About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox News hosts and guests touted discredited report that WMDs were found in Iraq

June 23, 2006 4:40 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: On June 21, hosts and guests on several Fox News programs hyped a false assertion by Sen. Rick Santorum and Rep. Peter Hoekstra that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, despite the network's own reporting that discredited the claim.

34 Comments

During nearly every Fox News program from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET on June 21, Fox News hosts and guests touted the disclosure, announced by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), of the existence of hundreds of chemical munitions in Iraq, which Santorum and Hoekstra claimed proved the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the key argument in the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq. Santorum and Hoekstra made the claim at a press conference that Fox News covered live that evening, and throughout the evening, Fox News hosts highlighted these claims as "vindicat[ing]" -- in the words of Fox host Sean Hannity -- the Bush administration's prewar WMD claims. In fact, soon after the press conference, intelligence officials confirmed that the pre-1991 shells were not the WMDs that the Bush administration cited in its argument for war. Moreover, the Iraq Survey Group's September 2004 final report (also known as the Duelfer report) had already noted that "a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions" were discovered after the invasion, as the weblog Think Progress noted.

At the press conference, Santorum and Hoekstra announced that a recently declassified intelligence-report summary showed that WMDs, specifically chemical weapons, were present in Iraq prior to the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Santorum and Hoekstra said U.S. troops have recovered at least 500 of these chemical munitions. Santorum told reporters:

Congressman Hoekstra and I are here today to say that we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons. It's a document that was developed by our intelligence community which for the last two and a half months I have been pursuing. And thanks to the help of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, was ultimately -- he was able to get it in his hands, and I was able to look for, and look at.

[...]

This is an incredibly -- in my mind -- significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction is, in fact, false.

We have found over 500 weapons of mass destruction. And in fact have found that there are additional weapons of mass -- chemical weapons, still in the country, that need to be recovered.

Pentagon officials and the intelligence community quickly dismissed Santorum and Hoekstra's claims. As CNN national security correspondent David Ensor reported on CNN's The Situation Room shortly after the announcement, "Charles Duelfer, the CIA's weapons inspector, tells us the weapons are all pre-Gulf War-vintage shells, no longer effective weapons. Not evidence, he says, of an ongoing WMD program under [former Iraqi dictator] Saddam Hussein." The Washington Post also reported June 22 that "[n]either 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." From the Post:

The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

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.

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.

Indeed, even Fox News was apparently aware of the reported ineffectiveness of the chemical weapons touted by Santorum and Hoekstra. During Special Report -- which airs at 6 p.m. ET -- host Brit Hume reported on the Defense Department's reaction to Santorum and Hoekstra's claims, noting: "the Defense Department is saying tonight about all this that, 'Well, yes, they were found, and yes, they were -- though degraded -- weapons of mass destruction, but they were not the weapons of mass destruction that we believed were there.' " Additionally, as Fox News host Alan Colmes noted later that evening during an interview with Santorum on Hannity & Colmes, at least one "defense official" informed Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle that the weapons "could not have been fired ... because they'd already been degraded," and "that these are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMDs for which this country went to war." Colmes continued: "So, the chest-beating that the Republicans are doing tonight, thinking this is a justification, is not confirmed by the Defense Department."

Yet such revelations did not hinder Fox News hosts and guests from playing up the purported WMD discovery or from attacking those who have pointed out that the United States did not find WMD in Iraq after the 2003 invasion:

