Despite all evidence to the contrary, media conservatives continued to hype Santorum's "weapons of mass destruction"
SUMMARY: Fox News' Brit Hume, John Gibson, and Jim Angle, as well as nationally syndicated radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Janet Parshall, continued to ignore conclusive assertions of intelligence officials that the degraded chemical munitions found in Iraq and hyped by Sen. Rick Santorum and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra were not, in fact, in the category of "weapons of mass destruction" that the U.S. was looking for at the time of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
In reporting and commenting on Sen. Rick Santorum's (R-PA) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra's (R-MI) June 21 claim that a recently declassified intelligence report found that there were "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq prior to the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion, Fox News' Brit Hume, John Gibson, and Jim Angle, as well as nationally syndicated radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Janet Parshall, continued to ignore conclusive assertions of intelligence officials that the degraded chemical munitions found were not, in fact, in the category of "weapons of mass destruction" that the U.S. was looking for at the time of the invasion. They also ignore the Iraq Survey Group's (ISG) September 2004 final report (also known as the Duelfer report), which noted that degraded chemical munitions had already been found in Iraq, and that they were not proof of an existing chemical weapons stockpile or of a renewed Iraqi chemical weapons program. Indeed, former ISG head Charles Duelfer stated that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra do not qualify as weapons of mass destruction, though they may still pose a local threat.
Nevertheless, Hume reported that "[t]op administration officials said today that chemical and biological weapons have indeed been found in Iraq," and a report by Angle uncritically aired a statement by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld that these munitions "are weapons of mass destruction." Further, Angle's report mischaracterized a statement by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, to suggest that she downplayed the danger of these munitions.
As Media Matters for America documented, nearly every June 21 Fox News program between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. ET touted Santorum and Hoekstra's disclosure. Santorum and Hoekstra's claims, however, had been quickly dismissed by Pentagon officials and the intelligence community. 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 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."
The Duelfer report concluded that "old, abandoned chemical munitions" found in Iraq -- such as the ones hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra -- are not part of a "chemical weapons stockpile." According to the report [emphasis in original]:
While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
- The scale of the Iraqi conventional munitions stockpile, among other factors, precluded an examination of the entire stockpile; however, ISG inspected sites judged most likely associated with possible storage or deployment of chemical weapons.
Duelfer also appeared on the June 22 broadcast of National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation, where he stated that these munitions are not weapons of mass destruction:
NEAL CONAN (host): The report says hundreds of WMDs were found in Iraq. Does this change any of the findings in your report?
DEULFER: No, the report -- the findings of the report were basically to describe the relationship of the regime with weapons of mass destruction generally. You know, at two different times, Saddam elected to have and then not to have weapons of mass destruction. We found, when we were investigating, some residual chemical munitions. And we said in the report that such chemical munitions would probably still be found. But the ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard.
CONAN: Mm-hmm. So these -- were these the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration said that it was going into Iraq to find before the war?
DEULFER: No, these do not indicate an ongoing weapons of mass destruction program as had been thought to exist before the war. These are leftover rounds, which Iraq probably did not even know that it had. Certainly, the leadership was unaware of their existence, because they made very clear that they had gotten rid of their programs as a prelude to getting out of sanctions.
[...]
DEULFER: Sarin agent decays, you know, at a certain rate, as does mustard agent. What we found, both as U.N. and later when I was with the Iraq Survey Group, is that some of these rounds would have highly degraded agent, but it is still dangerous. You know, it can be a local hazard. If an insurgent got it and wanted to create a local hazard, it could be exploded. When I was running the ISG -- the Iraq Survey Group -- we had a couple of them that had been turned in to these IEDs, the improvised explosive devices. But they are local hazards. They are not a major, you know, weapon of mass destruction.
Even Angle, Fox News' chief Washington correspondent, and Hume, Fox News' Washington bureau chief, were apparently aware that the chemical weapons touted by Santorum and Hoekstra were not in the category of WMD sought by the U.S. During the June 21 edition of Special Report, Hume reported on the Defense Department's reaction to Santorum and Hoekstra's revelations, noting: "the Defense Department is saying tonight about all this, 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 where there." Fox News host Alan Colmes noted during an interview with Santorum on the June 21 edition of Hannity & Colmes that at least one "defense official" informed 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."
Nevertheless, on the June 22 edition of Special Report, Hume and Angle ignored this evidence in reporting that "chemical weapons" had been found in Iraq, and repeating Rumsfeld's claim that they are "weapons of mass destruction":
HUME: Top administration officials said today that chemical and biological weapons have indeed been found in Iraq, and they now worry what this could suggest about other hidden weapons there and the possible dangers to U.S. troops. As Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reports, the administration tried to strike a balance, not minimizing but not exaggerating what has been found.
ANGLE (video): Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is the first administration official to comment publicly on the declassified report that some 500 chemical weapons have been found in Iraq.
RUMSFELD: They are weapons of mass destruction. They're harmful to human beings. And they have been found and they had not been reported by Saddam Hussein as he inaccurately alleged he had reported all of his weapons, and they're still being found and discovered.
ANGLE: U.S. intelligence officials believe the weapons were made prior to the Gulf War in 1991, and officials say they have seriously degraded over time. But the declassified report says they are still lethal, and Secretary Rumsfeld said that is a concern for all those in Iraq.
RUMSFELD: It's dangerous to our forces and it's a concern, so obviously to the extent that we can locate these and destroy them, it's important that we do so. I'm sure General [George W.] Casey [Jr., commanding general of the Multinational Force-Iraq] or anyone else in that country would be concerned if they got in the wrong hands.
ANGLE: In fact, the declassified report said, "Pre-Gulf War weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out."
Angle also misattributed a statement on the alleged danger of the munitions to Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Angle claimed that "Harman argued wouldn't be any more toxic now than what one might find under the kitchen sink, but U.S. intelligence officials insisted today the materials are still lethal." In fact, Harman called the munitions "old, fairly toxic stuff." According to a June 22 Associated Press article, it was former ISG head David Kay who claimed that the degraded chemicals in the weapons were "less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point."
On the June 22 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson, introducing an interview with Hoekstra, stated flatly that Saddam Hussein "did have weapons of mass destruction, at least 500 of them, according to Republican Senator Rick Santorum and Republican Congressman Pete Hoekstra." Gibson did not reference any of the evidence undermining Hoekstra's claim, and asked Hoesktra if the munitions "qualify as Saddam having current weapons that posed some kind of threat." Gibson also dismissed the "rejection of these as any sort of validation as a reason to go to ... war" as "laughter coming from the left":
GIBSON: A breakthrough report says coalition forces have found chemical weapons in Iraq. That would mean Saddam Hussein lied. He did have weapons of mass destruction, at least 500 of them, according to Republican Senator Rick Santorum and Republican Congressman Pete Hoekstra. Congressman Hoekstra is the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and he joins us now. Congressman, thanks.
