That's great news then....isn't it? So we found what was the remains of some shells that could have been, or were designated for, WMD's. They were deemed harmless. We can all be glad that they cannot get into an evil person's hands to take human life. I think that's really the most important point. Screw the effect it has on politics.
It's great news - but it's old news, rather it's confirmation of what has been suspected for decades and of a fact that has occurred since the 80's when the shells first went bad. So it's not really even news; it's like saying "I'm not a serial killer today" It's great news, I guess. But not really news.
Especially when you consider that he begged that the report be declassified so he could use it for political gain. The man has no shame!
Nobody's ever adequately explained why Saddam didn't use the WMDs he "had." What better target than the massing of American soldiers in Kuwait before the invasion. We might as well have painted a target on all of them, yet nothing happened. What better time to use them than during the seige of Baghdad, where a few well-placed WMDs might have stopped the US advance for awhile? Yet nothing happened. Why would Saddam, who gassed his own people, hesitate about bringing misery and death to Americans who were bent on removing him from power? Nothing happened. If you argue that Saddam had some kind of reason, moral or political, for not using WMDs, what about all those folks shooting at us now? The only thing they have are bullets and plastic explosives. (Where did they get the plastics again?) If you argue that Saddam sent them to Syria, then why? What use would they be in Syria? We made no secret there was going to be an invasion with the objective of regime change and he sends away the only bargaining chip (or only real way to kill Americans and embarass Bush) he might have? Is he waiting until his trial is over to unleash the hidden WMDs? The fact that WMDs have not been used dovetails nicely with the fact that none have been found, none have been seen in transport to Syria or storage there, and the many official sources that say there were no WMDs.
This MSNBC article states that Defense Dept. Officials said even though the WMD's found were considered "degraded" they still posed an "up-to-lethal" threat to coalition forces if used in an attack (even though they date them pre-1991). I'd say that's a bit more dangerous than "scrap metal" wouldn't you? So, again....let's keep our eye on the ball. WMD's off the streets. It's a good thing!! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/ Officials: U.S. didn’t find WMDs, despite claims Comments are response to claims by GOP senators NBC NEWS EXCLUSIVE 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. 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." The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue. "We were able to determine that [the missile] is, in fact, degraded and ... is consistent with what we would expect from finding a munition that was dated back to pre-Gulf War," an intelligence official told NBC. "However, even in the degraded state, our assessment is that they could pose an up-to-lethal hazard if used in attacks against coalition forces." ‘A bit suspicious’ Democrats said a report from the top U.S. weapons inspector contemplated that older munitions bearing traces of chemical agents would be found. A leading Democrat on intelligence issues said Santorum's assertion that there were in fact weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was politically motivated. "It's a bit suspicious that this was rolled out the night before" the debate and vote in the Senate on withdrawal from Iraq "by a senator in a close political race," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. Santorum is down 18 points in his Senate re-election contest, according to a poll released Wednesday. Harman said it was "unfortunate" that people have "not learned the lesson about hyping ... and cherry picking" intelligence to suit their own aims. For his part, Hoekstra, appearing before cameras on Thursday, reiterated his assertions of Wednesday evening, saying, "Iraq is NOT a WMD-free zone" and it "amazes me" that members of Congress still say that there was no WMD in Iraq. NBC News’ Robert Windrem, NBC News' Mike Viqueira and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
wait, they "could" be "up to lethal"? An automobile is more dangerous than that. It is in fact, up to lethal and beyond. Read the whole thread - they have gone off and caused skin irritation....oooh, eczema!
the problem is sanitarium is using this as a response to democrats/anti-war supporters who say iraq was is not worth it from the beginning.. if we did not go into iraq in the first place, then there will be no danger of attacks using these degraded pre 1991 weapons on out troops to begin with.. and there is no deifinite proof that these weapons are still lethal after we invaded..
Saddam developing atomic weapons was used repeatedly as a reason for invading and occupying Iraq. Members here used that reason repeatedly. And when it wasn't nukes foisted upon America and the world as a reason for invasion, it was WMDs. I can't believe anyone would attempt to deny it. Rice talked about nukes. Powell talked about nukes, Bush talked about nukes, Cheney talked about nukes. And they all talked about chemical and biological weapons supposedly in Saddam's hands, close to development, or ready for use. It was all BS. When we weren't out and out lied to, we were inundated with innuendos, distortions, broad hints.... time and time again. That anyone could pretend that didn't, and hasn't, happened is ludicrous, with all due respect to those who persist in it. And Saddam is "blamed" for not, "telling the truth about what he had?" He said he didn't have them. The evidence is that he didn't have them. If the man equivocated about a lot of it, it clearly was because he didn't want mortal enemies, like the country he fought a long and brutal war with, Iran, to know they didn't exist. And people find that strange? Countries misrepresent the truth all the time. The United States does. We covered up the stealth fighters for many years after they were operational. Why didn't we tell the world? Because we felt it wasn't in our interests to do so. Why is it that we can do that sort of thing, but if some dictator like Saddam does, it's cause for invading and occupying his country? Our intelligence gave no good reason for invading Iraq. The administration chose to ignore the overwhelming evidence that an invasion was not warranted, because it didn't fit their preconceived notions, which were to invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam, and occupy the country. They cherry-picked what fit the scenario they wanted, fed BS even to Colin Powell, ignored even Colin Powell's advice, ignored and pushed aside generals of vast experience, who thought an invasion a mistake, and wanted more troops involved if we were going to do it anyway. Just pushed them aside, and found those who would nod and say yes to whatever they wanted to do, justified by the facts, or not. And it wasn't justified. As events played out and showed just what a mistake invading Iraq was, the Administration constantly changed why "we" made the decision to invade. It slays me how many have bought into this BS, hook, line and sinker. I feel embarrassed for them. I feel far worse for our service men and women, their families, and the thousands of Iraqis who have been killed and maimed due to Bush's mad foreign policy. And the lies and distortions continue. Incredible. Keep D&D Civil.
SamFisher, What makes the "facts" in your article more valid than the "facts" in my article? Oh yeah....it's because it fits your spin on the whole situation. My bad. Your article says it was a "very small dispersal" How about a large dispersal, what would that do? Oh, the article doesn't say anything about that. But it does say that they believe that two chemical components in the shell, which are designed to combine and create sarin during flight, did not mix properly or completely upon detonation. What would have happened if they did? Your "definite proof that they are non-lethal" is hardly that. All indications say this is dangerous stuff...period. Your point about an automobile is ridiculous. Swimming pools without lifeguards can be lethal too. But generally, people don't launch swimming pools at troops. Unless you can find an article that says so.
They're both from MSNBC. But anyway, mine is a recounting of something that actually happened. Yours is not. Furthermore, they're not inconsistent. Read what you posted "up to lethal". That means that they are anything below the level of lethal, from severely injurious all the way down to perfectly harmless. When the IED sarin bomb went off and nobody was seriously injured, that falls into the category of "up to lethal", as does everything. No, it's because of reality.
We're moving from legitimate concerns to wacko conspiracy stuff pretty darn quick... I'm sure this will morph into the "Liberals didn't let us search every place" excuse.