  • The Big Story with John Gibson
    Host John Gibson twice declared that "in fact, WMD[s] were found in Iraq" and noted "even today, Democrats are saying, you hear it every day, 'No WMD, no WMD,' and there are some that have been found." Also appearing on the program, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol assessed that the report showed the Bush administration's reluctance to revisit the prewar WMD claims "was a huge mistake" because "[t]hey have allowed to go unchallenged for two or three years the notion that the war was based at best on a terrible mistake and at worst on a lie."
  • Special Report with Brit Hume
    Despite acknowledging that the recovered munitions "were not the" WMDs cited as justification for war, Hume still commented that a report on the Santorum and Hoekstra story was "remarkable" and wondered why "the [Bush] administration, which has known this for some time obviously, [has] not been trumpeting this information." The Duelfer report noted in 2004 the existence of a small number of chemical munitions that were left over from before the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
  • The O'Reilly Factor
    Host Bill O'Reilly repeatedly chided his guest Rev. Al Sharpton for being "a 'Bush lied' [about Iraqi WMD capabilities] guy" and asked if Sharpton was going to "write an apology letter to Bush." O'Reilly asserted that the discovery "is the real deal" and again reminded Sharpton: "I'm happy you're going to apologize for the [remarks on the lack of] weapons of mass destruction. ... Can't wait for the WMD apology." Also on The O'Reilly Factor, former speaker of the House and current Fox News analyst Newt Gingrich remarked that "those people who claimed there were no weapons of mass murder, in this case, are just plain wrong. ... For all the people who were so confident that George W. Bush lied and so confident that there was no weapons of mass destruction, 500 chemical weapons should at least make them slow down ... and rethink." O'Reilly responded that the administration's critics "don't care" about the munitions discovery, adding that it was "really an important part of who's telling the truth and who isn't."
  • Hannity & Colmes
    Even after Colmes reported the weapons discovery to be less than noteworthy, co-host Sean Hannity still insisted that "the president of the United States has been vindicated tonight" and argued to Colmes "[i]t's time tonight for your liberal friends that attacked the president, for them to come out and admit they were wrong and apologize."

From the June 21 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:

GIBSON: This is a Fox News Alert. That's a live shot from the Senate gallery, where a news conference is going to be held shortly by Senator Rick Santorum and Congressman Pete Hoekstra. They've finally managed to declassify Pentagon information which shows that, in fact, WMD was found in Iraq.

Five hundred chemical munitions had been found, containing mustard gas and sarin gas. Pre-'91 is the best estimate for these munitions, but the significance is they show that Saddam Hussein had not destroyed or gotten rid of all his chemical weapons. Senator Santorum and Congressman Hoekstra apparently worked for some time to get this information declassified. We'll bring you that news here when it happens.

[...]

GIBSON: Senator Rick Santorum announcing kind of a startling find, that at least 500 chemical munitions, mustard gas and sarin gas, have been found in Iraq. These are artillery shells mostly that have been loaded with the gas, had been in the possession of Saddam Hussein pre-'91, and he had not gotten rid of them as he had promised in the Gulf War agreement. And in fact, WMD were found in Iraq.

Let's talk about this with Fox News political analyst and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. So Bill, there -- you know, as the senator points out, there -- even today, Democrats are saying, you hear it every day, 'No WMD, no WMD,' and there are some that have been found.

I guess my first question -- I'm sure you don't know the factual answer, but why would it - why would a senator have to fight to get documents like this declassified?

KRISTOL: That is the first question from me, John. My colleague Steve Hayes at the Weekly Standard has actually been fighting to get these documents for a couple of years. Congressman Hoekstra, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has really done heroic work.

But who are they fighting? They are fighting the Bush administration. It's really kind of remarkable. You would think the Bush administration, the Defense Department, the CIA, would want to strengthen the case for the war in Iraq. And the fact is Saddam did not comply with the U.N. requirements that he accounts for all of his missing chemical, biological -- chemical and biological material.

We don't know how much of it is sitting around still there, whether it was shipped out of the country. Some of it he did get rid of. He never came clean. That's a fact and there's now -- there's been evidence for quite a while of that fact. And the Bush administration has been amazingly timid and I would even say has resisted the efforts of, of people like Senator Santorum or Congressman Hoekstra to bring these facts to light.

GIBSON: They appear -- by they, I mean the Bush administration -- appeared to be unwilling to get into this fight again as if they got such a horrible black eye over it the first time, they just don't want to get in the ring on this issue again.

KRISTOL: I think it's absolutely right. And I think it's been a huge mistake. They have allowed to go unchallenged for two or three years the notion that the war was based at best on a terrible mistake and at worst on a lie.

