Weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.  If you don't believe me turn on the news, every news station is talking about it.  Wonder how the democrats will spin this one?  Oh it wasn't that much siren gas (a chemical weapon which Saddam swore he didn't have) or oh Bush secretly planted that or something.  But its been found so that argument goes out the window for the democrats.

Weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.  If you don't believe me turn on the news, every news station is talking about it.  Wonder how the democrats will spin this one?  Oh it wasn't that much siren gas (a chemical weapon which Saddam swore he didn't have) or oh Bush secretly planted that or something.  But its been found so that argument goes out the window for the democrats.
Well there have been a few "Views" in the topic but so far it's just you and me that seem to be HAPPY, GWBush2004.  Indeed, it should be VERY interesting to see how this gets spun ;)

No, they didn't. They just found some containers of gas. I don't think that's the WMD Bush talking about.

It was "virtually ineffective" as a chemical weapon and the attackers probably did not even know what the shell contained, Kimmitt said.

No, they didn't. They just found some containers of gas. I don't think that's the WMD Bush talking about.

It was "virtually ineffective" as a chemical weapon and the attackers probably did not even know what the shell contained, Kimmitt said.


(Note: I think its spelled saren but i'm not sure.)  Ineffective?  This was the weapon the japanese terrorist used to kills people on the subway in Japan a few years back.  Plus the shell was cased in a way that the military couldn't recognize it.  So thier is no telling how much of these could be around.  At first it was one, but now they just found a second (in between my first post and this post.)

BREAKING NEWS: Another (this is the 3rd) shell has been found, this time instead of sarin gas its mustard gas!

From what I heard, these chemical shells were used in roadside bombs. Let's just hope our troops can find and destroy the source of these or things are going to get even uglier. BTW, this is nothing to rejoice about...if we had found a warehouse full of them then there would be cause for celebration. How do we know that these aren't old Soviet-made chemical rounds that were smuggled into Iraq by al-Qaeda or other outside terror groups?  And even if we can somehow prove that these rounds WERE made in Iraq and Saddam DID have a chemical warfare program, it is still nothing to be HAPPY about. Yes, this may give the Bush administration more credibility but it also means that our enemies are resorting to more extreme and desperate tactics and that our troops are in much graver danger now. Politics aside, let's not forget those who are fighting this war and the ramifications this discovery has for them. Think about it. CHEMICAL ROADSIDE BOMBS.

Well, this is a good starting point. But the War has cost too much money and too many lives for us to find three cans of chemicals. Now we have to worry about Al-Sadr and his Fallujah militia, not to mention forces still loyal to Saddam Hussein, the Jihad, al-Jazeera TV, and land mines, not to mention our soldiers' mental stability.   

BUT, now Bush is vilified...at least in the minds of some.  YAWN!

Do you mean vindicated ?  I mean, villified is no problem for me, to me he was villified ever since he was a do-nothing son of a Bush Texas governor with a $70 million Presidential campaign warchest.  "Vindicated" would be a tough sell.

GW, the gas is spelled S-A-R-I-N, dude.

I didn't here exactly what they found until late this afternoon.  I turned on my car radio, and to hear Hannity tell it, you'd think they'd found a Doomsday Machine over there!  Turned out to be some old shell with Sarin traces.  You could find uglier stuff just digging around in the New Jersey marshes for an afternoon.  BUT, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions.  I figure a guy as  rotten as Saddam is gonna have a cache of bad news stashed somewhere.

to hear Hannity tell it, you'd think they'd found a Doomsday Machine over there!  Turned out to be some old shell with Sarin traces.  You could find uglier stuff just digging around in the New Jersey marshes for an afternoon.

;D LOL!!! ;D

I'm cryin' you're so funny. ;D

WMD’s found? Yeah right…

Look, Sarin is not a WMD, not even in the same caliber of weapons that Bush claims we are/were looking for…
Not Bush, the White House nor any other media source or military is calling this find of nerve gas a “WMD”.
IMO, if your calling Sarin a WMD, and that the peoples lives that have been lost and the efforts that have been expended, not to mention tens of  billions of $$ spent, were to find 3 canisters with traces of sarin in it is reason for the US to be in Iraq, well, that speaks loads of the mindset of the Bush administration, and makes me truly frightened for our solders, & the future of this country and its citizens.

