD as C-4 and "mushroom clouds" as originating from a large C-4 blast. How pathetic.

Posted by: ckelly on June 22, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

The willingness of you Americans to treat decades-old denuded artillery shells as weapons of mass destruction has finally created an opportunity for me to put my plans for American domination into action.

For you see, I am in possession of a round of unexploded ordnance from WWI that I purchased on eBay for a tiiiiidy sum. If you do not meet my demands for surrender I will fly my deadly round over your country in a radio-controlled airplane and threaten your cities with it. Your populace will cower in fear, particularly your right-winger, who will stay hidden for weeks in their mother's basements -- because where it drops, nobody knows.

Once your government surrenders to my artillery shell, I will gain control of your vast military industrial complex. I will reactivate the Roswell flying ships, hovering them above rush-hour traffic in your largest cities bringing massive pile ups as well as some nasty fender benders. I will raise taxes until the selfish among you cry in agony, and then use the funds to lower the federal debt and invest in mass transit systems, forcing your people to ride in cheap, convenient transportation until they lose the very will to live.

Diabolical! Moowaahahahaha!

Why, you ask. Why do I choose America to subject to my will? Has not American been a light unto the world? Are not Americans the "good guys."

The answer is simple.

The Europeans are too smart and cool to be taken in by this.

Plus, they already have pretty decent mass transit.

Posted by: The Evil Dictator on June 22, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, Charlie, your own bolding in the quote proves you wrong:

. . . we will continue to laugh our asses off at you. [italics emphasis by AFG]

"Continue" means an extension of the what we are laughing "at" theme and unless you think the personal pronoun "you" refers to "WMDs", in which case you are either insane or beyond any capacity for truth, it confirms that the laughter was directed at Santorum and the other goons (including you and republicrat, assuming you are even two different entities) who are promoting this tripe.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

The comments have gotten a little off topic: should the pre-war comments of Senators and Congressmen be examined alongside the Executive Branch's? Sure, Congress didn't have the same access to intelligence that the White House did, but they did have better access than the average Joe and still went along with it, even though many of us laymen could see the justification was clearly bogus from the get-go. I don't think Congress should be let off the hook, even if some Democrats get a little embarrassed.

Posted by: Elgin on June 22, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK
The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal."

Anyone capable of actually reading for comprehension understands that this means "just because a decade-old shell can't kill a village full of Kurds anymore doesn't mean you want to go touching that stuff with your bare hands. Call the HAZMAT guys, for chrissakes."

Posted by: Mithrandir on June 22, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Why, just last week, at my NAMBLA meeting, while I was discussing with a fellow abortion provider the relative merits of a new technique for post-birth-meat-grinder abortion which he had pioneered (in France), we somehow got onto the discussion of how to make America weaker (to pave the way for the coming Islamo-commie revolution), and we came upon a cunning plan: use the Liberal Media and blogosphere to re-define "WMD" to mean "a bean burrito" and "Mushroom Cloud" to mean one of Cheney's farts.

People will become so de-sensitized, they will stop clamoring for an invasion of Iran, and by the time they realize that appeasement was a mistake, it will be too late.

Posted by: Liberal Strawman on June 22, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think Congress should be let off the hook, even if some Democrats get a little embarrassed. Posted by: Elgin

Agreed. That's why so many of them have problems coming up with a coherent response to the situation now. Hillary Clinton and Maria Cantwell are two perfect examples - still don't have the sense to admit they were hoodwinked by the administration. Even if they'd done so just a few months after the invasion, they'd be able to beat the Rethugs like a stray dog with rabies.

Okay, I didn't mean to insult any stray dogs out there reading this blog.

Posted by: JeffII on June 22, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

. . . to advocate my existence . . .

I think you mean "validate" my existence, Cheney imposter.

Now, does this mean AfG is validating your existence?

;-)

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney,

We could go back in time to the Reagan administration and examine misleading statements they made about Iraq, too, but nothing said before 9/11 was part of the sales job that actually got us into Iraq this time around. But within that time-frame, I don't see why we shouldn't look at all the statements made by our government officials to whom we look for leadership.