HOEKSTRA: Hey, thank you.
GIBSON: I'm really confused about this. You had to pry this information out of the Department of Defense, evidently. And they're in the business of trying to convince us that Saddam did have WMD, so why was it like pulling teeth?
HOEKSTRA: Well, I'm not sure of that. That's one of those questions. Obviously, what is happening here, John, is that they see that WMD is a threat to our front-line troops. So perhaps the answer to that question is buried in -- we need to make sure we get a hold of all of these weapons. We have found 500, and we need to get a hold of all the other ones that we think may still be in Iraq, because they do pose a threat to our front-line troops.
GIBSON: You know, there's a -- the 500, were they all found together in one cache, one pile, or is this here and there?
HOEKSTRA: My understanding is that they were found in numerous different sites in various parts of Iraq.
GIBSON: Is 500 a lot? I mean, if the president said Iraq has WMD, is 500 enough to make that argument?
HOEKSTRA: Well, I think you have got to put this in context of everything else that we knew that was going on in Iraq. We knew Saddam had weapons of mass destruction at one time, because he used them and killed thousands of his own people and thousands of Iranians. The Duelfer, the -- Duelfer report from the Iraqi Survey Group, they said that there were obviously weapons programs in development, including anthrax in dual-use facilities that could start producing chemical weapons within six months after sanctions were lifted. This is just one more piece in a very complicated puzzle of a very, very notorious and evil regime.
GIBSON: If these are pre-'91 weapons, do they qualify as Saddam having current weapons that posed some kind of threat?
HOEKSTRA: Well, I think the secretary of defense said it very, very well. These weapons continue to pose a threat to our troops. They continue to pose a threat to the people in Iraq. And perhaps, if these weapons were ever transported somewhere else, they would pose a threat to citizens of other countries. These materials are still very, very deadly. It doesn't matter when they were manufactured, if they were manufactured in '88 or whether they were manufactured in '98 or 2002. They were still in Iraq, and they still have the capability today of killing people.
GIBSON: What do you think of the laughter coming from the left about this, I mean, just this kind of rejection of these as any sort of validation as a reason to go to the -- to go to war?
HOEKSTRA: Well, I think -- I'm not going to respond to the left. I mean, first, they said there were weapons of mass destruction. You know, you've got a lot of Democrats on the record saying, you know, very forcefully, there were weapons and this is why we need to go and get rid of Saddam Hussein. The Duelfer report came out, and they said, "Wow, see, there were no weapons of mass destruction." And now that we have found quantities -- but I think the other thing that is implied here, John, is that Secretary Rumsfeld has also said there are many, many more WMD in Iraq. We don't know how many more there are. It is not a WMD-free zone.
On the June 22 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh announced his intention to "get out the truth on weapons of mass destruction" and denounced the "three-year propaganda program on 'no weapons of mass destruction' ":
LIMBAUGH: It is going to be up to us, ladies and gentlemen, to get the truth out on weapons of mass destruction and overcome the obdurate stubbornness and blindness of the Democrats and the drive-by media. It's going to be up to us to give courage and backbone to our own people on our side of the aisle.
[...]
If you're like me, you have a mixture of anger and frustration at a whole lot of people over the discovered news of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And you're very frustrated over what some of the reaction to this has been.
[...]
We've had a three-year propaganda program on "no weapons of mass destruction, none have been found." This is just settled in now as fact. It is not fact. It is propaganda. The facts are coming out, and there's probably a lot more to be unclassified if somebody will just do it.
On the June 22 edition of Salem Radio Network's Janet Parshall's America, Parshall interviewed counterterrorism consultant and Weekly Standard contributor Daveed Gartenstein-Ross* , and both Parshall and Gartenstein-Ross attacked the media reports undermining Santorum as "misrepresentation" and "spin":
PARSHALL: Daveed Gartenstein-Ross wrote a piece with Richard Miniter called "Making Victory Rhyme with Defeat" -- I love this piece -- "The Three Media Myths of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi." The piece is fabulous. We thank Daveed so much for being with us. This is a man who understands terrorism, and by the way, his book is going to be coming out next year, called My Year Inside Radical Islam. I cannot wait to read it. Daveed, thank you so much for being with us.
You know, I go back to the inspired Scripture that says, "Be angry and sin not." But I come awful close when it comes to the major press and the misrepresentation. Classic example: Rick Santorum gives a press conference at about 5:30 last night and says, "Guess what, we found weapons of mass destruction." And now finding that story is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. It is amazing.
GARTENSTEIN-ROSS: Yeah, it certainly is amazing the degree to which the media has the notion as to the way they want to spin any events that are occurring in Iraq or events occurring around the war on terror.
*Daveed Gartenstein-Ross responds: I want to alert you to the fact that I believe you misrepresented my views in the above-mentioned item. My comment on Janet Parshall's show about media spin in Iraq was meant to segue into the three media myths discussed in my Weekly Standard piece: It was not intended to endorse Santorum's comments, about which I have no opinion at this point.
The distinction is fairly important to me because, unlike many conservative analysts, I believe that the Iraq war has proven to be a mistake (although I am deadset against withdrawing from the country too hastily). Thus, I tend to be skeptical of claims that WMD's have been discovered there.
I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your entry. Although my response was somewhat vague, it was not intended as an endorsement of Santorum's remarks.
Help me out here. Sadam used WMD's to gas and kill over 100,000 of his own people but that does not constitute a weapon of mass destruction? They discovered over 500 canister of poisonous gas, that can be used as RPG's and with rockets, and can still be lethal but because they are past the assumed shelf life - they do not count either. Then someone please tell me what a WMD is and could Sadam have moved them into Syria and Iran during those months of debate in the UN?
There were indeed weapons... when Saddam used them in the 1980s.
But are they still "Weapons" if they've been unusable for decades?
And where they ewver of "Mass Destrcution?"
This is more right-wing b-a-l-o-n-e-y.
the marching morons will swollow anything that looks shiney
FOX is playing to its GOP base -- the ill-informed, uneducated, and ideologically blinded. The timing of this WMD non-story couldn't possibly have anything to do with the airing this week of an absolutely devastating Frontline report, could it?
If you missed Frontline this past Tuesday ("The Dark Side"), please check out the transcript online. Former top CIA officials reveal breathtaking new insider details about the poor quality of the pre-war WMD intelligence. Their criticism of current Bush II officials is surprisingly candid and blunt.