Sorry, I’m not buying it, and I don’t believe you or anyone else is either.

What’s more telling is the glee of which you are reporting this…
Are you showing your true feelings and the almost desperate need to try and justify our presence in Iraq with a find (ANY find, whether is be true or unverified rumor) of WMD’s?
Seems to me the Bush die-hards, by rushing to report this are finally admitting to needing some justification (that they never had to begin with, and we still don’t have now) and some backing for the lies that have us in the mess we are now in.

Whats more scary is that Bush realizes now that he has no real plan for getting out of this mess, and whats worse is that Kerry hasn't explained how he can do any better if he were elected...

I think it's more significant that the head of the Iraqi governing council was KILLED IN A BOMB BLAST!!! Or doesn't anyone see that as important as the fact that a pittance of nerve gas was discovered in the aftermath of the attack?

Personally I think that you could find a much more volatile weapon of mass destruction in the form of Bush's a**..... or maybe even Bush himself than what they found in Iraq. I mean if Bush considers that WMD then maybe he better check out my cupboard.  I think there might be a lot worse dangerous chemicals in there, and they are only for cleaning!

What scares me more than anything is that they are reporting that the people who made the bombs probably didn't know there was sarin in them.  What if one of these goes off when they are making the bomb...as much as I want to see them defeated, I don't think anyone deserves to die a horrible death and that would be a horrible death.

I won't be shedding any tears for any terrorist who falls on his own sword while planning to slaughter others, even if it is by accidentally inhaling sarin. I'm sure they wouldn't care if they let a cloud of ricin into a school yard.

KERRY KNEW WMD'S EXISTED...READ THIS:

After train wrecks on Meet the Press and Good Morning America, John Kerry took his tattered credibility to the friendly confines of Hardball, where a sympathetic and compliant Chris Matthews did his very best to help Kerry make it through at least one interview without wandering into bizarre asides, prolix dependent clauses, and baffling hedges.

Chris Matthews failed. On the bizarre side of the ledger, Kerry ended the interview by bringing up the fact that Karen Hughes had been born in Paris. Matthews was confused by this sudden turn of events and first indicated the interest that accompanies the revelation of a genuinely important fact, only to retreat into a forced laugh when Kerry indicated that he had made a joke.

The exchange of importance involved the invasion of Iraq and the WMD controversy. Here it is in its entirety:


Matthews: If there was an exaggeration of WMD, exaggeration of the danger, exaggeration implicitly of the connection to al Qaeda and 9/11, what's the motive for this, what's the "why?" Why did Bush and Cheney and the ideologues around take us to war? Why do you think they did it?

Kerry: It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue, and--we may yet find them, Chris. Look, I want to make it clear: Who knows if a month from now, you find some weapons. You may. But you certainly didn't find them where they said they were, and you certainly didn't find them in the quantities that they said they were. And they weren't found, and I have talked to some soldiers who have come back who trained against the potential of artillery delivery, because artillery was the way they had previously delivered and it was the only way they knew they could deliver. Now we found nothing that is evidence of that kind of delivery, so the fact is that as you peel it away I think it comes down to this larger ideological and neocon concept of fundamental change in the region and who knows whether there are other motives with respect to Saddam Hussein, but they did it because they thought they could, and because they misjudged exactly what the reaction would be and what they could get away with.


Kerry's answer is a jungle of dependent clauses and asides, but it deserves intense focus. Put aside the obvious reference to the left's theory that Bush took out Saddam to avenge Hussein's assassination attempt on the first President Bush, as well as the reference to the "neocons," which is verbal comfort food to the anti-Semitic loons in the audience. Let's take Kerry seriously for once.

