declassified doc.s show WMDs WERE found

[samclemens]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

 

go ahead, split hairs like the critic in the article. "there were WMDs, but not the kind we went to war for"- bah! time to eat crow.

[Gregory Pratt]

As a proponent of the War, I appreciate this news very much.

 

I will say, though, that with or without this article I'd still be as serious a supporter of the War as I am now. I don't feel particularly validated by this article, and I don't think that this is cause for critics to "eat crow." It has to be said that they DO have a point -- War critics, that is -- when they say that THIS isn't what we went to War over -- or that, at least, this isn't what Bush sold the War on.

 

However, this:

 

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

 

Is a good part of why I believed going in was right, and still do.

 

Good news, good news.

[samclemens]

As a proponent of the War, I appreciate this news very much.

 

I will say, though, that with or without this article I'd still be as serious a supporter of the War as I am now. I don't feel particularly validated by this article, and I don't think that this is cause for critics to "eat crow." It has to be said that they DO have a point -- War critics, that is -- when they say that THIS isn't what we went to War over -- or that, at least, this isn't what Bush sold the War on.

 

However, this:

Is a good part of why I believed going in was right, and still do.

 

Good news, good news.

 

i like what you are saying. i probably see it as a little more vindicating than you do, but right on.

[Gregory Pratt]

i like what you are saying. i probably see it as a little more vindicating than you do, but right on.

 

My reason to support the war primarily has to do with the fact that Saddam was vile, lying, and couldn't be trusted when he promised that he'd been destroying his weapons and had destroyed them. When the United Nations wasn't allowed access to certain sites, when they said that they weren't getting much help, and when I considered the UN's track record in Iraq, I knew there was no other course.

 

It's not as simple as that, but that section I quoted was really why I supported and support the War.

 

I will say this, about vindication: I do feel vindicated in that this is proof that Saddam wasn't harmless and telling the truth while Bush was needlessly rushing us into war because his dad did too or whatever other theories are out there. I feel vindicated that Sadddam wasn't being honest, that there were weapons to be found and very well might be, but I don't feel like bragging about it.

 

Know what I mean?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yes indeed, crow should be eaten. By Santorum, Hoekstra, Fox News, and samclemens.

 

These are the limited, "old, abandoned" weapons we have known about (at least those of us paying attention), since The Iraq Survey Group issued their final report in 2004.

 

[qoute]

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.

[/qoute]

 

ISG noted the discovery of the abansoned weapons, AND still declared that the Iraqi stockpile had been destroyed. And again, this news flash comes to you all the way from 2004.

 

Way to break a story, Ricky.

 

And sam, by the "critic in the article," are you referring to the DOD spokesperson?? Funny to see DOD labeled a war critic.

 

Rick looked like he was going to cry a little today when Alan Colms reiterated the DOD spokesman's tempering of the Big Discovery and dismissed all the "Republican chest beating", but in tthe end he got tough again and said he'd wait for an "formal" DOD response.

 

And I'm sure when the "formal" response comes it will sound uncannily like the response the DOD Spokesperson already gave.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

If I recall correctly the weapons inspection regime that pulled out in 1998, said that a limited amount of chemical weaponry was still unaccounted for but that the munitions had most likely degraded and were not really usable as a WMD.

 

The CIA reported in 2002 that UNSCOM estimated that approximately 550 mustard gas shells from prior to 1991 remain unaccounted for.

 

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

 

So they estimated a new Iraqi CW program which didn't seem to exist, a nonexistant nuclear program, and a BW program which also didn't exist.

 

After three years, we found 500 degraded (and not really usable) shells from prior to 1991. That's 5 American lives per shell. Vindication, indeed.

[Gregory Pratt]

If I recall correctly the weapons inspection regime that pulled out in 1998, said that a limited amount of chemical weaponry was still unaccounted for but that the munitions had most likely degraded and were not really usable as a WMD.

 

The CIA reported in 2002 that UNSCOM estimated that approximately 550 mustard gas shells from prior to 1991 remain unaccounted for.

