dj42

Careful, you're screwing with a perfectly good excuse to wage aggressive war.

To all the farkers who have spent the last 3 years or so saying Iraq was an "illegal war", or that Iraq didn't have chemical weapons or WMDs...I say the following:

SHUT THE fark UP...YOU GOT PWNED

thank you.

corn-bread: Thank-you. Clearly the administration is making a claim of imminent threats. If Turkey is attacked, we must respond in kind, etc.


So you admit that you were wrong about the 45 minutes and now you admit you were wrong about the Mclellan quote.

Thankyou and good night.

/and using a word.doc as proof after you demand that I cite credible sources is the height of hypocracy

Brettster808

Im not republican and I own guns. Drop the guns from the list of h8. Youll get more politicians in.

Now, be a good little twit and go back to boffing your sister.

Just out of curiosity, why are people like you so goddamn hostile over the idea that maybe, just MAYBE Saddam Hussien, the guy that gassed thousands of Kurdish men, women, and children to death, might actually have had some chemical weapons still lying around?

Oh, I get it. It's because that would interfer with your pinheaded "Bush LIED, Saddam was harmless as a kitten, and everything America does is WRONG" posturing.

Korovyov: Please cite.

I am searching now for a citation. However, this has been presented to me several times as common knowledge. I wonder how else we would be so certain that such stockpiles existed. I am not enough of a conspiracy nut to believe the entirety of the intel was farce.

AladinSane:
might actually have had some chemical weapons still lying around?

"Still lying around" is a far cry from "imminent threat."

Oh, I get it. It's because that would interfer with your pinheaded "Bush LIED, Saddam was harmless as a kitten, and everything America does is WRONG" posturing.

Sorry, but the US doesn't always do right. And pointing that out is a duty.

not that it matters at this point, some 500 comments down, but I have found that the term "WMD" is a bit misleading. People are expecting something that will go boom and make a big hole in the ground a-la Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Fact of the matter is, a WMD is actually a "WMC" or a "Weapon of Massive Casualty." They are not meant to destroy buildings, tanks, and such, they are meant to kill people. And regardless; Sarin, Mustard Gas, are all illegal according to Geneva convention rules (which no one seems to care about anyways). Tell you what, if the stuff they found is inert, then why don't you people who are saying so breathe some of it and tell us if it makes you feel all funny inside. And right or wrong, we are there, we need to finish the job. Also, don't tell me about how many people died. They chose to serve their country, more power to them. (More people died at Iwo Jima and Midway than in both Gulf Wars combined.)
/RANT

erm why haven't we invaded Isreal yet. They have WMD right?

To all the farkers who have spent the last 3 years or so saying Iraq was an "illegal war", or that Iraq didn't have chemical weapons or WMDs...I say the following:

"Cheerleading sneakers...$50; Cheerleading Camp...$130; Cheerleading uniform...$175; Being the Cougar Coach and seeing their smiles after coming in second place at CYO competition...PRICELESS" Author Lisa, Staten Island, NY, USA

thank you.

Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. I heard we are moving the Red States to Mexico.

Amen for being born again! Thanks George!

These WMDs don't count. They obviously have never been used to kill large numbers of people and probably wouldn't have been because Saddam was working with the UN to dispose of all the weapons!

Reason #55349854 why rejecting science is this country's most idiotic problem: biological weapons have a shelf life. These shells were "degraded" because they were OLD--more than five years old which is about the shelf life of most biological and nerve agent weapons. The UN inspectors overlooked 500 old shells from a total of hundreds of thousands, I'd say they did a pretty throrough job, a lot better than any of Bush's toadies could ever do.

This is nothing new....

There are been numerous reports of chemical weapons that have been found throughout the entire war.

The democrats and bush-haters are just so rabid in their quest to declare the war a total failure that they have completely ignored the facts.

Whether or not the weapons were brand-new is IRRELEVANT. He was not supposed to have one DROP, much less 500+ warheads.

The fact alone that he had not destroyed his stockpile like he SAID he did was justification...and PROOF...that Iraq indeed had/has WMD's.

You liberal panty-wipes seem to like to gloss over the facts too often. Now, lets hear your "...but..but" arguements as to why the finding of massive amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq isn't important. After all, you've spent the last 3 years saying that there were no chemical weapons and that none were found.

I repeat my statement: you have ALL just been severely, harshly, butt-farked up the arse and PWNT. I'm just DYING to hear your rationalization.

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin who is that waxy waxy man?

I'm glad this is coming out in the open now. Well, with Georgie's wonderful approval rating and the need to get those Republican voters tuned back in the timing is just like a miracle from God. Guess all that praying is really paying off.