From this morning's Neil Boortz on-line programming notes. He'll be pushing these lies all day (06/26/2006). He failed to cite his sources. That doesn't really bother his listeners though, since they'll accept his words on faith alone. They WANT to believe... [link to boortz.com] - - - SADDAM LINK TO AL-QAEDA: CONFIRMED
One of the "facts' used to attack the Bush Administration by the left and the mainstream media is that we invaded Iraq without a single shred of evidence that Saddam had anything to do with terrorism. Specifically, people point out that Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda and 9/11. Well, now we have evidence that not only was Saddam Hussein interested in terrorism, but he was actually working deals with Al-Qaeda.
According to recently declassified documents, Saddam established contact with not only the Taliban in Afghanistan (where Osama Bin Laden was based when 9/11 went down, remember?) but also other jihadists based in the Middle East. And here's the kicker: Saddam also held discussions with an Al-Qaeda operative about establishing jihadi training centers, maybe even in Baghdad. So there it is...proof that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda.
Add this to the disclosure last week that Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction were found...and where does that leave liberals who say Bush invaded Iraq based on a lie? What lie? Some WMD's were found...the link to Al-Qaeda has been established...what more do they want? The answer is they want America to fail in Iraq, so they can pin it on George W. Bush and the Republicans.
Every American success in Iraq spells trouble for the left. Howard Dean probably had a little memorial service for Zarqawi at a secret DNC location a couple weeks ago. - - -
I almost feel sorry for them. Not!
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. " Now it appears that the weapons subsequently found are from that era, if all the weapons were actually not destroyed in 1991, can we truly believe that all the weapons since that time may have been destroyed? Cheney stated "Those (pre 1991) were not the weapons we were looking for (paraphrased)." Does that mean there is itelligence somewhere that says a program was put in place after then that "produced" the weapons the reason for war? Do we discount (and I think we should) the PA raver's current tirade, but keep our minds open to further developments? Or have we made up our minds and nothing will change our preceptions?
There's all this talk from the right that WMD are still somewhere out there in Iraq, but we have searched and searched and all we have found are ancient--sometimes buried--munitions that were likely missed when Saddam destroyed his stockpile.
You don't believe the right wing canard that these WMD were shipped to Syria do you? What a massive failure of U.S intelligence that would be.
I agree, a paltry 500 WMDs, glad we found them. Now we have a new job for Santorum, maybe he can help the Pentagon find a few missing items they lost 3 years ago-
"A study by the Defense Department's inspector general found that the Pentagon couldn't properly account for more than a trillion dollars in monies spent. A GAO report found Defense inventory systems so lax that the U.S. Army lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units."
[link to www.sfgate.com]
Doesn't seem like a big stretch for Saddam to be missing several hundred or thousand "WMDs" if we can't find our own planes or tanks!
However, I don't believe we have searched every possible hiding place at this time. Remember that it would only take a few 55 gallon drums to contain enough antrax to cause a major problem in a densily populated area. Sarin, ricin, mustard gas, how easy would they be to hide in non-weapon(bulk) form? I would not be surprised if something turns up, but I would be greatly relieved if nothing does. Syria, Saudi, Iran, possibilities (remote, but possible).
The first is that both chemical and biological weapons do not store well. Just putting them in 55 gallon drums would mean they would be useless within a few years. Since we have no evidence of programs since the mid nineties, any bio or chem weapons stored this way would not be a danger anymore. Second you dont just look for these things at random. We have had all the scientists and military personell with every conceivable motive to cough up such a PR bonanza as these weapons would be for this administration and no reason to hide them. They could be US citizens and get a lucratvie deal on the talk show circuit by the simple act of producing these WMDs. We have had them for three years. They all say the same thing. No WMD programs. At this point its only stubborn ideology that would lead one to believe there were WMDs to find in Iraq. There is certainly nothing like evidence.
...If you are not already familiar with him, I suggest you find some information about Scott Ritter. He's a "card-carrying Republican who voted Repubican in every election... 'except the last one'." He's an ex-marine, and he was also Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq after the first Gulf War, until he quit in 1998.
He has made trememdous efforts to expose the TRUTH about Bush's lies regarding Iraq. The biological weapons reported here are nothing, worthless, and he can explain why. He's written books, he's done TV appearances, speeches in public forums, etc. It's easy to find info about him with any "search engine" online.
He gives an especially interesting perspective to the entire inspections controversy -- check him out, if you have not already.
i.e. Saddam said he had destroyed all weapons and yet we find some (old/ineffective) that were not destroyed. That, at least to me, leaves the possibility (very remote, I hope) that there could be some semi-effective ones out there somewhere. I would not be surprised if some surface in the future, I would not be disappointed (in fact would be elated) if they do not. I have read much of what Ritter has written, I have read some synoses of the Duelfer report, just trying to keep an open mind, something that appears that most poster here are not willing to do.
You say that leaves the remote possibility of WMDs. Well besides possibilities as remote as Martian death rays it DOESNT. These chemical and biological weapons have short shelf lives. Figure five years tops. So if there were no PROGRAMS to replenish these stockpiles then any other missing or even hidden (also very remote remember we have the scientists and military people with no regime left to protect) would be as useless as this pile of garbage we found a couple of years ago. This is why it wasnt made a big deal then. IF the issue is raised it brings into light the fact that unless we can show PROGRAMS to replenish the stockpiles of these weapons, which we cant, as recent as 1998 then the whole THE WMDs are gonna get you campaign Bush led in 2002 would be shown to be completely without merit, which it was. That shows just how desperate they are now. Taking that chance anyway.
Ever hear that expression? It is basically a critique of pointless suppositions. Assume enough and anything can be true.
You describe theorizing as to the possible existance of WMDs as being open-minded. But after years of inspections, intelligence work that cast doubt on the existance of WMDs and over 3 years of searching, is the theorizing open-mindedness or wishful thinking?
In the resolution that authorized the president...
to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq
...(which of course is H.J.Res.114) the term "weapons of mass destruction" is invoked seven times; all seven mentions of "weapons of mass destruction" appear in the Findings of that resolution.
Here are all seven of those references to "weapons of mass destruction", in the order they are found in the resolution's Findings:
...Iraq's (1) weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities...
...Iraq's continuing (2) weapons of mass destruction programs...
...the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use (3) weapons of mass destruction...
...the acquisition of (4) weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations...
...Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use (5) weapons of mass destruction...
...to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of (6) weapons of mass destruction...
...Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of (7) weapons of mass destruction...
Last week the House passed it's non-binding "stay the course" resolution, H.Res.861.
In that resolution (which re-affirms the invasion of Iraq, and the reasons for so doing), the term "weapons of mass destruction" is invoked once:
...Whereas the steadfast resolve of the United States and its partners since September 11, 2001, helped persuade the government of Libya to surrender its weapons of mass destruction...
That is the only reference in H.Res.861 to "weapons of mass destruction"; and as you can see, it is made in reference to Libya, not Iraq (whereas six of the seven references to "weapons of mass destruction" in H.J.Res.114 are to Iraq).