You know, I remember when this whole debate began two and a half years ago and I would call up people in the White House and say, "Why are you not rebutting this?" They would say, "Oh come on, people will never believe that President Bush lied us into the war. And we don't want to get back into that whole fight."

Some of our intelligence was bad, let's move on. It was a huge mistake then, it's been a mistake for two years since. Now you have intelligence agencies like parts of the CIA that have an investment almost in not letting the truth come out. I really give Congressman Hoekstra and Senator Santorum a lot of credit for pushing an administration governed by their own party very, very hard to get these documents out. And some of the reporters, including my colleagues Steve Hayes and others, incidentally, have really fought hard to get the information out. And it really confirms the fact that I think that Saddam remained a real menace.

From the June 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

HUME: And did the U.S. troops find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all? We'll look into that after headlines.

[...]

HUME: Jim, another issue arose today in Washington, kind of out of nowhere, it seemed. You had two senior Republican members of Congress saying that they had now learned from the administration that some weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. What about it?

ANGLE: That is right. Back in April, Senator Rick Santorum was told by someone that there was information that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. He sent letters to the Defense Department trying to find out about this -- this was back in April -- pressed them again more recently, and only today were parts, but a small part, both these men say, of that report declassified, and it was announced by both of them at a news conference just moments ago.

[begin video clip]

SANTORUM: Congressman Hoekstra and I are here today to say that we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons. It's a document that was developed by our intelligence community which for the last two and a half months I have been pursuing. And thanks to the help of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, was ultimately -- he was able to get it in his hands and I was able to look for, and at.

HOEKSTRA: This says weapons have been discovered. More weapons exist, and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq.

[end video clip]

ANGLE: Now, Brit, these are pre-1991 weapons. It is believed they are both sarin-gas- and mustard-gas-filled munitions. It does not tell you that Saddam had an ongoing chemical weapons program, but It does tell you that his claims that all chemical weapons and all other weapons had been destroyed was clearly a lie. It also tell you that inspections did not turn up a fairly sizable stash of chemical weapons.

HUME: Very quickly, why is the administration, which has known this for some time obviously, not been trumpeting this information?

ANGLE: They have not been cooperative. Both these men complained today that very little of this information was declassified. They're going to ask for more to be declassified. They're saying the administration just doesn't want to go back to that debate.

HUME: All right, Jim. Thanks. Remarkable.

[...]

HUME: That's the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, joined by Rick Santorum, a member of the Republican leadership in the Senate, who were making public today a document, an unclassified document, which constitutes a summary of chemical munitions that the Pentagon now acknowledges have been found -- were found in Iraq, recovered since May of 2004. Some key points here regarding these weapons. It is said that since 2003, the coalition -- this is what the Pentagon is saying in this document. I believe we have a graphic on this. Since 2003 coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons -- 500 munitions which contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve gas. There were weapons not declared by Saddam, which means that the assertions that he had made that he had no weapons were probably not true, although these weapons date, apparently, to the pre-'91 period. And the Defense Department is saying tonight about all this that, "Well, these, yes, they were found, and yes, they were -- though degraded -- weapons of mass destruction, but they were not the weapons of mass destruction that we believed were there."

From the June 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Before we get to the war strategy, my key points. Senator Rick Santorum held a press conference today, late this afternoon, said documents recently released now show sarin mustard gas was in the possession of Saddam, and Santorum said, "You know, all people who said 'no weapons of mass destruction' lied." Now, is this a big story to you? I didn't play it up big, I always knew that he had some sarin, mustard gas, ricin. Is it big to you?

GINGRICH: Well, it's only big in the sense that 500 chemical warheads, gas that is as decisive as sarin, which is a very, very dangerous weapon, means, A, that Saddam was lying to everybody and B, that those people who claimed there were no weapons of mass murder, in this case, are just plain wrong. I mean, it would be nice if The New York Times conceded that 500 weapons that were still there is in fact a serious proof that Saddam was actively violating the entire agreement with the U.N., and it would be a sign to me that it's possible that we're going to find more things over time.

