Officials Response? Nope, Nope, and Nope
Before all you Bush supporters light those celebratory cigars, take a gander at what was really found in Iraq, two years ago. From the Washington Post:
I know you all find this titillating, but all it does is reaffirm the exaggeration by the Bush administration about the danger posed by Saddam.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told reporters yesterday that weapons of mass destruction had in fact been found in Iraq, despite acknowledgments by the White House and the insistence of the intelligence community that no such weapons had been discovered.
"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Santorum said.
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2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active.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.
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.
I know you all find this titillating, but all it does is reaffirm the exaggeration by the Bush administration about the danger posed by Saddam.
posted by Tootsie Farklepants at 12:34 PM
12 Comments:
An exageration about WMD by Bush? Well what about Bill & Hill Clinton, Hans Blix, John Kerry, the governments of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, France, Russia, The United Nations and others that all said Saddam had "stockpiles of WMD" which is the only thing we DID NOT find in Iraq. What we have found is documentation tying the regime to Al Qaeda, programs for testing biological weapons on prisoners and dozens of mass graves filled with millions of innocent Iraqis. Yeah, you're a liberal alright: If the definition of liberal is someone who LOVES dictators that kill their own people and invade their neighbors. I feel sorry for you Tootsie. Someday you are going to wake up and realize what block head you have been on the Iraq issue and it is going to literally ruin the rest of your life.
Are you flirting with me?
I'm sorry, you must have liberals confused with cons. Since it was the republicans who armed Saddam and looked the other way when he gassed the Kurds in the 80's.
You've also made some outlandish claims. Care to back them up with facts? A link perhaps?
The only block head here is you, Charlie Brown. You're the Charlie Browniest.
Interesting take Dumbo dippinchunks ( interesting name too). I would hide my name also if I blamed US troops of murder as you have.
That kind of talk is not anti war, its actually anti american. To blame our troops of murder is really bottom of the barrel . Whom ever you are you are in such a minority that we can all only be glad that your indictment of our soldiers fighting so you can write that they are all baby killers represnt no on other then yourelf and the others in Al Queda. Because THAT must be where You get your choice of words.
Seriously, you cant be an american to make comments like that. Get your act together please and write like a informed human not a political neophite.
T.F. If you dont know this person you should block them. Thats the kind of speach that NO ONE wants on their site.
Dumbo, you really should retract and get your act together before you write. But, I guess thats why you DONT use your name eh? Scared?
Lets see your next venum post.
Jack
Dumbo is entitled to his say. I'll let him/her speak for themself.
You may not like the way it was worded but it is a fact that innocent Iraqi's have died from American artillary. You can call it "accidental" "collateral damage" or what have you. I save my vitriol for Bush and his rush to war that put our troops there to have to suffer through the choices they are forced to make.
Here is a link to an LA Times article (you may have to cut and paste it into your browser):
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-deathtoll25jun25,0,4970736.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Hey, your call. And you dont have to lead me to sites to prove what you all know. I know more "facts" then most and can send you to sites that say NO ONE died in Iraq and that the holocost didnt happen. So, dont throw sites around. There are sites, quotes and articles to support any crazy theory or true statement anyone wants to make. The holocost did happen, civilians accidnetly get killed in wars and US troops Do NOT target inocent civilians.
People like Dumbo support the false pretense that our troops kill people on purpose and THAT is what Dumbo is saying. There is nothing else to read into the post. Its clear.
You associate with that person all you want. I am trying to keep the conversation among sane people. I dont get into debates with people who have no sense of logic.
Jack
You certainly don't have to read it, but it's no tin foil hat site. It's a reputable newspaper. Your call. I just thought you'd find it interesting the amount of innocent Iraqi's that have died since Shock n' Awe.
I also didn't see anywhere in Dumbo's post that said they were killed on purpose. I also don't call it an accident that innocent lives are lost when the calculated decision to drop a bomb on a city, knowing that some innocents have yet to flee. At some point it is decided that their target is worth more than the "collateral damage". Saying that "yes innocent people die in war" doesn't make it less horrific that they have died, and it doesn't sooth the victims families that are left behind to grieve the loss, picking up the pieces of their shattered lives. Does it?
Thats War TF. Period. be anti war all you want. But stay on level ground here. Dont join the crazy left. In war people die and stuff gets broken.
Its not a great thing, but sometimes its the right thing to do in the long run. If we started worrying about all the civilian deaths in Dresden and Tokyo we would probably still have 2 counties doing a lot of bad things to a whole lot of people. Instead, the country went to war to win at all costs to make life better for everyone later. Something that should have been completed in NORTH KOREA. But, we didnt. The anti war movement and press in this country literally drove us to the peace table and now look at the lifes of the people in north Korea. You think they all would like to take their chances with US smart bombs for a chance at a better life or just stay the way they are now and hope they dont get killed by THE LEADER for thinking about smiling or something stupid.
You CANT spin that statement, for if you do you condone these peoples lives and who are you to tell them they DONT want to live in a better world. And dont say who am I ( meaning me )to tell them to live the way we want them to live because its silly to even compare their lives to ours. Theirs sucks and everyone knows it. They dont even get food.
Heartless Jack
Wow!
Thats as bad as the "hit and run" pieces by Kevin.
Nice use of words that "bristle" at no explaination of anything.
You are obviously WAY out of my league, both emotionally and rationally. You win. Great job maam.
Bye bye
I mis-spoke, I meant to say "dozens of mass graves filled with hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
I find it interesting though that that is all you can pick apart from my post Mr. Farklepants I presume?
Tootsie: So bad policy with Saddam in the 1980's is reason to have bad policy with him today? Did you forget that hostilities against Saddam began in 1992? Why are you still bringing up a policy that became moot after the Gulf War?
I mis-spoke, I meant to say "dozens of mass graves filled with hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
I find it interesting though that that is all you can pick apart from my post Mr. Farklepants I presume?
Tootsie: So bad policy with Saddam in the 1980's is reason to have bad policy with him today? Did you forget that hostilities against Saddam began in 1992? Why are you still bringing up a policy that became moot after the Gulf War?
BTW: I hardly think a newspaper, no matter how long it has been around remains credible after it reveals top secret national security programs.
Saddam's gassing of the Kurds while we turned our heads is not a moot point. He was still a ruthless dictator, no?
I already know that you believe a newspaper loses credibility for reporting news, Kevin. But just because that is what you believe, doesn't make it so.
Post a Comment
<< Home