Of course, the mission has been cleverly changed; it's no longer about "weapons of mass destruction" (or why else make not a single reference to Iraq having those things, in last week's "stay the course" House resolution?).
And of course, no "weapons of mass destruction" have been found in Iraq (again, were they found, then there'd have been a mention of it in the "stay the course" resolution; which there wasn't).
In addition to us wondering why we were told those things were in Iraq, we can also wonder how it is they have cleverly disappeared from the wordings of the resolutions.
What is it that has cleverly taken the place of "weapons of mass destruction" as the mission of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq?
H.Res.861: ("stay the course")
Whereas the mission of the United States and its Coalition partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors
Resolved, That the House of Representatives declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq
..."the completion of the mission to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors"...
That sounds like the work of the Iraqi people to me; and if the U.S. were to lend a hand, I'd think it would the hand of the U.S. State Department.
While of course, anything whatsoever to do with "weapons of mass destruction" involves the U.S. Armed Forces (work they've completed, in verifying those things not to be in Iraq), I would hardly think establishing "a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors" was the work of the U.S. Armed Forces.
I hardly think it to be even possible, unless the Iraqi people make it happen for themselves.
First, a study by the congressionally commissioned National Academy of Sciences proves again that the earth is getting dangerously hotter and that man is to blame for most of it.
Second, yet another report links global warming with recent increased hurricaine activity.
Third, Fox News and Rick Santorum are totally embarassed by Charles Duelfer, the intelligence community and of course, Media Matters for America.
Great job MMFA.
Yeah a bad week indeed. Bush's approval ratings just went to 44 percent. With a 3 percent margin of error he could be pushing 50 percent shortly.
The left looks like loonies complaining that shells with Sarin gas are not wmds.
More terrorist busts in Miami.
The liberal NY Times is getting heavy backlash for outing a secret anti-terrorist program for which they could not state one single law was broken.
John Kerry goes down in flames again. What is especially funny is he coined the cut and run phrase!
"WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 - In a major national security address Wednesday Democratic presidential contender John Kerry was sounding an alarm about premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. “I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy,” Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery to the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Massachusetts senator accused Bush and his aides of a “sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal without adequate stability,” which he called “an invitation to failure.”
[link to msnbc.msn.com]
I hope we have more bad weeks like this!!
He contended that it would be “a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle” to accelerate the transfer of authority to Iraqis so as to allow “a politically expedient withdrawal of American troops.”
Was that a Sesame street poll?
The newest polls I see show Bush at 36% approval and 54% disapproval and 37% approval and 53% disapproval with only 28% of the people thinking the country is moving in the right direction. What you wish were that on PLANET EARTH the news was as good as it is on Planet Wingnut.
[link to www.pollingreport.com]
" The newest polls I see show Bush at 36% approval and 54% disapproval and 37% approval and 53% disapproval with only 28% of the people thinking the country is moving in the right direction. "
That's because YOUR polls are nearly 2 weeks old and show a 10% margin of error, so even according to yours Bush could have a 46% approval rating. [link to www.rasmussenreports.com]
The 44 percent figure is not the most realiable according to the very article you linked to:
Rassmusen has Bush somewhat higher than other polls. It does not have him at 44%, though. In fact, the article notes "With a three-percentage point margin of sampling error, this spike may be little more than statistical noise."
In addition to the facts noted by Funnypants, you overlooked a couple of other points...
(1) The 44% rating by Ramussen Reports should be taken in context with its earlier polls, not those of other pollsters. The lowpoint according to RR was 40%, for a +4% increase. That's approximately the same increase as other polls. It's also mostly within the margin of error of the poll.
(2) You may argue what his actual approval rating is at present based on which poll you choose to believe. However, no matter which you choose, clearly more people disapprove (55% per the RR poll) than approve. In an election, that margin would be considered a landslide.
(3) You characterization of the Pew poll is wrong. The poll was completed on 6/19, hardly 2 weeks old. Also, the margin of error of that poll was not 10%, but 3%. The 10% you claimed was actually the % of subjects who responded "unsure." (Once again, I'm curious, do you bother to read the sources you cite?)
(4) The most recent Zogby poll (completed on 6/20) yielded 36% describing Bush's performance and Excellent/Good vs. 64% indicating Bad/Poor.
You presented some really good information.
when you win one, then I'll listen to you.
Second, the trend line for Bush's ratings (and Media Matters always loves trend lines) is up.
So at this point you really don't know how high they will rebound.
I know it scares you, but you can't stop it. Blame Murtha, Reid, Dean, Kennedy and Kerry. The more they shoot off their mouths the more people see how wrong they are and how Bush is right on the war and the economy.
>>In an election when you win one, then I'll listen to you.
That's not the least bit relevant to the thread and smacks of deperation on your part.
>>Second, the trend line for Bush's ratings (and Media Matters always loves trend lines) is up.
The trend line is not up. Bush has gotten a modest 3% increase in approval ratings, but I don't see any long trend here. As for scaring us, now you are just trash talking.
By the way, why don't you defend your absured statement about only the leftist loonies thinking the sarin shells are WMDs? You really made a foolish statment, which I'd like to see you defend rather than reading your empty bluster.
Three of the last four popular votes in the National elections. So you can listen. Your time is up
Dems won
Three of the last four popular votes in the National elections. So you can listen. Your time is up
Really, you're proud of this misleading accomplishment?? The two elections won by Clinton were won with LESS the 50% of the vote!! In order to find the LAST time a Democrat won the National election for President with more than 50% of the vote you have to go waaaaaaay back to, are you READY for this, 1976!! The fact that you're PROUD of your statistic proves only you're apparently lowered expectations.
As far as the WMD's are concerned, it's REAL simple:
Democrats have been telling us there were NO WMD's in Iraq!!
They found WMD's in Iraq!!
Is it so hard to just say, "we were WRONG!!" Yet AGAIN!!
As have Republicans.
In order to make it that simples you had to omit key facts, like that the "WMD"s they found were officially described as degraded, and that the WMDs that the invasion were based on were expected to be new, and from an ongoing weapons program.
But sure, keep pretending... how else would anyone be able to cope with today's Republicans?
"Democrats have been telling us there were NO WMD's in Iraq!!"
As have Republicans.
"They found WMD's in Iraq!!"
In order to make it that simples you had to omit key facts, like that the "WMD"s they found were officially described as degraded, and that the WMDs that the invasion were based on were expected to be new, and from an ongoing weapons program.
But sure, keep pretending... how else would anyone be able to cope with today's Republicans?
and that the WMDs that the invasion were based on were expected to be new, and from an ongoing weapons program.
