Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

An Inconvenient Truth for Libs: WMD Found in Iraq

Senator Rick Santorum (R., PA) has prevailed upon the administration to declassify some of this information regarding WMDs in Iraq. It turns out that much has been discovered. It’s also true that not everything we know is being revealed to the public--for obvious reasons. Is it finally time for the mantra "Bush lied, people died" to go quietly into that good night? Talk about inconvenient truths . . .

Discussions - 51 Comments

New facilities and stockpiled materials to relaunch production of chemical and biological weapons at a moment’s notice, more than a dozen soldiers, a Knight-Ridder reporter, a CNN cameraman, and two Iraqi POWs come down with symptoms consistent with exposure to a nerve agent, a lot of pesticides stored in ammo dumps, 120-millimeter mortar shells filled with a mysterious liquid that initially tested positive for blister agents found here.

A 155 mm shell -- with four liters of deadly Sarin gas, enough to kill thousands of people, found here.

al Qaeda terrorist confesses to training in Iraq with Zarqawi more than a year before the U.S. invasion and plot to crash truckloads of WMD in Jordan to kill 80,000 people and the truckloads of WMD found here.

Uday (may his soul feel eternal heat) learns of the WMD of Uncle Hussein Kamal Hussein (may he be Uday’s eternal roomie)buried here.

Sheik al-Gore said it best, but out of context: The debate’s over. The good senator’s and representative’s revelations are more corroboration of what we already know.

Are you kidding, Julie? Do you honestly think these people are going to change their minds? Some will give one excuse or another as to why this isn’t sufficient, and others will pull a "yeah, but..."; there personal hatred of Bush, Rove, and Cheney has always been their primary motivator, not the lack of WMDs (which was convenient). That aside, I’m sure this will be good at bringing the independents back into the fold. I look forward to any of the news conferences to which the senators alluded.

Wow . . . what a newsflash. Didn’t the Bush administration report this awhile ago:



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.



Hmmm . . . wait . . . Let’s compare . . .




Rick Santorum:

Congressman Hoekstra and I are here today to say that 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. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.




Bush Administration:

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.



President George W. Bush himself:

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.




Seems to me like Rick Santorum is just trying to spin old news . . . John Gibson of Fox News, however, claims that his revelation is a "startling find". Imagine that . . .

"Do you honestly think these people are going to change their minds?"

Andrew, are you talking about the Defense Dept., which has already distanced itself from Santorum’s "revelations" (regarding the WMDs, not the biblical variety; I guess I need to clarify, since it’s Santorum we’re talking about)? Gosh, I’m amazed that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. have allowed all the glory of this big vindication to go to Santorum. I mean, if Bush could pose under a "We Found the Weapons" banner (maybe wearing a chemical warfare suit), I’d think that he would do so, particularly if weapons had actually been found. Also, if there were weapons there in Iraq for Saddam to use, I wonder what kept the evil bastard from launching them at our invading troops? Or were they the kind of weapons that could ONLY be fired at faraway places like the USA, and result in mushroom clouds?

From the WashPost article about this:

"Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion."

What was found goes back to ’88, and hardly constitutes evidence of an active WMD program in Iraq at the time of the U.S. invasion.

I think that Santorum is desperately tossing this out there because right now he needs a life preserver.

Appropriately, the "information" that Julie linked to was labeled on the webpage as "News from the Campaign," and rightly so.

Santorum had this information all along, and yet he didn’t stop the President and Vice President from embarassing themselves by admitting they hadn’t found weapons? There is only one word for that kind of man, and that word is traitor.

Here is what a Defense Department official had to say (according to Fox News, of course):


"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."

Uncle Guido - do you have the FrontPageMag link about how when Saddam was captured his pockets contained several remote controls for his nuclear missiles, and some letters from Michael Moore? (etc.)

