WMD’s in Iraq
11.12.05Just to kick a dead horse… I was sent this article.
Contrary to ongoing reports by mainstream media outlets, WMDs have been found in Iraq, so reports New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter in his new book, Disinformation.
Consider these shocking facts:
• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials–ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
• Found: 17 chemical warheads–some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
This is only a partial list of the deadly weapons Miniter reveals in his new book, Disinformation. Miniter systematically dissects the “No-WMD Myth” (how it started, and why it continues), as well as 21 other War-on-Terror myths perpetuated by the media.
Looks like an interesting book. I woulden’t mind pickin up a copy.
Related
What the Dems Said About WMD’s
Lets not forget what the Left had to say. Since they like to talk all the smack about the WMD’s.
Watch the Video at GOP.com
If this was true, why doesn’t the Bush administration use it as evidence to support its case. You would think that they would be keen to use such finds to defend themselves against the current mudslinging. Sounds bogus to me. It doesn’t make sense.
# November 12th, 2005 at 10:58 amA lot of things about the Bush administration doesn’t make sense. They let liberals talk smack 24/7 while they grin and bare it. They let Dems make allegations that they themselves are guilty of. It wasn’t until yesterday when the President gave his speech that he stood up and confronted the ignorance of the left. He said he was tired of being called a liar by the freaks (Kennedy and co.) who made the same claims off the same intelligence. I think its about time they started punching back.
# November 12th, 2005 at 12:54 pmOK, while agree with you that the democrats are a bunch of totally incompetent, confused dumb@$$es, i have to say that, from their point of view, the reason they supported the war was because
1) 9-11 gave the president leeway to go on the offensive
2)Because the administration, and CIA told them the case was a “slam dunk”
Are they supposed to set up their own CIA to find out of the CIA and adminstration were being idiots? They really had no choice. It’s like saying that someone who falls for a cruel joke is somehow in on the joke and responsible, it doesn’t really hold together. I would say the most powerful argument against the democrats is not that they voted for the war (because they basically had very little choice) but that they failed to do what they are supposed to in that situation: provide a well thoughtout and forceful opposition argument. and then they nominated John Kerry! what a joke!
# November 12th, 2005 at 9:22 pmRemember, at the time the vote to go to war was taken, the CIA was still headed by George Tenet. And Tenet was apointed by Pres. Bill Clinton, not Geo. W. Bush.
# November 14th, 2005 at 1:52 amYeah, I guess none of us really know what happened… unfortunately that seems to be the CIA and Bush administration’s typical modus operandi…
# November 14th, 2005 at 3:50 pmYeah - I’m not a war fan, but I expected we’d at least find some chemical shells (which are no threat to us anyway). If we’d found something, they’d be telling us.
nice icons on the comment box.
# November 19th, 2005 at 4:16 pmjkas you are officially a f&*$ing moron…and I hope you experience a very painful death for being so.
This comment is very negative and should be removed as soon as possible. But there is only so much BS a man can take…
# November 19th, 2005 at 9:38 pmHeath,
Don’t try and be PC about it. This guy is an asshat and very un-American.
# November 20th, 2005 at 8:15 pmHAHA….yah I know…I like to put that stuff in there to rub it in…but I didn’t make it sound convincing enough…I’ll try to keep it real next time around.
# November 20th, 2005 at 10:31 pmDudes,
# November 21st, 2005 at 6:15 pmWhat was wrong with what he said? Who cares whether he’s a “war fan”? (whatever that means) The point he made - that if there were nuclear or chemical weapons in Iraq, we’d know about it - is totally valid. Personally, I think that if the consensus among the experts and leaders involved was that the war was worthwhile, it would have happened regardless. Still, I worried at the time about the concern we all have now: what the hell do we do next? The middle east is a difficult place for political ideals, not to mention our soldiers, to survive.
I’m pretty sure that the survival rate in this war, tops the charts on any war ever fought in the history of the world.
It could arguably be called a “operation”. We’re not fighting soldiers commanded by a goverment, we’re fighting fascist religious terrorists.
And his point “that if there were nuclear or chemical weapons in Iraq, we’d know about it” is not really a point, because we already know of these.
So now you’re asking “Why doesn’t CNN and MSNBC and all the other media elites inform us about it?”
And I’m pretty sure most folks with a functioning brain can tell you: They’re bias, and they only like to report whatever negative they can.
# November 21st, 2005 at 6:33 pmWell, you can hardly say that FOX News has a liberal bias. I watch it regularly, and they don’t mention that stuff. I’m not a nuclear or chemical weapons expert or anything, but my guess would be that the reason these finds don’t get a lot of attention is because the size of the caches was relatively small and thus insignificant.
# November 23rd, 2005 at 9:19 amWhatever: You can join Jakass in that painful death thing.
# November 23rd, 2005 at 12:54 pmInsignificant? Compared to what? Our arsenal?
I’m sure whatever they had, it was enough to gas the Kurds.
# November 24th, 2005 at 1:40 amChad,
Yeah - gassing the Kurds - good point. Still seems odd to me that Bush or Cheney or somebody doesn’t say something. The media bias is one thing, but if they go up there and make one of those big televised speeches, why don’t they mention it? -that the caches didn’t matter seemed the only other explanation to me… maybe there’s something we don’t know.
and yes, we’re much better equipped than that.