 

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

 

So they estimated a new Iraqi CW program which didn't seem to exist, a nonexistant nuclear program, and a BW program which also didn't exist.

 

After three years, we found 500 degraded (and not really usable) shells from prior to 1991. That's 5 American lives per shell. Vindication, indeed.

 

Since I'm the only one who used the term "vindicated", I will assume that was directed at me.

 

I have said and will say that WMD were not my sole reason for supporting the War and they were, actually, near the top but maybe in the top five, and bottom of that, at that. I think we can agree to disagree, but I wanted to make it clear that I don't support the War for the reasons that most Bush supporters do.

[Rex Kickass]

Actually, not aimed at you. Aimed at anyone who thinks that finding broken down chemical munitions that we knew were there and weren't usable is the same thing as an active WMD program, which we now know didn't exist.

 

There were plenty of reasons to support a war in Iraq on humanitarian grounds, but we didn't fight that war. If we did, our whole approach once we removed Saddam Hussein from power would have been much different.

[Gregory Pratt]

Actually, not aimed at you. Aimed at anyone who thinks that finding broken down chemical munitions that we knew were there and weren't usable is the same thing as an active WMD program, which we now know didn't exist.

 

There were plenty of reasons to support a war in Iraq on humanitarian grounds, but we didn't fight that war. If we did, our whole approach once we removed Saddam Hussein from power would have been much different.

 

The War in Iraq has me very much disillusioned with the Bush Administration for its handling of the War, although I'm not as critical as I could be. I restrain myself because I still want the War to succeed, the people in Iraq to have a better life -- something that I contend is happening, but that I wish had been better handled by the Administration.

[Rex Kickass]

I heard a very interesting take by a journalist who was there who would disagree with you. I was driving so I can't really say what his name was or what he did. He did write a book on his experience. He says that the elections were great, but the terror that Saddam's government caused was also democratized. Before people used to fear what the government would do to them. Now they fear what anyone might do to them.

[Gregory Pratt]

I heard a very interesting take by a journalist who was there who would disagree with you. I was driving so I can't really say what his name was or what he did. He did write a book on his experience. He says that the elections were great, but the terror that Saddam's government caused was also democratized. Before people used to fear what the government would do to them. Now they fear what anyone might do to them.

 

I've heard all sorts of takes that say things ranging from good to bad.

I'm under no illusion that it's a paradise, but I am proud of what we've done so far and hopeful that we'll do what I hope we can do.

 

Although sometimes -- often-times -- that's batted down by Rumsfeld. (I wish there were a sighing, tired icon.)

[KipWellsFan]

There have been a lot of people claiming this, and similar reports, maybe the same ones just told over and over again, are proof of WMD. So I'm wondering why the administration keeps admitting that there were no WMD.

[minors]

This has to be dissapointing for liberals this war is justified.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

This has to be dissapointing for liberals this war is justified.

I'm sure glad that 2000+ soldiers died so a small amount of some rusted out, non-usable shells were found!

 

The war was built on, at best, incompetence in the use of stove-piped intelligence from questionable sources. At worst, it was an overt lie to get us involved in a war.

 

Stress Disorder Seen Soaring Among Returning Troops David Goldstein, Knight Ridder, Tuesday, June 20, 2006

 

The Department of Veterans Affairs is on a pace to see nearly 20,000 new cases of post-combat stress this year among service members who've served in Iraq or Afghanistan, more than six times the number of cases that officials had expected.

 

The latest report on patient visits to VA medical facilities shows that nearly 5,000 service members were initially diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder during the first three months of this year, on top of nearly 5,000 new diagnoses that the VA had reported for the last three months of 2005.

 

The VA had predicted that it would see 2,900 new cases in fiscal 2006, which runs from Oct. 1, 2005, to Sept. 30, 2006.

 

The VA declined to comment Monday.

 

"The demand for mental health is not going down," said Cathy Wiblemo, the deputy director for mental health services at the American Legion.

"It's definitely going up."