Come on, guys. Take a moment to reflect on the last few comments. We have a report saying "hundreds of WMDs found in Iraq." As near as I can tell, the Craig/Matt response is to say "so what?" because the WMDs aren’t brand spankin’ new. I doubt age would matter so much if you were hit with some of that 1991 vintage sarin gas.

I love the way lefties focus on WMD as a rationale for the Iraq war while utterly ignoring Saddam’s terrorist links (which was the second rationale). Anyone got anything to say about that...or mass graves in Iraq...or the fact that Saddam was anxious to end the (corrupt) sanctions regime so he could crank up his WMD production? All of the above is true, and yet all some people can focus on is that his munitions were old.

Chris - the problem is with how WMDs have been defined down, quite substantially, from the time when we were hearing Saddam had nuclear capabilities to now, when some old chemical stuff that apparently nobody in Iraq knows/knew about (if so, surely they would’ve lobbed one of these degraded shells into a U.S. base, or a market square, by now - for God’s sake, what would they be waiting for?) is touted as vindication.

And THIS kind of stuff is a LONG way from vindication:

"The lawmakers pointed to an unclassified summary from a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center regarding 500 chemical munitions shells that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

The U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active. Neither 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."

Also, this from AFP: "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.’"

Oh, yes, yes, WE FOUND THE WEAPONS!! WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!! HECKUVA JOB, etc!!!

Yes, Craig, we know that in your mind sarcasm counts as crushing political commentary, but many of us find it puerile and tedious. Saddam HAD WMD, and he desperately wanted to make more. He also had most of Europe in his back pocket, and the sanctions regime was crumbling. Given also his undeniable trafficking with terrorists, don’t you have anything else to say on this topic? How would YOU have dealt with Saddam in a post 9/11 environment? Bitching is easy, solutions are hard.

We didn’t go to war with Iraq because there were weapons there, we went because there was a "immenant threat" - in fact, that there were missiles that could take us out in 45 minutes. The evidence of THAT remains unfound.

As for the terrorist connection, the evidence of that comes from dubious sources, and there were other countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan et. al.) which had a far more obvious connection.

If our troops weren’t tied up in Iraq, Iran would be history right now but we can’t afford to mount an offensive there, and they know it. I don’t believe Iran is an imminent threat either but they can negotiate as if they were. Same with North Korea. America is getting taunted in two bar fights and we can’t do anything about it because our balls are in a fern bar across town.

Being in Iraq has made us less safe, not more. And it doesn’t stop three guys with a dirty bomb from taking out Indianapolis. So why are we there again?

"NEW POLICY, NLT FOLK. DAIN WILL NO LONGER RESPOND TO SNIPERS/TROLLS."

Considering that you were calling me a troll on a regular basis there for a while (and certainly that’s not at all "puerile and tedious," is it?), and here you are, clearly responding to me, I guess you’ve just broken your policy pledge, not that it meant much at all.

"Given also his undeniable trafficking with terrorists, don’t you have anything else to say on this topic?"

I don’t know what the "this topic" is to which you’re referring, but I’ve been on the topic of the discovery or non-discovery of WMDs (see Ponzi’s sarcasm-soaked blog entry above) that we were warned about by the Bush administration pre-invasion in 2003. Thus far, it doesn’t appear that they’ve been found. That is what is undeniable.

Anyone who believes that the Bush administration wouldn’t be all over this "revelation" if it truly and actually vindicated their primary justification for invading Iraq - hell, if I was in their shoes, I certainly would be all over it - is clinically delusional. The notion that Bush & Co. aren’t giving it much attention because they’re "looking forward," taking the high road or whatever, is laughable. That said, if they do proceed to jump all over this and push it hard as vindication, that does not make it so. Remember, Bush assured us that any wiretapping that is done domestically would be done with a warrant, while at the same time he was signing authorizations for domestic wiretapping to be conducted without a warrant.

Imagine Saddam still in power,

I wonder if you can.

Still bluffing about major WMD,

and us trying to convince Iran

that it should give up its program,

when its enemy still has his.