Posted by: Elgin on June 22, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

If we are going back to the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations, let's revisit how they funded, armed, and supported Saddam Hussein, helped him build his WMDs, and looked the other way while he butchered the Kurds and attacked Iran.

And let's also look at how Bush 41 appointed some sycophantic political contributor and hanger-on to be ambassador to Iraq who then proceeded to in effect give the green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait.

And let's also look at how Reagan and Bush 41 funded and abetted Noriega and other Central American dictators commit murder, rape, and drug dealing, or at least looked the other way while actively covering up for these misdeeds.

And let's look at how Reagan and Bush 41 helped arm the Taliban and ultimately Al Queda by pushing weapons into Afganistan.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

JeffII,

I'll admit, I really felt betrayed by the Democrats during the pre-war period. It seemed so clear that the reason that many of them didn't put up a fight was purely a political one. I don't know, if they had spoken out against the war, maybe the Dems would have lost a bunch of seats in Congress right off the bat, or maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't have gone to war in the first place.

Posted by: Elgin on June 22, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

I got 12 of 14 on the Hitler or Coulter? quiz, but had a bit of an unfair advantage in that I could recognize Hitler's rather unique syntax, having heard portions of his speeches in the original German. With a better translation job, and a removal of some give-away historical terms, it would be hard to tell the two apart.

Posted by: Stefan on June 22, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK


we told you so

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 22, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK


al: the blame game.


"Bush says he doesn't want to play the "Blame Game." Makes sense. Never heard of a chicken who wanted to play the "Extra Crispy" game." -- Will Durst

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 22, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Is Roberts a lush? Check his nose.

Posted by: saxonslug on June 22, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK


cheney: Don't tell the Kurds that ; )


"How many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? The answer is not that damned many." -Dick Cheney, 1992

(4 years after Saddam gassed the Kurdish people)

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 22, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate,

You are just not right.
The top 3 suppliers of Military arms to Saddam were Russia, China and France followed by Germany. The US supplied very little in comparision.
Saudi Arabia and Arab countries supplied Al Queda. It was Clinton and Pakistan who let Afganistan to fall into the cluches of the Taliban.
You are just a rabid Bush hater that can not see the objective truth. Get off this blog and read some real facts.

Posted by: Clinton Era on June 22, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

slightly off-topic, but this is good on the "civil war" theme.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20060622.aspx

Posted by: republicrat on June 22, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

I'll admit, I really felt betrayed by the Democrats during the pre-war period. It seemed so clear that the reason that many of them didn't put up a fight was purely a political one. I don't know, if they had spoken out against the war, maybe the Dems would have lost a bunch of seats in Congress right off the bat, or maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't have gone to war in the first place.

Spot fucking on. Even aside from the gutlessness of it, consider the short-term thinking: If Dems had put up more of a fight, they could stare down Republicans who play the "voted for it before you voted against it" card -- which is effective because it's all too true.

Posted by: sglover on June 22, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

The US supplied very little in comparision.

Hey, if Pakistan supplied only one nuke to Iran and North Korea supplied a hundred, and Iran uses all of them against the West, the one from Pakistan against your home town, does that mean that Pakistan's nuke doesn't matter?

Just askin'.

Hey, btw, if a rapist rapes only your husband/boyfriend/wife/girlfriend, but another rapist rapes 100 women, should we dismiss the rape against your loved one as insignificant?

Just askin'.

Typical conservative: as long as our actions weren't as bad as those of someone else, they were a-okay!

It was . . . Pakistan who let Afganistan to fall into the cluches of the Taliban.

I guess that's why Bush has allied himself with them.

Now, weren't they also the country exporting nuclear technology to our enemies?

----------------

You are just a rabid Bush ass-kisser that cannot see the objective truth or even the illogic of your own conclusions.

Facts are irrelevant when they are dismissed as insignificant and irrelevant, as you do, when inconvenient for the Bush family you worship.


Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

"How many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? The answer is not that damned many." -Dick Cheney, 1992

(4 years after Saddam gassed the Kurdish people)

Or put another way, roughly the same time as Bush the Elder betrayed the Iraqi Shi'a.

It runs in the family.

Posted by: sglover on June 22, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Posted before but deserves repeating.

This is not about a "political disagreement". This is about Pat Roberts and his fellow Republicans in both The House and Senate and their Oaths of Office. The Constitution spells out not the right but the responsibility of Congress to provide oversight over the executive branch of our government. The Republican lead Congress has failed - no failed is the wrong word - willfully, negligently and utterly abrogated that responsibility and violated their oaths for purely political purposes. This was done in order to affect the outcomes of federal elections. The legitimacy of our government under our form of democracy rests on the informed consent of the citizenry and the actions of Pat Roberts form a direct attack on that legitimacy. This is the issue and it goes far beyond any mere political disagreement. If Sen. Roberts will not uphold his oath and do the job in "a time of war" then for the good of the country he should step aside and allow someone to step forward that will put their responsibility and oath above partisan political hackery.

For anyone who cannot see this, (and yes, you know exactly who I'm talking about) it is time to acknowledge that you have just failed basic Civics 101.

Posted by: clyde on June 22, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

Sheah, what's the suicide bomber gonna do - take one of the shells and smack it with a hammer?

If it would kill people, the most likely answer is yes. I would guess try to make an IED out of it.

100% degraded means no longer effective; degraded means less than 100% effective. A writer above is correct: if one blew up in a theater, you wouldn't know who died of the blast, who died of the fire, who died of falling debris, and who died from the toxin.

Isn't anybody else curious as to why the report was classified? Reports of small caches or isolated chemical artillery shells started to occur soon after OIF started. Why classify the knowledge that 500+ have been found?

Posted by: republicrat on June 22, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

Are you a punk ass?

Don't need to ask.

Your arguements don't even make sense or linkage to who you are trying to flail.

Posted by: Clinton Era on June 22, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Dancer said:

Of course the answer is "YES"...did anyone catch the FRONTLINE broadcast last evening...titled THE DARK SIDE (gotta love it) it examined the leadup to the war and Cheney's influence on the administrations policies leading us into it. BRILLIANT...of course since it was on PBS only bleeding heart liberals will have watched it...sadly the idiot pundits in our MSM SHOULD have been required to view it...put the info into their aresnal for interviews and then FINALLY raise meaningful questions whomever they happen to be talking to...NAH, they'll just continue to pontificate on the position they've selected or been paid to adopt! I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!
_________________________________________________

It WAS an excellent program. You can view it on your computer, and PBS has more interview excerpts online. One of the best things that I've watched in a long time.

Posted by: Susan on June 22, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Pakistan is being reeled in which is something Clinton neglected among the many things he neglected. or are you the rabid dick sucking Clintonphile who can't see how the likes of Clinton and Carter helped bring about the Islamo Facism you see today.

Asshole!!!

Posted by: Clinton Era on June 22, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

This was, was it not, the report that Harry Reid stopped the Senate in an effort to get Roberts to produce and which Roberts then replied was only a few days away from completion and he would definitely have it ready right away. Of course it never was released and probably never will be.

Maybe Harry ought to bring the Senate to a halt again just to remind folks what he and the American public were promised and never got....

Not likely that the MSM even gives a crap...old news....not interested----file it with Downing Street memos.

Posted by: dweb on June 22, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

You are a most ignorant ass wipe. Who was it that allowed and supplied N. Korea with the means to develop nuclear weapon. Carter while Clinton was President.

Posted by: Clinton Era on June 22, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

republicrat: Isn't anybody else curious as to why the report was classified?

No.

Clinton Era: Are you a punk ass?

Answer the questions - and the following:

Is a smaller evil not evil because a greater evil exists?

Bush 41 delivered aid and comfort to Saddam, physically, financially, and politically, AFTER Saddam had gassed the Kurds and Bush 41 was informed about the gassing.