There are so many bad things happening to people around the world and people complain that the US needs to stop the bad guys. Why arent we doing anything to stop the killing of thousands in Africa, I hear Oprah saying. Why dont we help out here or there or everywhere? But when we do step in and attempt to stop horrible acts of a dictator in Iraq, everyone says that we are in the wrong for trying to help.

We are doing a good thing. People are dying, but i believe many more would be dying if we did not step in. I believe we have made mistakes, but overall, we are winning. I personally know people that live in Iraq, and they have said that the attitude towards the US is changing for the better. People are finding out that we ARE the good guys, and are thankful for our help.

We can't help the whole world at one time, but at least we are trying.

I_Make_Jebus_Cry

Keep up the good work there TrueBeliever. Facing the truth won't come until your 30's.

I was about to post the obligatory Jedi-mind-trick "These are not the WMDs you are looking for" but 2006-06-22 12:41:36 AM sean.flynn beat me to it in a very subtle and sneaky way. Go figure.

Anyone putting an over/under on how many points in the polls this will send Bush?

I'm guessing +4.

In the grand tradition of clinton (redefining sex and 'is') the current whitehouse clowns are now calling the last war's leftovers with traces of degraded weapons material ... capable of....


**MAAAASSSSS... DEEEE....STRRRUUUUUKKK...SHUUUN!!!!**



Pfftt. Fibbing, careerist, deceitful, absurd. Shaddap.

Oh wait...reading the BS Fox NEWS release.. it appears this is sensationalism yet again again and again.
FARKIN MUSTARD GAS IS NOT A GD WMD!

Our own govt doesn't classify agent orange as a WMD yet it is a very toxic chemical weapon (that they refuse to admit or treat, and was used on a mass scale for destruction..oh irony..)
The whole WMD context has centered around the ability to

- Deliver a biological agent that would threaten a populace wide audience
- Deliver a nuclear weapon that would threaten a populace wide audience

So why is that an issue with IRAQ?

Well cause they are classifying something you can make with off the shelf chemicals into a WMD?

/ yes, I can make mustard gas
// yup, TNT too..
/// prolly plastic explosives if you gave me some time..
//// AP chemistry at your GD service..
//// Have plans for an atomic weapon..got it from the library!! Moo-Ha-Ha!

jgjpnola

Your naivete is precious.

There was an instance of a post gulf war I chemical weapon that made the news about a year ago. A roadside IED was built using a chemical artillery shell (they constructors didn't know it was a chemical weapon) that contained binary Sarin. Luckily the Sarin precursors (if that's the right term) didn't mix properly during the explosion (it was designed to mix by the spin of the shell in flight) so the effect was minimal. Since Iraq didn't have binary chemical muniton technology durig the Iraq/Iran war, and was only estimated to have developed it in 1994, it does show Saddam had some WMD capacity post GW1.

/No, I'm not saying the WMD agument was valid or not, just relaying an event.
// Also, I've had enough to drink that I don't care right now

macho_maggot --

Seems likely to me that among the other things --

(a) Far, far too much trust placed in defectors reinforcing worst suspicions
(b) Saddam's apparent gambit to maintain illusion of weapons capacity by hiding evidence of destruction
(c) Saddam's government having been caught attempting to conceal the scope of its programs, making it more difficult to believe them
(d) The inspectors' ability to identify acquisitions / production, leaving a net balance of materials believed to have been acquired or produced but not verifiably destroyed
(e) 9/11 causing a radical shift in mindset, making it easier to be pessimistic about the intentions and capabilities (overestimating them that is) of hostile entities
(f) Belief that the UN sanctions were not having their desired effect since not much had changed for some years


It'd probably have turned out much differently if the Iraqis had at least recorded their non-witnessed destructions so that if they WERE asked to show evidence, they could present the recordings. As it were, the rest of the world was basically asked to take their word for it.

Actual statement from Brit Hume today:
"Why wasn't the administration trumpeting this information?"

Gee Brit. Maybe because it's pure sensationalism and they already tried that tactic?

I_Make_Jebus_Cry

You're reading what you're writing, right?

You know when girls type shiat like OMFG.. you won't believe this cindy OMG OMG OMG, it gives away that they're underdeveloped. You're adolescent prose makes you look young and ignorant. Which seems to be a fair assessment.

Read the references in the article. Do some actual research, and then you can laugh with 90% of the people posting in this thread.

surrenderyoursushi

you: OMG OMG OMG OMG! IRAQ NEVER HAD WMD'S! THEY DESTROYED THEM ALL!

news: Danish soldiers find stockpile of active sarin gas loaded into 200+ warheads

you: *ignores report..because the Danish are obviously controlled by the conservative media*

news: 500+ WMD's found in Iraq.