You-hoo-ooo, you may say he didn’t have any

and thus the war was bad,

but we’d still think he had plenty

were our troops not in Baghdad.

Julie, You might be interested in this news flash, as well. I think Geraldo Rivera might have found treasure in Al Capone’s vault.

You made a serious post (at least, marginally so), and I responded. If you prefer, I will ignore you even when you aren’t trolling it up.

"I love the way lefties focus on WMD as a rationale for the Iraq war while utterly ignoring Saddam’s terrorist links (which was the second rationale)."

And, let’s not forget the mushroom cloud, and the fourth reason (We don’t like his moustache) and the fifth reason (North Korea is too tough) and the sixth reason (We’d rather attack France but they don’t have any oil.)

dain, I couldn’t care less, one way or the other.

Bush never said Iraq "could take us out in 45 minutes." He argued that the threat was NOT imminent, but that we needed to act BEFORE it became imminent. Here is what he said in the 2003 State of the Union: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

You nailed it in comment 2 Andrew.

The lefts reaction to this and their attempts to once again re-write history about what Bush said is way Over the Top.

Santorum’s trying to get into the news by spinning an old story in a misleading fashion and confusing people. These munitions are about as interesting as the occasional mustard gas shell that gets dug up in the U.S. (see this Bulletin of Atomic Scientists story on Spring Valley, for example). It’s actually kind of sad that Santorum is trying to pull this stunt and that people are falling for it. The Iraq war is a serious issue, and there’s no way that we went to war over the Iraqi equivalent of the Spring Valley dump. But now there will be pressure from right wing propogandists to hype this story, and I bet that it won’t be too long before the administration starts to fudge it as well. Is this really the way for the GOP to get back its foreign policy credentials? Seriously?

Anyboy know how long it takes to set up an artillery fire mission? Anybody care to be in the impact area of a Seran shell? In 45 minutes the CBAR guys would be decontaminating your body.

Eh, all this debate over WMD. The truth is that Saddam was the real threat...all that money, and all that ill-will toward the U.S., and controls on his behavior that were slipping rapidly. It was logical to take him out...for those who vehemently disagree, they never have any solutions...just bitching. Their real beef is that the United States can act unilaterally...it bothers the hell out of ’em, and the reason is because they dislike America and what it stands for. That’s the essence of this debate -- it’s pointless to argue with these people.

This should be called for what it is. It is a transparent attempt by Santorum (who needs him?) to gain political appeal as the grand discoverer in a treasure hunt. These are not the WMD that in large part led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.


If they are, the war is less justified than I thought because, like it or not, WMD were the primary point the Administration pointed to before the invasion took place. If, as I thought before, the invasion was based on bad intelligence concerning serious WMD, combined with the issues Dain points out (anyone got anything to say about Saddam’s terrorist links?...or mass graves in Iraq...or the fact that Saddam was anxious to end the (corrupt) sanctions regime so he could crank up his WMD production? All of the above is true, and yet all some people can focus on is that his munitions were old.) then it was completely justified. If it was based on intelligence on long forgotten, buried WMD (as the primary justification), then it would be reasonable to assume that the things Dain refers to were being wildly over exagerated at the time as well.

The points Dain brings to light were not being wildly overexagerated. These are not the WMD the Bush Administration believed were in Iraq prior to the invasion.

I will stop trolling this topic. Dain and Ponzi are people of faith, and faith trumps all argument.

If faith trumps all argument, then subjectivity is true (?) DanielK.

Is it a transparant attempt?

We don’t have the full document here. All we have is just a small portion of it. So, the document could go on about how we found more newer WMD, but we don’t know if it actually does.

WMD is WMD no matter if old or new.

Anyway, WMD was just one part of the reason why we toppled Saddam’s regime.

Iraq was part of the ’Axis of Evil’ for crying out loud.

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens—leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections—then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world."
- President Bush, 2002 State of the Union Address

Even then the President understood that part of the WMD angle was the programs, which Iraq clearly had.