O'REILLY: You know, I believe that, too. I believe he did have the sarin gas, the mustard gas, and that he got rid of a lot of it, and played the games and all of this. But overall, right now, I think the important thing is, how are we going to win this thing in Iraq?

GINGRICH: I agree with that. But I just think, for all the people who were so confident that George W. Bush lied and so confident that there was no weapon of mass destruction. Five hundred chemical warfare shells should at least make them slow down a little bit and rethink.

O'REILLY: Nah, it won't. They don't care.

GINGRICH: But I think it's an important part of how we win in the long run.

O'REILLY: It's really an important part of who's telling the truth and who isn't.

GINGRICH: That's exactly right, now let's come to your talking points tonight, which I could not agree with more. I am really saddened that Americans don't react with intense fury at the idea of two of our young men in uniform being viciously tortured and then beheaded by evil people. I'm saddened that on the left, you don't have Democrats saying we need to go out and beat these people.

[...]

O'REILLY: Before we get to the oil, late today, Rick Santorum, senator from Pennsylvania, announced that 500 shells full of sarin and mustard gas have been found in Iraq. Declassified documents now show that. You were a "Bush lied" guy about WMDs, weren't you? If I remember --

SHARPTON: Well, not only was I, there were a lot of people. And again, we have to see what, in fact, Mr. Santorum has. It would be hard for me to believe even after this administration has conceded there were no weapons, that now all of a sudden, in the middle of Rick's campaign, by the way, he comes up with something. I mean --

O'REILLY: Well, say they did find the mustard gas and the sarin, are you going to write an apology letter to Bush, saying, I said you were a liar but you're not?

SHARPTON: He may be more shocked than I am if they in fact find --

O'REILLY: I think if it's true, he didn't lie.

SHARPTON: If it's true it does not mean the sources that he had, and the information he had was correct. It could be totally, totally false. Again, or totally something that was something -- we'll see.

O'REILLY: I don't think so. I think this is the real deal. But I'm just wondering, because you were a "Bush lied" guy.

SHARPTON: And still am, but I'll wait and see.

O'REILLY: But if you're wrong, you'll apologize?

SHARPTON: If I'm wrong I will apologize.

O'REILLY: Right here on this program?

SHARPTON: Right on this program.

[...]

O'REILLY: I'm happy you're going to apologize for the weapons of mass destruction.

SHARPTON: And I'm happy you're going to join us on the picket line in front of British Petroleum.

O'REILLY: OK. Reverend Sharpton, everybody. Can't wait for the WMD apology.

From the June 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

COLMES: Hey, Congressman and Senator, it's Alan Colmes. Senator, the Iraq Survey Group -- and let me go to the Duelfer report -- says Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there. And Jim Angle, who reported this for Fox News, quotes a defense official who says these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they'd already been degraded, and the official went on to say that these are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMDs for which this country went to war. So the chest-beating that the Republicans are doing tonight, thinking this is a justification, is not confirmed by the Defense Department.

SANTORUM: Well, I'd like to know who that Defense Department spokesperson is. The fact of the matter is, I'll wait and see what the actual Defense Department formally says or, more importantly, the administration formally says. This report is very, very clear.

[...]

HANNITY: You know something, Ann? This finally -- I never doubted for a second that this day would come, because we knew he had them. It's funny to watch liberals. "Bush lied. He hyped. He misled." And now, "Well, there's only 500 of them. Well, wait a minute, but where are the post-'91 weapons?" We didn't say he had weapons of mass destruction post-1991. "They're degraded." OK, would we bury them in a liberal's backyard? I doubt it. You know, it's - they --

COULTER: Maybe near a nuclear power plant.

HANNITY: How about liberals now apologize to the country? How about, for the exploitation --

COULTER: Oh, there are so many things for them to apologize to, I just don't think I can bear to listen to it that long. What we've found out today is that there are more weapons of mass destruction. They found plenty of weapons of mass destruction.

HANNITY: Five hundred, but that's not enough.