Here is John Kerry's statement from 2003:
".......so the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003"
Here is a statement from Al Gore in 2002:
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
I don't see anywhere, and indeed cannot remember anyone quantifying what WMD's would be considered WMD's and which wouldn't. In all the accusations that there were NO WMD's in Iraq, it was never quantified as to what WMD's qualified and which didn't, it was merely "they didn't exist and Bush LIED." Now, you wish, since you've been shown to be absolutely WRONG, to somehow suggest that actual WMD's that were found, are somehow not WMD's at all. I don't think you can sell it to the American people. The truth is out, Kerry and Gore were "right" in 2002 and 2003, before they were wrong in 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Hey, but listen, if you think you can sell that these WMD's are not those wmd's, please, by all means continue. You do look a little foolish however.
"Hey, but listen, if you think you can sell that these WMD's are not those wmd's, please, by all means continue. You do look a little foolish however."
I don't need to do that, just go and read the reports from the wepons inspectors.
And maybe you don't remember Colin Powell's presentation to the UN about Iraq's supposed WMD-making capabilities?
I don't need to do that, just go and read the reports from the wepons inspectors.
I don't need a weapons inspector to tell me that the Dems said there were absolute NO WMD's. Now, that they've FOUND WMD'S, I don't need anyone to tell me the Dem's got it wrong.
Kerry, Bush et al, were all wrong about there being WMDs in Iraq. The weapons inspectors, Kay and Duelfer, both said there were old chemical and/or biological weapons that were unaccounted for and that would probably be found later, but that they had found no evidence of a WMD program, or WMDs, in Iraq.
"The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there". Guess who said that? President Bush, in October 2004. No doubt he had at that point access to the same material senator Santorum is now referring to, since that is accounting for materials found in 2003.
I know it will not convince you, but those are the facts.
"The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there"
My problem is not with the fact that Iraq appears to have NOT had the weapons our intelligence community believed were there, but with the repeated and now proven incorrect allegations by Democrats over the last three years that BUSH LIED, there are NO WMD's in Iraq. That's a far cry from not having what we believed was there and the current "soft shoe" they're doing telling us NOW that these WMD's aren't those WMD's and somehow "don't qualify??!!" Whatever THAT means!!
You cant read, the 36/54 pew poll was taken between the 14th and 19th of THIS MONTH which would make it 5 days old today. Now I dont know on what planet 5 days becomes two weeks here on Planet Earth that would be less than a week old. Not even a good try.
..that when a Jewish extremist in Florida was arrested for planning to blow up several mosques in the area, very little coverage was to be had. Where was all the "we got 'em" and "this is what the war on terror looks like" hoopla we see now?
Point 1: ``This group was more aspirational than operational,'' FBI Deputy Director John Pistole said.
Point 2: The FBI learned of the plot from someone the defendants tried to recruit, authorities said.
Point 1 proves that while this group was potentially dangerous, they currently were not a threat. It's good we got them, but to act as if they were ready to blow something up at any time is dishonest. You can keep the duct tape and gas masks in the closet for now.
Point 2 proves that you don't need to wiretap every single American and all their activities to find terrorist cells. You just need honest people to step forward.
Also, I'd like to see how this one ends. The majority of these cases end up fizzling out at the end when it's found that all the evidence was circumstantial and conclusions were found based on the outcome, and the evidence is then "found" to support the conclusion. In fact, I recall hearing that there were more actual convictions of members of Catholic terrorist groups like "The Real IRA" than Muslim terrorists. I say the word "convictions" because while there were many arrests following 9/11, most of them turned out to be bunk. Nothing at all. But you never heard about that. You only saw the headline proclaiming, days on end, that we found terrorist sleeper cells in America. Ooga booga!
..and if I recall, those "shells with Sarin gas" are from 1991 and are not effective as weapons. Could they potentially kill someone? Sure. But so could a bucket of water. Hell, if you froze a bucket of water and threw it at someone's head, you could cause some serious brain damage.
These aren't the weapons we went to war for.
" Point 2 proves that you don't need to wiretap every single American and all their activities to find terrorist cells. You just need honest people to step forward. "
Once the "honest people" step forward and tell the authorities that their neighbor is a "terrorist"....
1; Do we break the door down and arrest everyone in the house because one person said so?
2; Wiretap the house to confirm the validity of the claims?
And, since when does one complaint give a judge enough reason to authorize a wiretap? THAT's why the government needs to wiretap phones as they see fit. I'll bet they started wiretapping that house the instant they got the "tip", and they didn't wait for a judges approval. They aren't wiretapping every phone in America, just the ones that need to be.
Yes, if the neighbor give good info, then the judge would give them a warrant. Further, it is false to state that the police (or FBI) would have to wait for a warrant, as you imply. In fact, the FBI could wiretap the second it got the tip. I merely would have to go to court afterwards and ask the judge if it could continue to do so.
And exactly how do you know that only the phones of the true suspects are being tapped? The program is secret.
The government cannot tap phones as they see fit, since that is a violation of the constitution.
>>The left looks like loonies complaining that shells with Sarin gas are not wmds.
You mean loonies like Duelfer, whom Bush appointed to determine the status of WMDs in Iraq? Or Kay, who was appointed by Bush for the same reason? Both men said definitively that these are not WMDs but discarded shells that Saddam did not know about. Oh yes, and the DOD said the same thing.
Are these definitive judgements the judgements of leftists?
"The left looks like loonies complaining that shells with Sarin gas are not wmds. " Yes, when Sec. Rice, the VP and the President were talking about WMD, they ment Sarin. All that talk of mushroom clouds, and nuclear "dirty" bombs were all actually about 15 year old Sarin. Some of us remember what these people were saying 3 years ago, and they were talking nukes and cities being destroyed, not some of our soldiers getting some bad burns.
Some of us remember what these people were saying 3 years ago, and they were talking nukes and cities being destroyed, not some of our soldiers getting some bad burns.
When you say "these people," in your post, you're referring of course to all those Democrats, including Kerry, Levin, Clinton, Rockerfeller, Kennedy, and Gore that told us WITHOUT QUESTION, Saddam had WMD's and we needed to take him out.
Just want to judge the veracity of your comment here.
that the un inspectors were in iraq for three months and found nothing. old degraded buried shells that were most likely long forgotten do not qualify.
old degraded buried shells that were most likely long forgotten do not qualify.
I wasn't aware that there was an "official WMD" that qualified. Can you point me to where the details are that will tell us which "qualify" and which don't. These weapons are still very dangerous, in spite of the degraded qualifier that left seems to be trying to put on these WMD's.
Is it so hard to just admit that you were wrong?? You guys jumped all over Bush at not being able to admit any "mistakes," but your side seems to be having a VERY difficult time here admitting your mistake. Pot, meet Kettle!!
They have found what could be called WMDs (although the weapons inspectors themselves don't think they pose any significant threat), but these WMDs were not part of the suspected arsenal and capabilities that led to the decision to invade Iraq. That's the point here. If they all of a sudden found alien technology that Saddam could have used to obliterate mankind, that still doesn't make Kerry, Bush and all the others right.