Kerry acknowledges that WMD may yet be found. This admission destroys the left's critique of the war and months of "Bush lied!" rantings from the MoveOn.org swamp. Kerry knows what everyone with a memory knows: which is that Saddam had WMD and the world agreed he had them. Perhaps they were destroyed, perhaps hidden, perhaps trucked to Syria, but he had them. Thank you, Mr. Kerry, for your only contribution to the public's understanding of the war to date.

No sooner does he admit that the entire attack on Bush's credibility is a contrived, election-year stunt, then he goes on to fumble the issue by suggesting that only WMD in artillery shells matter to us, and that artillery was the only means available to Saddam to deliver WMD.

Two points, minor and major.

The minor point is that Saddam attack the Kurds in 1988 using chemical weapons delivered from planes. Kerry's statement that "artillery was the way they had previously delivered and it was the only way they knew they could deliver" is flat wrong. It is also easy to spot, and easy for the public to understand since they remember SCUDs hitting Israel in 1991.

The major point is that WMDs alarm us not only or even primarily when they are in artillery shells but when they are in the hands of terrorists. Had Chris Matthews been interested in actually asking a question that would have obliged the senator to show some thought, he would have inquired as to how much ricin is too much, or how great a biological threat has to exist in the lab before we take action.

Kerry's answer tells us that he fails to grasp the crucial issue of this campaign: the threat to America has changed, and our response has to change with it. Sure, he gave up a huge issue by admitting that WMD may yet be found in a transparent attempt to position himself against the possibility of their discovery before November, but more important than that admission is Kerry's display of what can only be called ignorance of the threat.

We should not be surprised. In his long career, Kerry has misjudged the threats posed by the Vietcong, the Soviets, the Sandinistas, and just about every other enemy the United States has faced. Now he has misjudged the threat posed by WMDs. Is America going to elect a "hear no evil, see no evil" president in the middle of a war that could go on for years to come?

The above is provided courtesy of http://www.hughhewitt.com, as you can see a dispassionate, detached observer. 

The above is provided courtesy of http://www.hughhewitt.com, as you can see a dispassionate, detached observer. 


Don't know exactly what this means, but that above writing came from: www.rushlimbaugh.com

Don't know exactly what this means, but that above writing came from: www.rushlimbaugh.com

An even more impartial journalist, if I may say so.
I think you need to broaden your horizons, my boy.

Oh well I guess this means the sh** strom Bush has created in Iraq is now all of a sudden justified.

Don't know exactly what this means, but that above writing came from: www.rushlimbaugh.com


I meant the article was written by Hugh Hewitt.  By the way, I'm glad you asked.  I did a little net search on the author and came up with this from last year:

Fact checking Hugh Hewitt
I don't know Hugh Hewitt's work well enough to know whether he is regularly dishonest to his blog's audience or just blinded by partisanship (or maybe posts without thinking it through, as bloggers--myself included--sometimes do). But his rant against the L.A. Times today cries out for a small fisking.

He convicts the Times of liberal bias in its coverage of Friday's hike in state vehicle fees, but all that his evidence shows me is that Hewitt is upset the paper hasn't joined a crusade against Gray Davis. Hewitt, on the other hand, leaves out key facts and distorts others.

He does makes a good point that the Times did not play the story on A1. I poked around and found that papers ranging from the San Francisco Chronicle to the Orange County Register did. I would have at least put a "refer" on the front page, sending readers to the story. But is the story buried in today's LAT? Hardly. It's above the fold in the California section of the main L.A. edition. The Times also had a defensible journalistic reason not to front the story on Saturday -- on Friday a big headline at the top of the California section and a detailed story by Evan Halper reported the fees would be tripled. So on Saturday it was old news to Times readers, not "the biggest story of the day," as Hewitt complains. (For the masses who aren't politics junkies, the train derailment in Commerce was a pretty big story.)

Hewitt also complains that the Times story refers to "vehicle license fees" instead of the "car tax." Well, so do most of the other papers, including his hometown Register -- after all, one is the official name we'll see on our new higher bills, the other is an anti-Davis Republican slogan. Weakest of all, Hewitt asserts that the Times story downplays Davis' role and the fact that Republicans plan to fight it. Here's the LAT lead, you decide:

SACRAMENTO — The Davis administration tripled the state vehicle license fee Friday, sending Republican legislators scrambling to mount legal challenges to stop the increase and ballot initiatives to abolish the tax altogether.