COULTER: Right. But, I mean, until now, we didn't know about the stockpiles, which gives yet another reason for having gone to war in Iraq, in addition to all the ones the president gave about the humanitarian reasons, freeing Iraqis from the rape rooms, from this barbaric dictator, establishing a democracy in the Middle East, and getting a foothold for our military in this barbaric part of the world. This is yet another reason -- and we see, again, the affection Democrats have for terrorists, that they want to rush in and say, "Oh, well, they weren't that bad, these weapons of mass destruction."

[...]

HANNITY: And this is a Fox News Alert. As we told you earlier in the program tonight, a newly declassified portion of an Army report says that coalition forces have found chemical weapons in Iraq. At least 500 munitions containing mustard gas and sarin gas have been found since the invasion of 2003. Alan, the president of the United States has been vindicated tonight.

COLMES: I disagree.

HANNITY: Hang on.

COLMES: I disagree.

HANNITY: Let me finish my point.

Saddam Hussein told the world, told the U.N. that he had destroyed all weapons. He didn't say pre-'91 weapons --

COLMES: We know he lied. We already knew that.

HANNITY: Can I finish? He never said pre-'91, never said post-'91. He never said degraded, not degraded. It's time tonight for your liberal friends that attacked the president, for them to come out and admit they were wrong and apologize.

COLMES: Because they weren't, because nothing has been -- let me respond. Nothing has been found. Nothing has been said that contradicts that.

HANNITY: Five hundred. Five hundred have been found.

COLMES: The fact of the matter is the number is irrelevant.

HANNITY: Oh, five hundred's not enough.

COLMES: Our defense official reporting to Jim Angle says these were degraded weapons. They're pre-1991. This is exactly what the Iraq Survey Group, the administration's own group, said that it found, that it had pre-1991 weapons. And that is what --

HANNITY: Saddam Hussein told the world he had destroyed all weapons -

COLMES: Right, right. We know that.

HANNITY: -- not pre-, not post-'91, not degraded. He said he destroyed them all. And we found 500 of them tonight. Five hundred!

COLMES: We already know it. We already know he lied. That's exactly what the ISG [Iraq Survey Group] was talking about.

HANNITY: And the liberal attacks against the president were dead wrong.

COLMES: There's no evidence of that.

HANNITY: We have 500 --

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by peet (June 23, 2006 4:47 pm ET)
         

      At what point does the 1st amendment stop being a shield for outright propaganda... shouldn't there be some sort of regulation that states -- if you claim to be a news source, you must have proof to back up your claims.

      Conversely, if you perpetually fall back on so-called 'punditry' or 'opinion' (a favorite fallback by many righties on this site when the FOX crew are criticized)...then you must be forced to post disclaimers saying 'what you are about to hear is likely BS' ... hell, they do it for movies. Why not this so-called 'news'?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (June 26, 2006 3:37 pm ET)
           

        The response to idiotic, inflamatory, propogandistic, or lying speech... is more speech.

        Don't even make a move for my First Amendment Rights, dude.

        Heck, the first question you have to ask is "Who decides what's right and what's wrong?" Do you want THIS administration telling you what is acceptable speech?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Intergalatic Purveyor (June 23, 2006 4:49 pm ET)
         

      How desperate can you be to peddle this crap as the reason we invaded Iraq? If those really were the WMD's that Dick Cheney kept talking about I wonder how the families of the 2500 dead or 20,000 wounded would feel about it?

      This grotesque charade (Iraq invasion and occupation) must end.

      If there was any justice in this country those responsible for it would be tarred and feathered and their asses kicked out of town.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2006 4:54 pm ET)
         

      this is just silly. these congressmen grandstanding for what amounts to virtually nothing. and then the hannitys and o'reillys grasping at straws demanding this and demanding that. there may have been weapons found but this is hardly a smoking gun. talk about spinning it your way, why can't these pundits and politicians just be honest. they just look even more foolish than they already are. enough.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by rufus t firefly (June 23, 2006 5:02 pm ET)
         

      The last exchange between Hannity and Colmes sounds like an adult trying to reason with a child.