Anyway, this debate is silly.

No matter of proof or debate will sway those that want Saddam back in power.

Daniel K- You are, once again, being untruthful about what the president originally said. Since you appear to have a reasonable intellect, one can only assume you are being deliberately dishonest, and not merely ignorant. Most of the "anti-war" commenters seem content to parrot things they’ve heard somewhere else without any direct knowledge. People who know nothing of the military are launching off into military analysis. People who know nothing about intelligence gathering are suddenly experts about it. One of the earlier commenters uses the handle "Thinkb4youspeak" that would be a good rule to follow.

"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."
- President Bush, 2002 State of the Union Address

So, while the administration did emphasize the stockpiled WMD through Powell, it is clear that current, large stockpiles of WMD wasn’t the only reason.

Again, even the programs to acquire, retain, or develop WMD was breaking various UN’s Security Council resolutions.

The revelation of a significant quantity of WMDs found in Iraq is important. It continues to further showcase Saddam’s systematic behavior of ignoring the UN (which I don’t blame him for, but also a case for the US’s attack) and maintaining the capability to grow the WMD program as soon as the sanctions were lifted.

Santorum’s actions are a little less than patriotic in my opinion. The revelation comes at a time when Santorum is facing a tough race for reelection and poll numbers consistently show him to be behind. My guess is that this is a political guise orchestrated to get him on message with the White House and the RNC when he desperately needs their support.

Hey, here’s a question -- how large is a "stockpile?" 500+ shells ain’t nuthin’, after all. In my view, it’s 500 shells Saddam said he didn’t have. What else didn’t he have?

Dain, I don’t think it’s that we acted unilaterally so much as it is the Left’s fundamental belief in the perfectability of Man (which is why they’re progressives). It’s the fact that the red states are still barbaric enough to think that problems can be solved with war. The red staters (who the most noble on the Left don’t necessarily hate, but see it as their job to eductate) are keeping America stuck in History. So they don’t really hate America, they’re just embarassed by it (especially in front of their Europeans friends, who they’re trying to emulate).

Back to the main point: I think Fred and Dain have hit all the important points, and after the Lefties respond with some Moveon.org talking points this thread will die. Saddam was a threat and was the first step in a major strategic overhaul in the region.

Andrew -


Yeah, this might be off-topic, but I have to take issue with your claim that progressives believe in a "perfectability of Man". Maybe some nutjobs do, but the majority of us (including our philosophical founders . . . I’m sure there are exceptions, though) believe not in Man’s perfectability, but in his capacity to become better in nature.



I appreciate an understanding of our embarrassment caused by America, rather than some sort of hatred. That’s a much more lucid approach from a conservative than I’m used to be forced to confront.



To Everyone -



I don’t care how many times the President talked about WMD before the war or what the significance of that is (well, I do, but that’s really irrelevant for this conversation). All I was trying to point out in the first few responses to Ms. Ponzi’s post was that this is not really news. I think Allan’s right about Santorum. All I’m looking for in this conversation is an admission that Fox News and Sen. Santorum are twisting around old news for political gain. If they want to drill home the point of pre-1991 WMD being found in Iraq, fine. If I was a conservative, that’s what I’d do. But for Ms. Ponzi to come on here and act like this is some new and huge recent development . . . I think that’s a little bit misleading . . .

Allan said, "My guess is that this is a political guise orchestrated to get him on message with the White House and the RNC when he desperately needs their support."

The first part is right, but with Bush & Cheney’s approval numbers where they are, many legislators up for reelection are distancing themselves from the White House.

Dale Michaud/TexasDude: "WMD is WMD no matter if old or new."


Walter Wallis: "Anybody care to be in the impact area of a Seran shell? In 45 minutes the CBAR guys would be decontaminating your body."