Not sure why you can't accept this.
but these WMDs were not part of the suspected arsenal and capabilities that led to the decision to invade Iraq.
Oh, then we can clear this up pretty quickly. Can you point me to the article or statement by the President, OR any of those Democrats that have told us over the last 3 years that there were NO WMD's, that would somehow differentiate between which WMD's are "part" of the suspected arsenal that you refer to, and which WMD's ARE NOT? I wasn't aware that any distinction had been made, but as soon as I look over your information laying out the specifications, I will gladly relent. Would you send that over??
mushroom cloud as a 'smoking gun'? nope, none of that found
how about mobile bio labs, remember those cartoons Colin showed us? again nope not found.
Or even the tons and tons of all those WMD's? well, no not even those...
BUZZ, you lose again.
who said they were 20 years old and "decayed". that's not me making up a qualifier. sorry the truth escapes you.
who said they were 20 years old and "decayed". that's not me making up a qualifier. sorry the truth escapes you.
Others have said they were still potentially quite dangerous, and EVERYONE agrees they are/were WMD's that the left said Saddam DIDN'T HAVE!! Sorry that truth escapes you!
who said they were dangerous? and a weapon that is "degraded" is no longer a weapon. by your logic, let's invade alabama because there's a civil war cannon in front of the county courthouse. bu give us those "others".
who said they were dangerous? and a weapon that is "degraded" is no longer a weapon. by your logic, let's invade alabama because there's a civil war cannon in front of the county courthouse. bu give us those "others".
Degraded doesn't mean harmless by any stretch, it merely means not quite as completely lethal as it was originally, but still lethal. Your comment about Alabama is silly.
still waiting on the names of those "others" who say they're still "potentially dangerous".
American men and women to war to protect you from WMDs about as toxic as Easy-Off Oven Cleaner (tm)?
Damn. I'd hate to be that cowardly.
Weapons of Mild Discomfort.
Yes, sir. I've got Grasping for Straws on the phone for you.
Santorum is one desperate puppy. Those polls in Pennsylvania look awful and he has a real talent for grandstanding. Leave it Witless Britt, Johnny "put a top on it and I'll (hick) have it to go" Gibson, Rush "let me pop a couple of more and pat you down" Bimbo and the rest of the goon squad to jump on this. I have to wake up from this nightmare soon, PLEASE.
Desperate is what the guy is.
He had placed a good amount of what little political capital he had, on a horse named "Gay Marriage"...
It broke down coming out of the gate; the poll numbers showed overwhelmingly that the American People think there's about a billion things more important right now in national politics, than the menace of queer nuptials...
Those same polls identified Iraq as the single most important issue in national politics right now to the American People.
So this desperate guy is going to spend some political capital on Iraq; good idea Rick; if it's important to the American People, then you might as well address the issue.
But WMD's?
Good grief Rick! You don't have to worry about that horse breaking it's leg coming out of the gate, or anywhere else on the track...
Because that horse is dead a long time ago.
It's one thing to waste political capital on a nag, but to waste it on a horse that's dead?
Good grief Rick!
Now, if you had asked me a couple weeks ago, how to retain your seat; how to win over not only the Hearts and Minds of the good folks in PA, but the majority of the American People in the process too; I'd have told you.
I'd have gave you the advice that not only would have secured your Senate seat, but would have put you on the leader board for the 2008 presidential race.
What you should have done this past week was get behind the Levin Amendment to redeploy U.S. Troops from Iraq.
In breaking ranks with the Senate Republican leadership; in pronouncing that the job of the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq is truly done (WMD's verified not to exist, saadam and the "regime" all captured and/or killed, and the national elections having installed a governmet and a national assembly); that those Troops deserve their overdue Home Coming; that the Sons and Daughters of Pennsylvania (and all the other states) should all come home alive from Iraq, now...
In supporting the Levin Amendment (as thirty-nine of your more sensible colleagues did) and doing so as a statement of conscience, for the U.S. Armed Forces and against the FALSIFIED 'pre-invasion intelligence'...
The majority of PA would have cheered!
The majority of the America People would have hailed your name, and considered you seriously for their president in 2008...
And then it would have been your opponent sweating nervously and biting his nails (instead of you).
But alas, you didn't do it; you voted against the Levin Amendment; too bad; and so it's your opponent in the catbird seat on this issue, leaving you to do...
What?
WMD's?
Good grief Rick, you missed the boat again.
"Gay Marriage", WMD's, what next...
Look if it's too late to take my good advice, and if you're obsessed with following bad advice (which you must be), then OK, I've got some for you:
When you finally wake up to the WMD horse being long dead and wasted on a sensible American People, then try this...
Try "Communists in the Department of the Army".
Try it. It worked for that Senator from Wisconsin, didn't it?
It would sound perfect coming from you Rick.
"Communists in the Department of the Army"
...but let's all think about this together. Some Democrats have been screaming for the past 3+ years (and IMHO, rightly) that there aren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. These supposed "WMD" that are the subject of this thread were found OVER TWO YEARS AGO. Don't you think that if they were really WMD, the Neo-cons would have rubbed that in the Democrats' collective faces LONG BEFORE NOW? Would Dickhead Cheney have said, "These were not the weapons we were looking for (paraphrased)" if these were truly WMD? Next, let's think about the authorization to use force that Dem mentioned in an earlier post. We went to war with Iraq based on the "fact" that Saddam Hussein had WMD that caused a direct and immediate threat to the United States. So, tell me, conservatives, HOW are 500 degraded weapons, buried in the sand, almost 20 years old part of some direct and immediate threat to the United States. The fact of the matter is this: Conservatives rarely choose to look at the facts in front of their faces. Of course, each con wants to see this as a victory for the Bush Administration. However, this is not a victory for ANYONE. If this were a victory for the Bush Administration, why did it take TWO FREAKIN' YEARS to tell us about it? Don't you think the Administration would have said, "See, we told you so!" But no..instead, their number two man said, "They weren't the weapons we were looking for, you know, the weapons that are the cause of a direct and immediate threat to the U.S." (not a quote, but a paraphrase).
"Is 500 a lot? ...is 500 enough to make that argument?
Based on current figures, that works out to be 5 US soldiers killed and about 34 wounded per canister of 15+ year-old dusty abandoned chemical weapons. Is THAT enough to justify that argument?
Hans Blix at the time said they were less dangerous than what most Americans have under their sink. Yeah, real compelling
That should have read David Kay.
"This is just one more piece in a very complicated puzzle of a very, very notorious and evil regime." -Yes Pete.Yes it is.
"We've had a three-year propaganda program" -Yes Rush.Yes we have.
I never fail to be amazed as how these people outright lie. This isn't even spinning. It's outright lying.
BUT then again, We ARE talking about Fakenews.