      Our friends at Fox News seem almost desperate to get the "we found WMDs!!" message out as quickly as they can, before the reality catches up with the rhetoric. No doubt many of the Faux Faithful are engaging in a round of "I told you so" hearty backslapping, to hell with the facts. Every day this crew, along with their radio shows, becomes more Pravda-esque.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by southerngal (June 23, 2006 5:04 pm ET)
         

      this is like a father accusing his teenage son of smoking pot in the house. the father tells him to get rid of all the pot in your room, now. later, the son tells his father all the pot is gone, no more to smoke, case closed. six months later the father finds an old useless, decayed joint underneath the son's bed, screams for his son to explain and demands he apologize for not destroying it all. the son says he forgot it was there, it's no good anyway so what's the point? so the father goes on hannity and colmes and so on.............

      Report Abuse
      • Author by thedevilsadvocate (June 23, 2006 7:00 pm ET)
           

        I strongly suspect the report was "declassified" now not just because it was "finished" now, but because it is election year. While the Whitehouse will quietly disavow it through "sources", they know that FoxNews and other conservative pundits can use it and give it just enough plausability to start bringing some of their disenchanted flock back to the fold.

        You should have saw the other thread (it was offtopic) where Fools Gold has apparently bought into this new talking point. I assume he's not the only one. It's a great thing to be able to scream from the rooftops "Oh the Dems were wrong!"

        What I want to see is the Democrats get someone from the Bush administration to go on record to state that these are not the WMD that we went to war for. I know it won't happen, but I think they should try to put them in a corner and let the public see the response. Hopefully it will destroy this as a political ploy for re-election.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by fatbob (June 23, 2006 7:21 pm ET)
           

        first off, a joint that is 6 months old is not degraded beyond use. It may be a little dry, but what the hey. A better analogy would be if dad found a shoe box with stems and seeds in the bottom....

        I assume that the drug reference is an attempt to connect on some level with all us drugged up liberal hippie types, so thanks, but, unless dad is using the found joint as an excuse to beat junior because dad likes to beat junior because dad was a weenie when he was a kid, and dad needs the excuse to tell mom who thinks maybe dad should lighten up, your analogy is off base.

        But keep trying, in the meantime, I'll get high and see if your argument makes any sense then.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by lostlogic (June 23, 2006 5:04 pm ET)
         

      They “MANAGED” to get it declassified. Well that should have tipped them off right there. If the administration had proof that they were correct you wouldn’t have had to “manage” anything…they would have declassified that report so quick the ink wouldn’t have had a chance to dry on the stamp before they had it out to the public. It is quite telling that rather then coming out on the record the White House is only allowing the story to be debunked by using the “unnamed source” technique so that these right-wing wackos like Santorum and Hannity can claim they will believe it till the get official denial. I guess the White House figures heck if some bozo will buy this crap might as well take advantage of it. So let me get this straight; the new story these republicans want to go with is we ATTACKED a sovereign country because they had INACTIVE and DEGRADED chemical weapons…ok then… I guess I’m on board... when do we start the “we want war” chant…obviously we had no other choice but to attack. Truly unbelievable!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by thedevilsadvocate (June 23, 2006 7:02 pm ET)
           

        I didn't read your comment before I posted my last comment but I agree 100%.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (June 23, 2006 5:09 pm ET)
         

      I'd like to post my thought again, on this thread.

      This continued campaign on the part of the "media" to misinform about Iraq, is of course as a result of the two Senate measures considered this week.

      That these measures came to floor for debate was in itself highly significant; that one of those measures had the support of thirty-nine Senators was astounding.

      Those thirty-nine Senators, collectively, are now identified by the administration (and the Republican Congressional leadership) as their most serious opposition.

      I know that you all know this, but had the Levin Amendment passed, it would have made the most resounding world-wide headlines imaginable:

      U.S. SENATE VOTES TO BEGIN REMOVING TROOPS FROM OCCUPIED IRAQ.

      It would have been the top story in every newspaper in the world: Chinese, European, African, India, Australia, all of them.

      Thirty-nine Senators voted for that headline; they voted to redeploy troops from Iraq.

      It was the most significant oppostion to to administration... perhaps ever.