The next graf gives the basics -- the hike kicks in Oct. 1 and will cost the average car owner $158 a year -- then there's two grafs on driver anger about the higher fees, and a graf quoting Davis on why he wanted the increase. Not exactly hiding the controversy.

Hewitt calls it "a study in partisan hackery." Hmm...one's tempted to quip that Hugh should know all about such things. Actually, I've found he's usually pretty upfront about being a 24/7 Republican voice. Unfortunately, I'll be more skeptical from now on of media observations signed by Mr. Hewitt, knowing that they're probably something else in disguise.


http://www.laobserved.com/archive/000183.html

  :)

KERRY KNEW WMD'S EXISTED...READ THIS:

After train wrecks on blah blah blah blah blah


This has nothing to do with your original post, which was that WMDs had been found in Iraq. Traces of a nerve agent were found. This does not equate with finding WMDs.

Well, to a diehard Republican, it's the same thing, isn't it?


:) I think one could argue that it's evidence they were there, but we already knew this. No one can say for sure yet if the amounts of WMDs claimed are still in Iraq or not, but if they are there, let's hope the US-led forces find them before the terrorists do.

They tried to say Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction unto himself.  Not even the Bush-apologist mainstream media went for that one.  The partisan Republicans are too emotionally invested in the righteousness of this war to ever concede.

It's nearly impossible to be grateful Saddam is out of the picture because of the right-wing's incessant gloating and ridicule.  Their own punditry dashes any chance the Administration has of doing anything but preaching to the choir.

Fortunately, the choir is vast.  Most Americans grow up with little perspective on history or current events.  Rush Limbaugh/FOX News deftly politicize the heretofore apolitical.  They sell an elegant package complete with a phrase book and repartee sheet.  No analysis of your own required.  No messy gray areas.  No contending with that terrible huamn condition of self-doubt. 

The liberal worldview can't offer the same monolithic simple-mindedness.

They tried to say Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction unto himself.  Not even the Bush-apologist mainstream media went for that one.  The partisan Republicans are too emotionally invested in the righteousness of this war to ever concede.

It's nearly impossible to be grateful Saddam is out of the picture because of the right-wing's incessant gloating and ridicule.  Their own punditry dashes any chance the Administration has of doing anything but preaching to the choir.

Fortunately, the choir is vast.  Most Americans grow up with little perspective on history or current events.  Rush Limbaugh/FOX News deftly politicize the heretofore apolitical.  They sell an elegant package complete with a phrase book and repartee sheet.  No analysis of your own required.  No messy gray areas.  No contending with that terrible huamn condition of self-doubt. 

The liberal worldview can't offer the same monolithic simple-mindedness.


Wow Maxwell, I'm pretty astute and I had to read that twice to make sure I understood you.  ;)

My take on this is that the noise some have made that the discovery of a miniscule amount of a moderately dangerous nerve agent (sarin is bad, but it's nowhere near as vile or toxic as something like ricin, which is about 1000 times more poisonous) might somehow vindicate the President's agenda has diverted attention away from what I would consider to be a factor just as important. The discovery was only made in the wake of the assassination of the man who was to lead the Iraqi governing council. That is a concern in itself.

The liberal worldview can't offer the same monolithic simple-mindedness.
Except maybe for Al "Bore"...AND I suppose Clinton never lied either ::) Politicians kinda suck from either side....yes the "Right" lies but so do the liberals :-\\

Except maybe for Al "Bore"...AND I suppose Clinton never lied either ::) Politicians kinda suck from either side....yes the "Right" lies but so do the liberals :-\\

Did I say liberals never lie?  No, sir, I did not.

Thanks for your words, Powerslave.

Did I say liberals never lie?  No, sir, I did not.

