Hundreds of WMDs found - declassified documents reveal

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:20 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/2 ... 4imol.html

Now what do you have to say?

Massage...Bored · Post by **Massage...Bored** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:24 pm

Breitbart.com?

When I think reliable news sources, I think disturbingly right wing websites such as this.

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:28 pm

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/22.html#a8810

Debunked. Link leads to video.

Santorum showed up to do his thing with Peter Hoekstra on H&C and it took one phone call by Jim Angle of FOX News to debunk Santorum's WMD claims today. That's pretty embarrassing when the d*ck Cheney network undermines him. Hannity was all excited and tried to say that WMD's were only "a part of the reason we went Iraq." (See quote.)

If that is the document that's classified, isn't little Ricky breaking about a gazillion different federal laws by exposing them? I've taken the precaution of blackening it a bit. Of course, I'm no attorney, but I believe this is the law.

Santorum: I'll show you the classified documents right here...

Colmes: It's Alan Colmes. Senator, the Iraq Survey Group, uhh, let me go to the Duelfer Report-says Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there. And Jim Angle who reported this for Fox News-quotes a defense official who says these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded.

And the official went on to say that they are-these are not the WMD's this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had-and not the WMD's for which this country went to war. So the chest beating that the Republicans are doing tonight thinking this is a justification is not confirmed by the defense department.

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

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:28 pm

There's a link to the document. You can read it for yourself.

deek · Post by **deek** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:29 pm

So, it took us three years to plant and find 15 year old WMDs in Iraq???

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:33 pm

deek wrote:So, it took us three years to plant and find 15 year old WMDs in Iraq???

They've been finding them as they've gone.

Oh and SM6, responding to what Message called a Right Wing source with an even further Left Wing source...

Massage...Bored · Post by **Massage...Bored** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:39 pm

Santorum, much like Souder, needs taken out back.

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:39 pm

Look at the video though, that is Fox News! Plus breitbart.com is a branch of 'the Drudge Report'!

7WetCigarettes · Post by **7WetCigarettes** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:36 pm

the first line says it all:

US-led coalition forces in Iraq have found some 500 chemical weapons since the March 2003 invasion, Republican lawmakers said, citing an intelligence report.

oh, and isn't it an election year?.....hmmm.

Morphine Child · Post by **Morphine Child** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:18 pm

Forget left wing and right wing...use logic.

From the article: "A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for."

So that's supposed to make me feel better? That Iraq still has weapons lying around that we sold them before the FIRST Gulf War? Weapons that are useless? Wouldn't a WMD have to be functional to do mass destruction? How the hell does something destroy if it doesn't work?

On why the Bush administration has not brought this up: "The administration has been very clear that they want to look forward," Santorum said. "They felt it was not their role to go back and fight previous discussions."

If they've had this data since 2003, and it is legit, then couldn't they have obliterated Kerry in the 2004 election? And didn't they say shortly after the election that their data and information was wrong and there are no WMD? So if they turn it around now, then that would be one huge lie. heh. That's great they want to move forward, but we're still in the middle of a huge conflict in Iraq. People want an answer, a satisfactory answer, as to why this conflict started, and why it is still dragging on. But I guess that's all in the past because no one gives a sh*t right?

Sankofa · Post by **Sankofa** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:28 pm

Rally the troops, we need a distraction!

By the time they figure out it's hoakum, nobody will remember because we'll all be singing "hit me baby one more time" around the campfire with moonshine on our breath as Brit and Kevin begrudgingly welcome their 5th kid into the world.

7WetCigarettes · Post by **7WetCigarettes** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:38 pm

LOL...insanely poetic.

Bjart Sod · Post by **Bjart Sod** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:44 pm

I always said, if we knew that Hussein had things he shouldn't have, it was because we were still holding the receipt. If Hussein possessing these and terrorizing his own people was so bad, Reagan should have put him back on the naughty list and stopped our weapons manufacturers from selling them.

Which reminds me, Republicans: I have some evidence that Iran possesses some illegally acquired arms. Meet me at the Nicaraguan restaurant downtown. Password: Ollie North.

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:05 am

I found a clue (man this is just like 'the DaVinci Code'!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_contra

tony2tone · Post by **tony2tone** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:34 am

my english nanny would call it all rubbish!!

and my man chuck d would tell you dont believe the hype.