      The U.S. Senate found thirty-nine of it's members in support of forcing the president to redeploy troops from Iraq, over his strongest of objections.

      And that is why you will continue to see this matter worked in the "media"; they must erode that support; it was far more opposition than the administration had imagined; it was more than significant, it was astounding.

      It nearly made-over the front page of every newspaper in the world, bar none.

      (And as for this "media" campaign we're in the midst of, the one to try and erode that support for troop redeployment; I hate to use the word "media", even in quotation marks, when it's Fox being considered, as it is in this item. "Media" is not appropriate in this case; "Public Relations Firm" is a better way to describe Fox.)

      Report Abuse
      • Author by lostlogic (June 23, 2006 5:44 pm ET)
           

        If the 39 supported “forcing” the administration to do anything then why was the resolution a pointless non-binding one? My understand is these type of non-binding resolutions are simply saying this is what we feel but you do what you want because you aren’t bound to abide by this resolution. If they want to force something then make it a binding resolution that the administration is actually forced to abide by. I am thoroughly disgusted by this fluff resolution they came up with. If they want support then come up with something real.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (June 23, 2006 5:11 pm ET)
         

      Seems that every time the troops uncover an old shell casing or can of green stuff left over from the Iran-Iraq war, the troglodytes start drooling and yelling "We found it, we found it!" only to be discredited a short time later. Of course, they never admit their mistake; they just leave it hanging out there as fodder for the misinformed.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (June 24, 2006 1:55 am ET)
           

        are they gonna fall for it? Nerzog notes we've been down this road. Hannity might be the dopiest of the GOPea-brains still getting sucked into it, but over the last few years, it's happened pretty regular.

        I heard the OxyMoron spend a pretty good chunk of his radio show a year or so ago on nukes found in Iraq.Predicting the end of anything not Republican, he had dittoheads calling in,barely able to talk with their tears of joy and thinking their BS was justified.

        I think it took about 12 hours before it was revealed as a hoax. I tuned in El Lushbo the following day, expecting to hear him blame the media or argue that it wasn't a hoax.

        I hate to admit, I listened for about two hours. Not one word about it.From him or his callers.The greatest day of their lives,24 hours later they pretended it never happened.

        Until the next phony story proving they weren't suckers.

        Sometimes think the Repugs should ditch the elephant and adopt Wile E. Coyote as their mascot.

        I

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Sagra (June 23, 2006 5:19 pm ET)
         

      soldiers getting a headache after handling one of these degraded shells. Al's dubbed them Weapons of Minor Discomfort.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by m_czerniewski (June 23, 2006 5:38 pm ET)
         

      Especially Sean Hannity! Why, why, WHY should we progressives apologize to Dumbya? Did Bush say anything about "pre-1991" weapons that are useless now? NO! I'm not going to admit, especially to the likes of a Sean Hannity, that I was wrong about Iraq because I still believe - like I did in 2003 - that we have absolutely no business being there.

      If anything, Sean, you and your buddies at Fox owe the American people an apology for being a propaganda arm of the Bush White House, for lying us into an illegal war, and for calling those of us who know better unpatriotic and - even worse - undermining America.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jmj (June 23, 2006 6:06 pm ET)
         

      For those of you outside of Pennsylvania, let me assure you that ANYTHING Santorum says is either a) a lie, b) something Bush wants him to say, or c) a feeble attempt to bolster his losing campaign for reelection. Somewhere in his poor excuse for a mind, this is a way to molify those in this state who are fed up with his being a mindless shill for an administration whose "leader" should be sitting in the well of the Senate, undergoing impeachment. If he can show that Shrub was "right all along", then his ignorant support of the debacle in Iraq will be forgiven. He's the elected version of FUX News.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by zerosumgame0005 (June 23, 2006 6:11 pm ET)
         

      Now they couldn't say that if it were'nt true! could they?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by freedoms (June 23, 2006 6:52 pm ET)
         

      1. The War Iraq was mounted to GET RID OF the supposed stockpile Weapons of Mass Destruction. 2. Rick Santorum does the Happy Dance. Not because none were there, but because we SUPPOSEDLY FOUND THEM!