YOU: OMG OMG OMG OMG! THEY FOUND WMD'S BUT THEY'RE OOOOOLD WMD'S. THAT DOESNT COUNT AS WMD'S.

rest of the United States : STFU. You got PWNED and are too much of a rabid liberal vagina to just admit it.

I haven't read the thread (and I'm not going to) but I'm willing to guess that these are the same WMDs that DIA was referencing a year ago as proof that Iraq was up to no good.

Which is still a bit fuzzy as the Defense Department person can't seem to verify any damned thing. But, that's another issue entirely.

So, if I am right, why the hell is it hitting the MSM now? What's the angle?

/cynic

I rest my case.

Korovyov: t'd probably have turned out much differently if the Iraqis had at least recorded their non-witnessed destructions so that if they WERE asked to show evidence, they could present the recordings. As it were, the rest of the world was basically asked to take their word for it.

What about the report (hardcopy and CD) that was handed over by the Iraqis, confiscated by the US, and then eventually passed on to the rest of the inspectors in heavily-edited form (like about a third of it missing)?
No link handy at the moment, but I remember that.

Jeebus, you obviously already have yourself whipped into some frenzy as you're already putting words into my mouth (or words into my posts). Save it for someone else, I don't rise to bait as easily as you seem to be.

Phil Moskowitz

Oh...you mean RESEARCH...like this:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

and this

http://www.obnoxiousfumes.com/archives/000458.html

and this

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/13/224902.shtml

and this

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40754

and this

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/25/iraq.main/

etc etc


/you just got PWNED yet again

*suspects that I_Make_Jebus_Cry is the NewsMax floor humping guy*

vliam --

Seems Sen. Santorum chose to bring it up. I haven't been following his bid for re-election very much, but my understanding is that his re-election is far from guaranteed. If so, he'll probably dredge up anything he can to win, even if it's dated. *shrug*

Felgraf

"but but but....they didnt HAVE any chemical weapons.....you're a PUSSY if you're scared of the chemical weapons they DID find...."

Puh-lease. You're pathetic. Face it....the whole liberal arguement against there being WMD's in Iraq just went down the toilet.

Now you have to scramble to think of something ELSE to condemn the war about. Guarantee that in less than 2 days, the liberals will try and bash the war from a different angle while either trying to minimize the importance of the discovery of the weapons, or will try to ignore that they exist at all. You know...sort of what you are doing right now..lol!

It is really quite pathetic how the night crawling conservative worms get all excited over this fodder, much like christians get all excited over any sign of their God in a cheeseburger or his virgin mother in a soiled piece of toilet paper. It's like you spend your pathetic lives in search of some justification for your self imposed wallowing in ignorance. Some sign for the rest of the world to see that you really aren't as pathetic as you appear.

HowlingFrog

I'm not humping the floor...but I'm DEFINATLY rolling on it laughing at you farks twisting in the wind trying to downplay the facts...LMAO!

Propaganda

Are you new here? How many Floorhumper websites is that? Jesus where do you live? I gotta know. Just for my stereotyping :)

I_Make_Jebus_Cry: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/25/iraq.main/

Oh, one reputable source! Let see what it says...

A U.S. military spokesman in Falluja downplayed the discovery, saying "there is no indication right now that (the chemicals) were being used to produce chemical weapons."

"They were, however, being used to make improvised explosives," the spokesman said Wednesday, as he showed slides of the chemicals and a book containing chemical formulas. "There were many formulas on how to make explosives and how to make different types of poison."


Ahh, okay. So, you want to try again?

HowlingFrog --

There was something like that; my impression at the time, 'tho, was not that it contained evidence of destruction but only claims, and that the expurgated materials allegedly were withheld in order to not assist the weapons programs of certain other nations.

I think, 'tho, that if it had contained serious exculpatory evidence that the US was suppressing, that the Iraqis would have seized the chance to publicize it themselves (who hands over the only copy?) and show US perfidy -- if not before the war, then after it was clear that this was going to go beyond a few tentative airstrikes.

Tip of the Iceberg

Democrats suck.

That guy has to be a troll... nobody can possibly be that farkin stupid.

shens.

The Bruce Dickinson

Self reinforcement is a tenet in many belief systems. As opposed to the critical nature of logic.

People who think Bush is totally neat, Respond to this and earn 'the prize'!

From TFA:

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out... "This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "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.""

also from TFA:

"Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq."

I'm sorry, but if you believe this, you are a complete tool. If you think that increasing the fine for "bad words" tenfold and debating an amendment with zero chance of passing to define marriage is "forward-looking", you require a cockpunch.