Please read the quote from the Pentagon source about the discovery of these shells. He said the munitions were "in such a degraded state they couldn’t be used for what they are designed for." These kind of weapons, particularly when they’re buried in the sand and forgotten about, degrade in potency over time. Thus, a chemical WMD (are we going to hear claims of discovered nukes next to back up Cheney’s invasion justifications?) is not much of a WMD at all when it gets so old and degraded. Wallis, what is a "Seran" shell? Is that similar to Saran wrap (try: Sarin)? Actually, I don’t wish to be in the impact area of ANY missile, including a cannonball, but that doesn’t make the discovered shells the smoking gun (or even lukewarm gun) evidence people here are trying to twist it to be.

Chris (and others) - The claim that Iraq could launch a (bio. or chem.) WMD attack "within 45 minutes" came of course from Tony Blair. Let’s not pretend that Bush & Blair didn’t act in a clear tag-team fashion in the run-up to the war, and during the war’s early stages. Can you cite anything from the Bush administration to distance itself from such brink-of-apocalypse claims? The 45-minute claim was retracted by the Blair government in Oct. 2004, at which point actions based at least in part upon that claim had already been taken.

Dain - It’s funny how first you attempt to dismiss my comment as "puerile and tedious" sarcasm, and then later you say I "made a serious post." And here I thought you weren’t keen on nuance!

Funny how you misquote me -- I said this -- You made a serious post (at least, marginally so), meaning that some of it had "content." Don’t fall back into trollish ways!

Can you cite anything from the Bush administration to distance itself from such brink-of-apocalypse claims? Well, if you could pull back from the biting commentary for a moment you’d see that that was already provided by Dale (comment #28).

And I still don’t see any solutions...just complaining and nitpicking. I don’t believe that most of you lefties are simply "embarrassed" by American foreign policy. I think you dislike America itself...it’s part of the whole "moral superiority" complex you people have.

Lefties, get over yourselves!!! The fact remains there were WMD’s in Iraq, a point many of you have repeatedly denied.

In fact, this claim is what you entire premise of "redeployment" is all about. You know the "Bush lied, people died" campaign.

You know I will admit Matt had me going for a minute until I slowed down and the Bush statement carefully. I am sorry, but there is a big difference between not finding the weapons intelligence thought they had; and there being no weapons at all. This renders your comparisions mute.

I am out!!

I am not out yet, I must endeavor the next argument before it consumes this argument. Bush never linked Iraq and 9/11. He merely linked Iraq with terrorist, which of course is intractable!!!! Now any other argument you proffer is completely conspiratoral and spin mongering.

Now, I am out.

Ok, whatever, Dain. Your two statements were perfectly consistent, if you say so.

And there is nothing in Dale’s comment (#28 - or the others) to show how Bush distanced himself from Blair’s brink-of-apocalypse claims, absolutely nothing.


It is ludicrous that you, the very antithesis of humility, would accuse me, or anyone, of having a "’moral superiority’ complex."

Bush isn’t responsible for Tony Blair’s comments, and allies don’t correct each other, particularly just before going to war together. Get real! Bush’s statements (which are all that matter here) were clear, circumspect, and true. Stings, doesn’t it?

I’ve never claimed to be morally superior...just intellectually superior. Almost goes without saying, given the "fine" representatives of the Left that troll NLT.

Since even some unnamed Dod officials are making an issue about the weapons being old ...

’WHETHER OR NOT SARIN STOCKS REMAIN VIABLE OVER THE LONG TERM, ALL BELIEVE THAT IRAQ HAS A SIZEABLE CW STOCKPILE THAT IS DURABLE ENOUGH TO SURVIVE SEVERAL YEARS OF STORAGE IF NOT DESTROYED BY COALITION FORCES.’
- CIA - STABILITY OF IRAQ’S CW STOCKPILE, released in 1996, posted on FAS.org (sorry for the all caps, but I was not in the mood to retype it.)

Here’s another interesting excerpt from the CIA doc ...