[Damn! Some real, but inconvenient for your Bush-loving theme, facts.]

Was this a good act?

Was this a moral responsible act?

Was this a politically responsible act?

Was this a Christian act?

Was this an act that conservative can be proud of?

Who but a Bush family sycophant would defend such an act?

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton Era: Pakistan is being reeled in which is something Clinton neglected among the many things he neglected.

I guess that's why bin Laden, who's been holed up in Pakistan, is in a US or Pakistani prison, eh.

I guess bribing Pakistan by giving them sophisticated war planes, much as they gave radical Islamists stingers, is "reeling them in" in conservative lingo.

Why do conservatives like to arm our enemies and befriend the most vile of dictators?

or are you the rabid dick sucking Clintonphile who can't see how the likes of Clinton and Carter helped bring about the Islamo Facism you see today.

Well, better than a rabid Bush-dick sucker.

At least Clinton was popular as president and remains so, while Bush 43, well he's not doing so good in the polls, so I'm sure he enjoys being pleasured by you.

Who was it that allowed and supplied N. Korea with the means to develop nuclear weapon.

Pakistan.

While Bush was president no less.

And, btw, it was conservative Republican administrations that overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran and replaced him with a murdering torturer, the Shah, and befriended the very non-democratic but very repressive Saudi monarchy, and thus provided the incentive for Islamic radicals to expand their influence.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

I think Clinton Era needs to up his meds.

Posted by: ckelly on June 22, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

Remember, Cheney is a liar.

How true. The lies on Frontline were really something! They just showed him repeating them over and over.

Just amazing lies!

Posted by: Bob M on June 22, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Conservatives did everything they could to destroy democracy in the Middle East, Clinton Era, and that fueled the Islamofascism you speak of, since it is Bush 43 himself who has proclaimed that it is lack of democracy which fuels terrorism.

Of course, that's only when he isn't proclaiming that it's hatred of democracy that's fueling terrorims.

He can't seem to really make up his mind about democracy, much as other conservatives of his ilk.

I guess that's why he favors democracy, of a sort, for Iraq (how convenient), but not for Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya (Khaddafi, or however they are spelling it these days, is now his good buddy!), Dubai, etc, etc, etc.

And democracy for Venezuela (which actually already has it) and Cuba, but not for Haiti.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 22, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

republicrat: 100% degraded means no longer effective; degraded means less than 100% effective. A writer above is correct: if one blew up in a theater, you wouldn't know who died of the blast, who died of the fire, who died of falling debris, and who died from the toxin.

The explosive in a chemical artillery round only serves to disperse the agent; chemical rounds don't create a large explosion and use no shrapnel. There would not be much damage to the structural integrity of a theatre.

Most of the dead would be from the nerve agent and rather readily identifiable as such, but autopsies would certainly answer the question.

Also the suicide bomber would not be able to smack the round with a hammer and do much of anything. Artillery shells are very durable and a chemical round from Saddam's arsenal would most likely be 155mm so it probably weighed in around 50lbs or a bit less. It's hard imagine someone lugging this into a theatre, breaking out a wrench to arm it, and then getting out a cold chisel and hammer to start banging away at the primer in the hopes that it would explode before someone jumped him. As stated upthread, chemical weapons need conventional delivery systems.

It would be possible for someone to take the munition apart, and find some method for re-weaponizing the agent (or binary agents as the case might be) into some kind of back pack bomb, but they'd really have to know what they were doing not to poison themselves.

Posted by: cyntax on June 22, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

We think Pat Roberts is just dreamy. That bulbous, pock-marked nose of his just gives us the shivers! Tee-hee-hee-hee.......

Posted by: two cheerleaders from Santa Monica on June 22, 2006 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

"If it would kill people, the most likely answer is yes. I would guess try to make an IED out of it."

I recall a news story a couple years ago that a dud IED made with a chemical round of some sort had been found. The military thought that whoever tried to IED-ify it didn't even know it was a chemical shell because of the way in which the device was constructed.