 

Knight Ridder reported last month that the VA had dramatically underestimated the number of service members who would return from Iraq and Afghanistan with post-traumatic stress disorder.

 

The new report drew immediate criticism from some in Congress.

 

"Frankly, I don't think that VA's budget planned for this number of new veterans with mental health concerns," Rep. Michael Michaud, D-Maine, a member of the House Veteran's Affairs Committee, said in a statement.

 

Post-traumatic stress disorder is an anxiety disorder that can cause serious psychiatric and social problems. Combat, a plane crash or other traumatic experiences can trigger it. Untreated, it can lead to drug addiction, homelessness and other social problems.

 

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been particularly stressful because they involve urban warfare amid civilians who are hard to distinguish from the enemy. There are no front lines or safe areas, and the enemy uses improvised bombs and ambushes.

 

A statement from the Democratic members of the House VA Committee said that even as the number of post-traumatic stress disorder cases increased, the VA had cut back the number of PTSD therapy sessions for veterans by 25 percent in the last 10 years.

 

In a related issue, the Government Accountability Office recently found that the Pentagon didn't seek further mental-health treatment for eight out of 10 soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan who showed signs of post-combat stress.

 

William Winkenwerder Jr., the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, responded that the GAO report was "flawed."

--

With all the dead, the people missing limbs, the mental disorders, the physical problems -- I'm so damn glad that we spent all of that life and money so we could have found a few non-functional shells that we've already known were there and our own intelligence said were not useable. Man, I feel justified already!

[Balta1701]

Interestingly, it appears that the DOD is not standing by the statements of Santorum and Hoekstra. And I'm even citing Fox News, to make everyone happy.

 

Yesterday Republican members of Congress called a press conference to read portions of a Defense Department intelligence unit report.

 

Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania read the following statement.

 

“We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons… Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent”.

 

Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, continued:

 

“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”

 

To some this will sound like a slam-dunk justification of President Bush's and Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision to invade Iraq in March of 2003.

 

A senior Defense Department official, however, made the following clarifications:

 

• These findings do not reflect a WMD capacity that was built up after 1991.

• These are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had.

• These are not the WMDs for which this country went to war.

[Soxbadger]

My last post was eaten by the abyss, but to paraphrase:

 

1) Why would Liberal's (I assume you meant capital L) be disapointed. Historically Liberal's have been very willing to go to war for the right causes, World War I, World War II, and Korea.

 

2) If they found a nuke, or something else that truely was capable of mass destruction, I think people would really change their opinion. But when the best you can find is antiquated weapons like Mustard Gas, or Sarin which can be made in your basement, it does not set a good precedent for when govt's can be over turned. The US stockpile of weapons is far greater, yet I doubt many would agree that China could invade us if we dont destroy all the weapons we have stockpiled over the last 100 years.

[Balta1701]

2) If they found a nuke, or something else that truely was capable of mass destruction, I think people would really change their opinion. But when the best you can find is antiquated weapons like Mustard Gas, or Sarin which can be made in your basement, it does not set a good precedent for when govt's can be over turned. The US stockpile of weapons is far greater, yet I doubt many would agree that China could invade us if we dont destroy all the weapons we have stockpiled over the last 100 years.

If Iraq had an active program to illicitly produce and upgrade its chemical weapons systems after Gulf War 1, and in particular in 2002, there would have been a justification for the war, as Saddam was forbidden from having and producing those weapons. At some point, you have to admit that a few hundred old shells are just scraps, but if he was churning out new ones, Bush would have been correct. There's also no cease fire agreements banning the U.S. from producing or storing Chemical Weapons like there is with Iraq, so that argument doesn't really work.

 

One other interesting thing in this case is the fact that we already knew the UNSCOM team didn't destroy every single chemical munition Iraq had. Some of them were in such a state that the team decided to just seal off the areas where those shells were stored, so as to avoid winding up killing htemselves if there was an accident during disposal. When the UNMOVIC team returned in 2003, the seals were still there, and the shells were unmoved. That's why it was important to get the UNMOVIC team in there and let it do its job. After the war unfortunately, a lot of those locations were actually unsecured and looted, to the point that these old shells have actually wound up in IEDs before.