      All along I'd always thought it was the threat of them that was our problem. I would have never guessed that somebody would be happy because some were found. Yikes! This stuff is confusing.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (June 23, 2006 6:56 pm ET)
         

      what's going to be a key propaganda point among the bush apologists? see, he was right, we had to invade. i think the phrases to remember on these "wmd" are "degraded" and "long-forgotten". no wonder the white house won't join in this charade. their credibility is already zero.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (June 23, 2006 11:21 pm ET)
         

      Little Dick Santorum was on a local radio station in Piitsburgh today KDKA Radio....Called in and asked him where these weapons were found,which part of Iraq? The host of the show asked "What does it matter where, they were found"...I then explained that if they were found in some remote bunker which have been abandoned for 18 years, how could Saddam remember where they were?? Sen. Santorum hesitated then said, I know but I can't tell you??? I remember Rumsfeld saying that they were north-south-east-and west of Baghdad...Funny, the Senator can tell us what we found but not where....hmmm..when that is declassified he will look more foolish. I guess when you are about to lose your job(which I think the Bush administration will NOT mind), you become GOOFY. P.S. For those Cons who are now trying to tell me the Saddam is a liar...I think we finally agree on something..He is a LIAR

      Report Abuse
    • Author by deepblade (June 24, 2006 12:01 am ET)
         

      Good grief. Listen to Hannity and the other FOXies getting exercised makes me sick. I guess they forgot Kenneth R. Timmerman ``revealed'' all this two years ago.

      Thing is, the ``WMDs exist[ed]'' position is correct, if the part in brackets is added. It is my opinion that part of the ISG mission was to make sure the real source of WMD never came to light. None of the FOXies ever mention that the remnants that do turn up come from a point in time when the US supported Saddam Hussein, and increased aid after his worst chemical crimes. Frankly, it is grotesque for rightists to justify this disastrous war on the basis of crimes Saddam was only able to commit when he had US help and US diplomatic cover.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mescal (June 24, 2006 2:45 am ET)
         

      lying is simply talking.

      They'd be claiming 'vindication' on the issue of WMD if someone managed to find a rusty switchblade in Iraq. They've been trumpeting one false story after another of WMD being found there, because they know that their core audience is DESPERATE to believe that the neocons are really America's saviors, & not simply a cult of grifters detirmined to bleed this nation dry.

      The fact that they're pouncing on this inane & soon to be forgotten little news blip is further evidence that the power that they've enjoyed these last six years is slipping between their convulsing fingers like grains of sand. But we must be on guard, because people this desperate are becoming increasingly dangerous, & lord knows just how far they're willing to go to maintain their position in the national pecking order. I would recomend to my fellow posters to read Sinclair Lewis' IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE to recognise a frighteningly believable scenario of just what these people are capable of.

      Well... for the moment anyway... thank God we've still got the internet.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by heru (June 24, 2006 11:15 am ET)
         

      I've had to repeat this over 1,000 times to these stupid neocons since Bush first lied his way into the Iraq war:

      Read my lips: There are no WMDs in Iraq.

      What wil it take for right wing Moonies to get the message?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by michael80 (June 24, 2006 4:40 pm ET)
         

      You think trying to tell rightwingers that there are no WMDs in Iraq is annoying, try explaining to them that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and watch and their brains explode.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by BISHAMON (June 24, 2006 10:28 pm ET)
           

        Did I hear correctly that 80% of our troops currently in Iraq believe Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? I can't recall who or what was the source of this assertion.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (June 25, 2006 10:07 am ET)
             

          probably something to do with the fact that they watch fox news and limbaugh is on radio for an hour a day. a majority of fox viewers in this country think the same thing.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by mercado (June 24, 2006 5:25 pm ET)
         

      Reading the article I noticed Janet Parshalls name,but no comments from her. I've wondered if she ever got her fingers pulled back out of her ears , I goggled her name and WMDS and the ballbusting interview she had with Randy Rhoades about the War In Iraq. Go to Crooks and Liars Jan 2,2006 scrowl down to video ,it will make your day,it 'made mine

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.