Heath- I dunno who Jakass is, or what the painful death thing is, but it sounds vaguely unpleasant:cry:
# November 25th, 2005 at 4:05 pmyou sound like you are french canadian whatever……you should be glad you are landlocked to the U.S.. if you are not canadian you should give me your address so i can beat your liberal dumper.
# November 25th, 2005 at 7:15 pmwhatever - Weeelll. it goes a little something like this; First you decide to go build a small house or possibly a barn of some sort and you start off with the foundation and setting up the framework. As you are using your Skilsaw to cut 2×4’s down to size, you saw off all of your fingers except your thumb…on your right hand. Being the panty waist that you are, you decide that the pain is too great and you must end it all…so you reach for the nearest “weapon of choice”. You end up picking up the Pasloade nailgun to your right and think to yourself “Hey gun’s kill people right? This oughta do the trick!” You place the starter against your head and pull the trigger. *Chunck!* OK, that hurt real bad but your not dead yet, now you just have 4 missing fingers and a nail in your brain. So you decide you just need more brain medication. *CHUNCKCHUNCKCHUNKCCHUNCKCHUNCK!!!!*
Obviously your plan didn’t work out to well, cuz now your reeling in pain and you have a large number of nails in your brain. So you pass out from the pain and loss of blood.
And the whole death part….well, that’s for the future to decide.
# November 26th, 2005 at 8:30 amactually, abel, i’m neither french nor canadian, and all of liberals i know think i’m ultra conservative and all the conservatives i know think i’m ultra liberal (believe it or not, i know more than one kind of person! remarkable eh?) so perhaps its time for all of you who think in absolute terms: black and white, red and blue, conservative and liberal, good and evil, to consider that there are more than just two ways of thinking. How about instead of trying to put me in one of your little political boxes, you actually consider what i’m saying.
i merely speculated as to why the bush adminstration would not draw more attention to the finds mentioned above, considering that it would be in their interest to do so, and they have the ability to. Blame the “liberal media” all you like - the administration are still the ones in control. if they wanted to, they could have everybody talking about this stuff. so why aren’t they????
pretty strange, ISN’T IT? So quit making idle threats. Unless you have an answer to my question, you have nothing meaningful to contribute to this discourse.
ok, i’ve calmed down. but seriously, don’t just start attacking me when I simply asked a question and presented a possible solution to it. perhaps the answer to this dilemma is really obvious to you guys, but I haven’t seen any of you properly explain it.
# November 26th, 2005 at 11:30 amWhatever - About the administration not mentioning the above findings…
That is one thing about the Bush gang that I do not understand. They will stand by while being lied about, completely slandered, etc. On the veterans day speech, Bush finally got up and shut up all nay-sayers on the progress in Iraq.
Well what took so long for him to come out and say that???
Why doesnt he defend himself more often???
I dunno. But if I were in his shoes, I’d be gettingin the liberal’s and the media’s faces alot more often.
# November 26th, 2005 at 12:45 pmSometimes it’s best to let sleeping dogs lie.
# November 26th, 2005 at 2:52 pmok, thanks. that was all i wanted. acknowledgment that this whole issue is very strange. I would also say that, even though the war has been consistently maligned and questioned (which has its advantages and disadvantages), the democrats have failed to do what their supposed to do in this scenario: Making valid and intelligent criticisms of the current AND PRESENT VIABLE ALTERNATIVES!!* An important distinction must be made here: There is nothing wrong with opposing the actions of the current adminstration, as long as your criticisms are valid and well thought-out.
I think that we can now all agree that, for lack of a better explanation, the Bush Adminstration has mishandled the WMD issue
*BTW- Robert Bork makes this exact point in his book about the politicization of the Supreme Court, so if you were about to whine about me being liberal, consider that.
# November 26th, 2005 at 7:38 pmWell, I believe that theres a few things that Dubya could be doing better. Border security (he’s blowin it), I also think he could be a bit stronger on advocating gun rights, naturally.
I guess I just would like to see a gutsy guy like Reagan get back in charge of things. Him or John Wayne.
# November 26th, 2005 at 11:12 pmI have to say that, given the general caliber of politicians today, Mr Wayne is looking like a stronger candidate every day.:cool: After all, being president is 90% acting…
Concerning the whole illegal immigration/ border security thing:
# November 27th, 2005 at 2:09 pmSome people have suggested forcing Walmart to pay illegal immigrants the same wages as everyone else in order to take away Walmart’s incentive (cheap labor) to hire these people in the first place. Before you jump all over me, let me say that I seriously doubt that it would work, but it’s an interesting idea nonetheless.
1.) I like the fact that Prez Bush doesn’t go prime-time every time someone slanders him (like Clinton did). He gives the liberals enough rope to hang themselves, then presents the truth and let’s them backpedal (see: Al Gore, J. Kerry) .
2.) No one told us about WMD? Weren’t you paying attention to the daily finds announced when we went into Iraq? It isn’t Bush’s job to repeat the WMD list on the 30th of every month so we all can remember. We know for a FACT they had them, we even sold them some.
3.) It seems the democrats have borrowed a philosophy from Nazi Germany’s Chancellor Joseph Goebbels…. “If you tell a lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”
Makes you say Hmmmmmm when you see Hilary and company constantly say no WMDs in passing, doesn’t it?
# January 11th, 2006 at 12:51 pm