[Soxbadger]

Thats actually not true:

 

http://www.opcw.org/html/db/members_ratifyer.html

 

In 1993, the United States signed the UN-sponsored Chemical Weapons Convention. In October 1996, the 65th nation ratified the convention making the treaty effective on April 29, 1997. Through ratification, the United States agreed to dispose of its unitary chemical weapons stockpile, binary chemical weapons, recovered chemical weapons, and former chemical weapon production facilities by April 29, 2007, and miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel by April 29, 2002.

[Cknolls]

a letter from two United Nations weapons inspectors to the President of the Security Council from 1999:

 

550 Artillery shells filled with Mustard 33. Iraq declared that 550 shells filled with mustard had been "lost" shortly after the Gulf War. To date, no evidence of the missing munitions has been found. Iraq claimed that the chemical warfare agents filled into these weapons would be degraded a long time ago and, therefore, there would be no need for their accounting. However, a dozen mustard-filled shells were recovered at a former CW storage facility in the period 1997-1998. The chemical sampling of these munitions, in April 1998, revealed that the mustard was still of the highest quality. After seven years, the purity of mustard ranged between 94 and 97%. Thus, Iraq has to account for these munitions which would be ready for combat use. The resolution of this specific issue would also increase confidence in accepting Iraq’s other declarations on losses of chemical weapons which it has not been possible to verify.

A 94 to 97 percent purity after seven years strikes me as pretty long lasting. Presuming that the rate of degradation is stable (is there a reason deterioration would accelerate in year eight or later?) the year 2003 would mean that at the time of the invasion, these shells had a purity of 88 to 94 percent. Sounds pretty potent to me.

[Gregory Pratt]

This has to be dissapointing for liberals this war is justified.

 

Those hippies must be devastated by this news.

How will they ever live now that Rick Santorum has presented such solid, wonderful evidence?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Thats actually not true:

 

http://www.opcw.org/html/db/members_ratifyer.html

 

In 1993, the United States signed the UN-sponsored Chemical Weapons Convention. In October 1996, the 65th nation ratified the convention making the treaty effective on April 29, 1997. Through ratification, the United States agreed to dispose of its unitary chemical weapons stockpile, binary chemical weapons, recovered chemical weapons, and former chemical weapon production facilities by April 29, 2007, and miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel by April 29, 2002.

 

Adding to that, it is a near-certainty that the US will not make the April 2007 deadline for disposal. They finished off a big reduction at Edgewood (Aberdeen proving Grounds, MD) in 2005, but there are still lots of unknown, unexploded shells all around there that they are having to find and dispose of. The amount in the big disposal was just over 1500 tons and it took several years to dispose of. There are still 7 big stockpile sites, including one in Utah with over 6000 tons(!) that just started disposal this year. They have less than a year to finish the job there and elsewhere, and unless the disposal technology has improved significantly in the last couple of years they won't make the deadline.

 

All of this is dwarfed by the 60+ MILLION pounds of mustard and nerve gas we disposed of by dumping into our own coastal waters before we finally banned the practice in 1972. We don't even know the location of half of those dump sites anymore either.

 

So, we've got all that mustard gas lying around in stockpiles and unexploded shells -- lots of that really close to neighborhoods and schools (they had to equip the schools near Edgewood with special overpressurization units in case of an accident at the Aberdeen disposal facility). And there is essentially 0 chance we will meet the disposal deadlines we agreed to in the Chemical Weapons Convention.

 

But 550 old shells turned up in Iraq is supposed to justify the $290 billion and thousands of lives the war has cost so far??

[minors]

Those hippies must be devastated by this news.

How will they ever live now that Rick Santorum has presented such solid, wonderful evidence?

 

 

Wow bringing the hippies back into this, This a very classy post. As far as I am concerned I could care less if a hippy lives happy or not. They were disgraceful era, thankfully forgotten.

Edited June 23, 2006 by minors