Actually this sort of thing is the minimum possible for WMD "discovery" in Iraq. Some old left over questionably functional chemical weapons and components from the Iraq-Iran war era. We find this kind of thing in the US now and then and it is ludicrous to think that Saddam's government would be better at tracking such weapons than we are despite two wars and some rebellions on thier own territory. There were certain to be a few odd shells and small stockpiles scattered around.

Posted by: jefff on June 22, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

somewhat off topic, but perhaps related to the US intervention in Iraq: two more stemps in the right direction.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885822444&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by: republicrat on June 22, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

(including you and republicrat, assuming you are even two different entities)

gracious, more unsubstantiated assumptions! When will it ever end?

Posted by: republicrat on June 22, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

It's hard imagine someone lugging this into a theatre, breaking out a wrench to arm it, and then getting out a cold chisel and hammer to start banging away at the primer in the hopes that it would explode before someone jumped him.

I agree, and I was thinking that as I wrote what I wrote: special harness like an aluminum pack frame with waist-band, all covered with a pancho? I think that if they got one of those old shells and knew it was a chemical weapon, they might try as hard to figure a way to use it as they do other weapons that they find. They do things that are "hard to imagine"; once you accept that they are suicide bombers, I think you have to accept that your imagination does not constrain them much. Or my imagination, for that matter.

Posted by: republicrat on June 22, 2006 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

What? You didn't know about this report? It's on the other blogs, and in the MSM. Go have a look.
Posted by: republicrat

NBC News and news services

Updated: 1 hour, 27 minutes ago

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

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

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

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


What, you didn't know? It's on the blogs and the MSM.

Are "chemical weapons" WMD, or not?
Posted by: some idiot

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

Posted by: trex on June 22, 2006 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

We offer auto insurance, home insurance, travel insurance, life

insurance, personal loans,car donation, breakdown cover and much more!

Cheap travel insurance for holiday travel for UK and

International travellers. Single trip, Annual, Ski and Longstay travel insurance for backpackers and holidays. Travel

policies available online.So if you are searching for the policy to suit you, look no further than here.

Posted by: free on June 23, 2006 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINK

I read this post and immediately sent out an email message to my beloved senator telling him how upset I was that he was not a man of his word. I am expecting an email shortly where he will apologize and assure me that his long promised investigation will begin immediately. Actually, I suggested he just adopt the Frontline investigation, announce that it is all true, and wait for the impeachment hearings to start.

Posted by: KSDem on June 23, 2006 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

You mean Patsy Roberts.

Posted by: bob h on June 23, 2006 at 6:40 AM | PERMALINK

republicrat: . . . gracious, more unsubstantiated assumptions! When will it ever end? . . .

Since it was not an "unsubstantiated assumption" the more appropriate question is when will your lying ever end.

We already know the answer, however: never.

Because it is an inherent characteristic of conservatives, particularly those wedded to the Bush family, to lie.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 23, 2006 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

republicat: Or my imagination, for that matter.

Your imagination produces imaginary competence in the Bush administration and imaginary WMDs, so it's not a big step for it to produce imaginary suicide bombers using imaginary "depleted" WMDs as imaginary bombs.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 23, 2006 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

Interesting observation:

The US and its allies have been killing Al Qaeda leaders since 2004.

The Bush administration says that Al Qaeda is an exceedingly small organization.

Conservatives say that the leadership of Al Qaeda can be eliminated if we just stay the course.

How come there are still leaders to kill after three years of killing members of this tiny group of leaders?

Did Bush not dedicate enough troops to the effort?

Yes.

Did Bush focus on matters that weren't remotely connected to Al Qaeda?

Yes.

Did Bush divert our resources away from terror in order to get revenge on Saddam, secure permanent bases for the US by force, and funnel billions of tax dollars into corporate GOP contributors and ultimately tens of millions of dollars back into GOP campaign coffers?

Yes.

Did Bush imagine an organization of terrorist, the first of its kind in history, that could not replace its leadership?

Yes.

Is Bush and incompetent dumbass?

Yes.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 23, 2006 at 9:24 AM | 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