I slowly but surely am beginning to lose faith completely in our television media. I actually kept holding out hope that they would stop with the lying and propaganda for the Dumbya administration, but that hope is getting to the point where you need a microscope to see it.
I write them all the time anyway and keep asking them why they keep giving the Dumbya administration such a pass on everything.
Why they keep refusing to corner them with the truth.
But they keep saying it's a matter of perspective or "debate" which is one of the most abused words I have ever seen on TV these days with regards to politics.
It's like the idiocy they propagate about the "ongoing debate over global warming" instead of just backing the deniers into a corner and saying. "DUDE! It's real and every scientist that isn't being backed by big oil says so and that man is the primary cause for the speed up in GW." But they don't and as a result they give credence to nay sayers and hell even that sheer fantasy of (Un)Intelligent Design.
When did big business decide that "Truthiness" is more important than truth?
After watching the debacle at Huffingtonpost over the troll who is working FOR them and then the MSM, one does wonder how we are going to survive as a democracy when even the so called "liberal/progressive" blogs are reverting to Rovian tactics.
You can read about that little incident here:
[link to peterrost.blogspot.com]
Just gets depressing somedays with the non stop assualt on truth constantly happening.
and possibly the stupidest living member of the u.s. senate. there are some dumber ones, but they're still dead. that anyone would take anything this nitwit says seriously shows just how desperate some of the rightwingnuts have become.
one thing i have noticed: they (the MSM) aren't taking it too seriously. if it were actually true, you don't think the GOP would jump all over this, as validation of bush's war? the worst part is that the dems are so cowed, they don't even take advantage when it's handed to them on a silver platter.
were it me, rove would be shark bait. hell, he'd be chum. my approach would be a machiavellian, take no prisoners attack. i'd shove nimrods like santorum, coulter, limbaugh, et al down their throats, but nicely, so they couldn't whine about how nasty i was being. i'd nice them.................to death.
i am just absolutely astonished that the dems seem to find the worst possible strategists and campaign managers around. what do they do, consciously select the bottom 50% of the class?
These Republicans are looking at this like a numbers game. They lie about finding the WMD and figure that a certain percentage of the voting public will believe it. They figure they can get away with conning a percentage of the public and that may be the margin they need to offset the backlash against their failures (and previous lies.)
Yes, that darn medie sure doesn't give the White House a break, and never lets the Bush administration air its view of things. I'm so glad a daring truthsauer like Rush can break through and let us know the truth!
"5 US soldiers killed and about 34 wounded per canister . . ."
Right on, Rufus T Firefly.
Arguing that they were not WMD's is a waste of time. Concede that these were "Weapons of Mass Destruction", and ask the right question that naturally follows: if we had taken the road of allowing the inspections to continue in 2003, would those WMD's have claimed five American lives per shell, and injured 34 Americans each? Would the Middle East have been as destabilized by the discovery of those 500 shells as it has been by the continued presence of 130,000 Occupation troops?
Rather than arguing the semantics, it makes more sense to me to concede: "Ah, so THAT is what the Administration meant by 'grave and gathering threat'. If the American people had known that in 2003, we would have scoffed at the idea of going to war."
For the Real Story, read what former Army Counter-Intelligence Officer, Dave DeBatto has to say on the matter:
[link to www.antiwar.com]
" For the Real Story "
That was a good "story". Too bad it's isn't very believable. The author can remember "thoughts" the guy had but can't "remember" critical dates that confirm that Spain built a bomb that the US is being blamed for.
" Banned weapons? I will be responsible? I don’t need this! But a crisp "Yes Sir!" was what actually came out of his mouth. "
" The date on the bill was either 1987 or 1988, I don’t recall exactly. I do recall that the bomb was manufactured in Spain and shipped through France. "
Are you that numb to think that the Carlyle Group, perhaps the biggest Holding company of DEFENSE RELATED MANUFACTURERS on the planet did not have the resources whether through subsidiaries or shell companies in other countries to export WMD to Iraq?
My God, Rumsfeld hand -delivered the weaponry to Saddam during the Reagan years. We supplied, encouraged and watched as bystanders as two nations, Iran & Iraq fought a war of attrition for some 8 years resulting in some 2 million estimated casualties.
"Harry Potter" is more appropriate reading for you.
The was taken directly from Thursday's Neil Boortz On-line programming notes. Boortz is a talk-radio filth-spewer based out of Atlanta, GA.who has a habit of continually bringing up debunked stories about WMD in order to shut up the opposition. He's also in the habit of quietly disconnecting callers after they make valid statements, then tearing into them when they can no longer respond. It is a pretty pathetic way to look superior, but I assume many talk-radio wingers use this same method.
- - - - - - - - -
WMD'S FOUND IN IRAQ...LOTS OF THEM
We've known for several months that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. Despite the mainstream media and the Democrats' lying to the contrary, several chemical weapons have been found that qualify as WMD. But people have ignored the evidence...since it would blow a hole in their 'Bush Lied, people died' nonsense. To be fair, the Bush Administration has done little to correct the record on this issue.
Now a new report from the Pentagon sheds some light on just how many WMDs have been found, and it's a lot. We're not just talking an old Sarin shell here and there. No less than 500 chemical weapons have been found since 2003, according to a recently declassified defense department intelligence report. The weapons are of the mustard gas and Sarin nerve gas variety...nasty stuff. So why isn't this major breaking news?
Because the WMDs are said to be manufactured before 1991....not in recent years. Therefore, the mainstream media and the Democrats don't count those. For some reason, they want WMDs made in recent years. Evidently the left likes their mustard gas just a little fresher. But that's not the point. This stuff can kill ... but to the left it's harmless.
All that matters is Saddam Hussein was lying when he said he got rid of all his WMDs. He clearly did not. Also, what do you suppose would have happened had Hussein sold some of these WMD's to Islamic terrorists? It wouldn't have been pretty. But this story will be ignored...and the leftist propaganda machine that says Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat will roll on.
- - - - - - - - - -
Sorry, I should have included a citation for his comments (something right-wingers rarely do). For verification purposes, these notes can be found at [link to boortz.com]
Santorum and Hoekstra are telling blatant lies, and are not being held accountable. As far as I can tell, no journalist (or blogger, even) has pointed out the following false statements they've made.
FRAUDULENTLY MISQUOTING THE INTELLIGENCE MEMO
The intelligence memo says this: "since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent." (pdf is here: [link to intelligence.house.gov]
That word "degraded" is highly inconvenient to Santorum, so he erases it. Compare the above language to the following statement by Santorum: "Coalition forces have recovered more than 500 chemical weapons since 2003 -- these weapons contained mustard or sarin nerve agent." (here: [link to www.ricksantorum.com]
Santorum's omission of a crucial adjective ("degraded") seems to be a serious and deliberate falsification of the source document. And he repeated this fraud in an interview with Hewitt, where Santorum says this: "I'll quote from it, 'since 2003,' so since the Iraq War, 'coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain mustard or sarin nerve agent.' " (here: [link to www.radioblogger.com]
That's not a quote. It's an inexcusable misquote. The fact that Santorum did this at least twice tends to create the impression that he is doing this deliberately. I'm surprised that no journalist has pointed this out, as far as I know.