.
Well you're the first one I've ever encountered that admits it, thanks for being honest, MaxwellSmart ;)

An even more impartial journalist, if I may say so.
I think you need to broaden your horizons, my boy.


I'm actully a huge news junkie.  In case you wonder/care heres my news shows.  Washington Journel (C-Span), Brit Hume (Fox News), Bill O'Reilly (Fox News), Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes (Fox News), Greta Van Sustern (Fox News), Rush Limbaugh (radio), Sean Hannity (radio), Bill O'Reilly (radio), and I read the Atlanta Journel Constitution every day.  No life?  I know....

Thats Journal.

Ha, I KNEW it! All along I just knew it!  :) :) :) :)

Ha, I KNEW it! All along I just knew it!  :) :) :) :)


Knew what?

I'm actully a huge news junkie.  In case you wonder/care heres my news shows.  Washington Journel (C-Span), Brit Hume (Fox News), Bill O'Reilly (Fox News), Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes (Fox News), Greta Van Sustern (Fox News), Rush Limbaugh (radio), Sean Hannity (radio), Bill O'Reilly (radio), and I read the Atlanta Journel Constitution every day.  No life?  I know....

I also watch FOX Newt, mostly O'Reilly and HANNITY and colmes.  Neil Cavuto & Britt Hulme bug me too much.
I won't listen to Limbaugh because he's too d@mned predictable.  I listen to a lot of NPR, as well O'Reilly's "Radio Factor," and Sean Hannity's show.  Sometimes Hannity's too loutish and dumb.  I love "Savage Nation" because Michael Savage is hysterical--literally.  I bet there's a couple of guys wearing white lab coats who wait for him with a straightjacket and Thorazine!  If I could get AirAmerica, I'd listen to them over the conservatives, but AirAmerica's got about a snowball's chance!
So you like Washington Journal, eh?  Who's your favorite host?  Mine is still the man himself, Brian Lamb.  See, guys like Limbaugh rake liberal callers over the coals, but let right-wing callers get away with all kinds of BS.  With Brian Lamb, it doesn't matter what side you're coming from.  If he thinks you're full of crap, he'll say something like "How do you know that, caller?  And if you are full of crap, he just moves on.  The other hosts aren't quite as good at it as Brian.  I've heard Limbaugh grill right-wing callers, but he always coaches them back to his point of view. Whereas Limbaugh just ridicules the lefties and cuts 'em off.
C-Span's "Book TV" has some great authors.  I often buy books by the authors "Book TV" presents.

That there were WMD'S!

Knew what?


I knew there were WMD's! I don't know how I knew, but I just knew it!

This really isn't the end all but it does beg the question, "Hey, where'd these come from?"

Because Iraq isn't supposed to have WMDs because they're either destroyed/out of the country/nonexistent, but here they are...

I'd wait for further details before thinking one way or the other, but this is a very interesting find.

I'd wait for further details before thinking one way or the other, but this is a very interesting find.


I agree, its too early to say "see Saddam had them".  However, its definitely a "thing that makes you go hmmm". :)


Will be intersting how it turns out.  After all, nerve agents were supposedly not there, and now are being used.

This really isn't the end all but it does beg the question, "Hey, where'd these come from?"

Because Iraq isn't supposed to have WMDs because they're either destroyed/out of the country/nonexistent, but here they are...

I'd wait for further details before thinking one way or the other, but this is a very interesting find.

Like I say, one missile shell with sarin traces does not a WMD program make.  In a country the size of Iraq, torn up by 25 years of war, and ruled by a man as wicked as Saddam, is bound to have all kinds of horrible stuff scattered about.  What this Administration needs to show is that the U.N. weapons inspectors didn't effectively disarm Iraq.  That means the uncovering of a comprehensive and intact WMD program.  I'm NOT saying one DOESN'T exist, but they have yet to find such a program. 

Right! The title to this thread is an example of how this issue, the "find" is blown way out of proportion; at least in this thread.

WMD's were found, yes. but why didn't Bush invade North Korea when we are 100% sure they have nukes?



A) Bush is a daddy's boy. :P