’CIA BELIEVES THAT IRAQ HAS RETAINED SOME PRODUCTION CAPABILITY BY MOVING SOME OF THE ORIGINAL PRODUCTION UNITS (UNIVERSAL PLANTS) FROM SAMARRA TO UNKNOWN SITES JUST AFTER THE INVASION OF KUWAIT. THEY STATE THAT THESE PLANTS ARE SMALL, EASILYMOVED, AND COULD BE RAPIDLY REASSEMBLED AND MADE OPERATIONAL."
- CIA - STABILITY OF IRAQ’S CW STOCKPILE, released in 1996, posted on FAS.org

Note, this document was a source document used for the wikipedia entry on Sarin.

Note 2 - Sarin, when develop in a certain way, the shelf life becomes almost irrelevant. (That’s from wiki and the CIA doc.)

E. Michael Kajca,


Actually, it (whether the "WMD" referred to as one basis for the war were newly manufactured, maintained, and ready for warfare, or only close to useless shells buried long ago and long forgotten about) matters quite a bit. I imagine that most people believed the WMD described prior to the invasion were being developed at that time for the purposes of aiding current terrorist activities and Saddam’s corrupt and brutal Iraqi regime. One would have thought those “WMD” were being developed in current laboratories and being made with current technology (at least in Iraqi or old Russian military terms). Instead, Santorum, who loves to scream loud, points to weapons developed before Desert Storm as THE WMD!!! Is so, then the whole “WMD” justification was at least wildly overstated and it would then be reasonable to assume that the other reasons we went to war were over-exaggerated as well. Also, merely asserting what you believe as the final solution is not an argument. Let me see if I can give an example: President Bush in fact did link Iraq to Al-Qaeda, the leader of which was Osama bin Laden, who happens to be the one responsible for 9/11. No conspiracy, no “spin mongering” (what does that mean?), and in less moves then the Kevin Bacon six-step!!!(you seem to like exclamation marks, so I thought I’d join the fun).

Dale and Allan,


Why insist that this “find” is significant? If the reasons we went to war were true, one of which was the threat of WMDs that were either not found or were never there, but one that was based on normally reliable intelligence reports, then the war, especially as one against “terror” generally and not “Al-Qaeda” specifically, was justified. Saddam was a terrorist (mass graves). I don’t think the immediacy of his “threat” should be an issue (45 minute reference). In fact, the very definition of a “preemptive” attack implies that immediacy never occur. Saddam was in violation of countless peace accords after the Gulf War, as well as U.N. resolutions. Also, there is no doubt, or at least there shouldn’t be, that Saddam was a bad man and that the world is better without him. We were justified in declaring the war, and we need not embarrass ourselves by making false claims of (un)important finds of (un)WMDs.

"WMDs are WMDs" Not within the context of this conversation.

In regards to this find, it is significant and should be released as such. Moreover, we don’t have the full release of the document in which Santorum is screaming about as you put.

I understand what you are stating, Fred, but I feel that this is important, not as justification for the war, but important in that WMD was there even though it was in a lot smaller quantities and quality than originally asserted.

Heck, even if Saddam had no WMD, we had every right to oust his regime.

Let me see if I can give an example: President Bush in fact did link Iraq to Al-Qaeda, the leader of which was Osama bin Laden, who happens to be the one responsible for 9/11.

When and where did Bush say that a direct link existed between Saddam and Bin Laden, Fred?

In the November 7, 2002 speech, President Outlines Authorities, President Bush said of Saddam Hussein: “[He] is a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida.” (White House Press Release).

State of the Union Address on Jan. 28th, 2003: “Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden to terrorists, or develop their own.”

White House Press Release: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended May 1, 2003: “The liberation of Iraq…removed an ally of al Qaeda.”

I note that Bush said Saddam was "dealing" with Al Qaeda...not participating in 9/11, for instance. Let me ask you a simple question, Fred: Where was Zarqawi, Al Qaeda’s man in Iraq, in November 2002? How about Abu Nidal? I think you will find that Bush was telling the truth...if you want more details, I suggest you read The Connection by Stephen Hayes. Moreover, the glacially slow translation of seized Iraqi documents is demonstrating a link between Saddam and the Taliban...here.

