From Fox News – “Report: Hundreds of WMDs found in Iraq”:
Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, [Senator Rick] Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."Here are Santorum’s bullet points and some more background from Macs Mind, Blogs for Bush, Gateway Pundit, and Ace of Spades HQ:
"Degraded," meaning old, and including both filled and unfilled rounds; but still-- prohibited, undeclared chemical weapons.Twenty-four hours perspective would help here. Good night.
7 comments:
Fabulous, another hot news flash That Seals The Liberals Doom. How many is that now?
It's appropriate that it comes from Santorum, since so many of the usual yay-Bush websites are producing "a frothy mixture" of premature glee.
I have figured it out. The reason Bush snuck into Baghdad was to distract all the reporters. As soon as he was clear, Karl Rove snuck off of Air Force One, planted the WMD's, and got back on the plane.
There's been stuff found right along but always something small... our guys dig stuff out of the sand with nuclear warning labels... don't know what the heck it is but it's not a bomb so...
The true believers (no WMD!) will continue to believe that any evidence found is somehow not significant. Anyone else has seen the evidence right along or at the very least they remember that Saddam gassed the Kurds so it's not like he had any moral qualms about using whatever he had or lacked the know how to have it made or use it.
We find chemicals... oh, it's just fertilizer... in munition shells? No, seriously, it's like crop-dusting.
But that's just bits here and there, hardly something to be worried about. Bush lied. Hallelujah.
Wha-wha-WHA? In June 2006, you seriously propose that the keep-the-faith "true believers" are the ones who've been saying NO WMD????
Is this crazy spin opposite day? Or is EVERY day crazy spin opposite day? Is reality just another degraded capability?
Well, yes. ;-)
True believer.
Or else terminal simpleton.
You decide.
What I described is true. We haven't found *nothing*. We've found bits and pieces that have been easy to dismiss as unimportant. Or it's been unclear if something really was an agricultural chemical or just disguised as an agricultural chemical. The nuclear "stuff" in the sand was a first hand account when I hear it. Saddam's history of WMD use isn't in question, is it? If it was from a hospital x-ray lab, why bury it in the sand? His desire to expand from chemical to nuclear weapons isn't in question, only how far he got and were his own beliefs accurate (ie. was he lying to look big and tough or were his underlings telling him they were farther along than they were.)
So the actual question is... how much does it have to be to "count?"
The answer to that is that it's a moving target. If we find more stuff, the standard of how much is needed for proof or exactly what type of stuff just goes up.
Bush lied. Hallelujah.
I suppose finding a real "live" nuclear bomb would be a faith breaker, but no one ever *said* he had one of those. (Only that he was actively trying to get one.)
Well, yes. ;-)
True believer.
Or else terminal simpleton.
You decide.
What I described is true. We haven't found *nothing*. We've found bits and pieces that have been easy to dismiss as unimportant. Or it's been unclear if something really was an agricultural chemical or just disguised as an agricultural chemical. The nuclear "stuff" in the sand was a first hand account when I hear it. Saddam's history of WMD use isn't in question, is it? If it was from a hospital x-ray lab, why bury it in the sand? His desire to expand from chemical to nuclear weapons isn't in question, only how far he got and were his own beliefs accurate (ie. was he lying to look big and tough or were his underlings telling him they were farther along than they were.)
So the actual question is... how much does it have to be to "count?"
The answer to that is that it's a moving target. If we find more stuff, the standard of how much is needed for proof or exactly what type of stuff just goes up.
Bush lied. Hallelujah.
I suppose finding a real "live" nuclear bomb would be a faith breaker, but no one ever *said* he had one of those. (Only that he was actively trying to get one.)
Sorry for the double... I got a "no data" message the first time so I hit login and Publish again.
Post a Comment