FICTIONALIZING HALUBJAH TO EXAGGERATE THE POWER OF THESE SHELLS
Aside from Santorum misquoting the intelligence memo, Santorum and Hoekstra are also using fictional information to exaggerate the power of these shells.
On Hannity and Colmes recently, Hoekstra stated that "15 shells [ostensibly similar to the shells found] killed an estimated 5,000 people in 1988." (video here: [link to hotair.com] ; the relevant statement by Hoekstra is about halfway into the clip.)
That wasn't quite fictional enough for Santorum, so he went a step further, saying "three killed 5,000 people." (here: [link to www.washingtonpost.com]
Trouble is, that's utter nonsense. They are referring to events in Halabja, in March 1988, where chemical attacks did kill thousands. The following is from Congressional testimony: "The CW attack began early in the evening of March 16th, when a group of eight aircraft began dropping chemical bombs, and the chemical bombardment continued all night. According to Kurdish commanders on the scene, there were 14 aircraft sorties during the night, with seven to eight planes in each group, and they concentrated their attack on the city and all the roads leading out of Halabja. The chemical attacks continued until the 19th. Iraqi planes would attack for about 45 minutes and then, after they had gone, another group would appear 15 minutes later." (here: [link to www.terrorismcentral.com]
This sounds like more than 48 hours of almost continuous bombing, by 7-8 planes at a time. No matter how you slice those numbers, they add up to a lot more than "15 shells," or "three" shells.
REFERRING TO "PUBLISHED REPORTS" THAT DON'T EXIST
In a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt, Santorum claimed he knew that most of the found shells are usable. Here is the "proof" he presented: "there have been published reports on blog sites about this report...and the published reports say that 75% of these 500 or so weapons were in fact filled and usable." So that's how Santorum knows the shells are "usable:" he read it on a blog. Too bad he couldn't remember which one (Hewitt asked him). (transcript here: [link to www.radioblogger.com]
Trouble is, there are in fact no credible "published reports" proving that "75% of these 500 or so weapons were in fact filled and usable."
Hoekstra and Santorum are making claims that are outrageously false and misleading, and they are not being held accountable.
Sorry about that. I see what happened. Here are a bunch of links that work:
The intelligence memo:
[link to intelligence.house.gov]
Santorum misquoting the intelligence memo:
[link to www.ricksantorum.com]
Santorum misquoting the intelligence memo, again:
[link to www.radioblogger.com]
Video where Hoekstra claims 15 shells killed 5,000 people:
[link to hotair.com]
Reference to Santorum claiming that 3 (!) shells killed 5,000 people:
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
Congressional testimony indicating that Halubjah was hit with a lot more than 15 shells:
[link to www.terrorismcentral.com]
The Hewitt interview, again, where Santorum refers to non-existent "published reports" which supposedly indicate that 75% of the shells are "usable:"
[link to www.radioblogger.com]
OK, I just noticed that the 6/21 H&C video (where Hoekstra claims 15 shells killed 5,000 people) seems to no longer be available at the hotair site (yanked at Fox's request, I'm guessing). But I think Fox makes transcripts and/or video available for a fee.
Anyway, Santorum's even more extreme fib (that 3 shells killed 5,000 people) is documented in WaPo, as I noted above.
This Duelfer dude said that Santorum's munitions are not WMD. Who is this Duelfer? Does he have any intelligence experience?
Apologies if not. Charles Duelfer is the person whom Bush appointed to determine the state of WMDs in Iraq after the war. He is a right-winger. He issued the so-called Duelfer report. It stated there were no WMDs and no WMD program.
So if a Bush apointee disproves Santurom, it shows how ludicrous Santurom is.
I wanted someone to follow-up with a introduction to Duelfer's brilliant credentials and career.
Doesn't anyone in the media realize if WMDs really were found Bush and Cheney would be screaming about it from the rooftops rather than letting two goofballs announce it to world. GG
"Bush's approval ratings just went to 44%" - Leatherhelmet
Umm, even assuming that were true, that still means a majority {56%} disapprove. Not exactly something to shout from the rooftops, IMO.
As for Rick belongsinaSanitarium, anyone who equates buying his campaign bumper sticker with military service in Iraq cannot and should not be taken seriously.
Take for example the April 14 poll from Rasmussen. It was higher than today's 44%, even though other polls taken around the same time had Bush hovering low-mid 30's.
[link to pollingreport.com]
"Some reason"? Does this guy seriously don't know that the US invasion was based on the belief that Saddam had ongoing WMD programs, and that the case they argued to the public was that the weapons were NOT the ones from the earlier conflict, but new ones? Or does he just lie?
We are a propagandized nation. If you don't realize that now then you never will. Kill your cable TV connection like I did.
Duelfer: they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard.
Leave him alone. He's got important work to do. He's about to release a report that will shake the foundations of the republic. According to our Senator there are now Weapons of Mass Destruction littered all over Pennsylvania. They're about to be used on the Fourth of July!
What's that?
Firecrackers? Sparklers?
Oops! Nevermind.
If indeed WMD were found, it certainly wouldn't be Santorum touting it. The Bush Administration would certainly hold a press conference and be in front of the UN saying "we told you so."
Let's call a spade a spade, repubublicans (as a party) are stupid and hypocritcal in their defense of the indefensible. Don't fall into the trap of debating their idiotic anti-logic, just laugh and ridicule their attempts to make sense of their faith-based attempts rationalization. They have made us the most laughable and feared nation in the world and they will reap worldwide ridicule and loathing as a result. Unfortunately, we all pay the consequences for THEIR stupidity!
Even if they were to find nukes and yellow cake over there, that doesn't change the fact that more time has lapsed between 9.11 and today than Pearl Harbor and the end of WWII. Hell, it wouldn't matter if they found UBL.
Years later, we're STILL fighting an open-ended war, and this bidness of "staying the course" just doesn't cut it anymore!
This is just so crazy it almost makes sense. These guys believe anything their Ahytolla says. The right wing is just like Iran!! You must believe what they say or we will all go to hell. This is honesty by guilt.
same philosphy. They both hate secular freedom and want ordinary people to be controlled by theocrats... and they both know that fear furthers their goals. I heard an analysis on AAR that both fundamentalist philosophies sprang from an aversion to 1960's hedonism. I wish I could remember who was talking about it.
"(I)f WMDs really were found Bush and Cheney would be screaming about it from the rooftops."
Case closed.