The point I’m making is simple: Bush and co. never claimed Saddam was implicated in the 9/11 attack. He did say that Saddam had dealings with Al Qaeda...and this was the truth. What’s your beef?

Dain


My "beef"? Look at the quote you point to in your comment #43. In response to E. Michael Kajca’s ridiculous post (I am not out yet, I must endeavor the next argument before it consumes this argument. Bush never linked Iraq and 9/11.), I was pointing out that the President and his Administration in fact did proclaim there was a link b/w Iraq and 9/11. It had little to do with my argument, and served the purpose of showing Kajca that exclamation points don’t win the day.


I have no beef. There is no need (nor an “ought”) to run from the claims that were made before the war. They were not the result of incompetence, and I highly doubt they were lies. In fact, as you point out Dain, most of what was specifically said was said politically, and therefore without much content, and therefore vaguely true (as it turns out). But let us not act as though the general thought of the country before the 2003 invasion was that Iraq and al-Qadea were not linked. Deceit and insincerity are easily visible and only make politicians look pathetic.

Again, Fred, when did anyone in the Bush administration say that Saddam was involved in 9/11? Bush and Co. said that Saddam had had dealings with Al Qaeda, and this was true. Moreover, Osama has said over and over he attacked us because we had troops in Saudi Arabia...who were there waiting for Saddam to conveniently abdicate. Bush got rid of Saddam and moved the troops away from the Islamic "holy land." Again, what’s your beef?

Dain, again, when did I make the claim that someone in the Bush Administration said Saddam was involved in 9/11? I didn’t. Let’s go back...(fade to black):]

Kajca comment #37: I am not out yet, I must endeavor the next argument before it consumes this argument. Bush never linked Iraq and 9/11. He merely linked Iraq with terrorist, which of course is intractable!!!! Now any other argument you proffer is completely conspiratoral and spin mongering.

Fred comment #40: President Bush in fact did LINK IRAQ to AL-QADEA, the leader of which was Osama bin Laden, who happens to be the one responsible for 9/11. No conspiracy, no “spin mongering” (what does that mean?), and in less moves then the Kevin Bacon six-step!!!

Kajca insists that President Bush never linked Iraq and 9/11. I say that President Bush claimed to link them by way of discussing the relationship he believed existed b/w Iraq and al-Qadea. That is a link.

On the whole "Bush said Iraq had dealings with al-Qadea and it was true" issue, it’s not so simple. As I said before, things specifically said were politically said, and therefore with little substance, and therefore vaguely true. So the Iraqi regime had communications with some terrorists who had done work in al-Qadea, or later joined the group, and Osama and Saddam had talked a couple of times. There was no partnership. And, though nothing said specifically made a claim to parntership, the implications of the rhetoric at the time, and the expectations created by it, were more than the "dealings" that we discovered.


Again, I have no beef, but I am about to throw some chicken onto the grill, serve some mean pasta salad, and sip on a cold PBR.

Sorry about the italics

My chicken just finished, and I am waiting for the corn.

I don’t know what you mean by "political." Virtually everything politicians say is "political." I don’t think he misled anyone...Saddam’s links to Palestinian terrorists is well-known, and so was his attempt to kill Bush Sr. The man trafficked in terrorism...’nuff said (at least for sensible people). I do hope you are one of those, Fred.

Well, dain, when "Bush said Saddam was ’dealing’ with Al Qaeda" (your comment, #45, above) that wasn’t exactly true though, was it? Yes, yes, I know Stephen Hayes wrote that silly book largely based on a long-ago discredited Defense Dept. intel. memo, but golly, now it seems the Senate has found otherwise:

"There’s no evidence
Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence..."

and

"Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none."

No evidence...no connection! Can you please give up on that one now?

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/8651