Reference point: Saddam's WMDs
Thanks, FO.
Posted on 06/30/2006 6:13:55 PM PDT by FairOpinion
U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon presided over a House Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday in which the commander of the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) acknowledged that the degraded chemical munitions revealed in last week’s report constitute weapons of mass destruction.
While the usefulness of the approximately 500 pre-Gulf War munitions is disputed by weapons experts, Weldon said in his opening statement their discovery over the past three years justifies the March 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime.
"I want to be absolutely clear about what we are talking about here. These 500 chemical munitions are weapons of mass destruction," said Weldon, R-7, of Thornbury. "Some may want to play down the significance of this report or even deny that WMD have been found in Iraq."
Weldon ... indicating that during his next trip to Iraq he would question military leaders on potential WMD sites that have yet to be searched.
Thursday’s hearing was in response to an April 2006 intelligence report that was partially declassified last week and released by U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra. The declassified section of the report said the projectiles preceded the 1991 Gulf War and contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.
(Excerpt) Read more at zwire.com ...
A lot of WMD and dual use materials, which could be used for WMD have already been found and there is more to be found.
We never found out what was in those trucks Saddam sent to Saddam.
You mean the trucks Saddam sent to Syria.
Yes, thanks!
Saddam's connection with Al Qaeda trumps the WMD justification.
http://jednet207.tripod.com/PoliticalLinks.html
Rumor has it that we found a LOT of chemical protective suits over there and they weren't ours. Why would they need tens of thousands of chemical protective suits for the manufacture of pesticides?
I still feel the war is justified, in part because i think there were WMD that were moved or hidden and in part because I think there were plenty of valid reasons to do this having nothing to do with WMD. In fact, I think it would have been dereliction of duty by Bush not to do it.
However, all this pointing at these old degraded munitions as justification for the war makes Republicans look a bit silly. Though they may technically qualify as WMD, this was not the type of WMD on which the case for the war was made, and we would not have invaded if our real reason was simply these lame shells. These munitions were not a bona fide material threat to US. All this excitement over a few old shells just looks like desparation and detracts from the genuine reasons for the war.
I know a moonbat whose response to this is, "Well, the UN knew about those from the first Gulf War." He conviniently ignores that Saddam had declared that he'd destroyed them after that war.
Moonbats really do disgust me anymore.
Saddam was supposed to account for his WMD, as per the UN resolutions and he refused to do that.
He claimed he destroyed the WMD and this proves that he didn't.
If you had been following any of it, there are also tons of documents showing that he has been working on WMD AND working with Al Qaeda - a lethal combination.
We will never know what catastrophy President Bush may have saved us from, by getting rid of Saddam.
Hey "Newbie" did you sign up just to counteract info inconvenient to the dimRats?
Or do you simply still believe anything that gets printed?
Mustard gas and Sarin gas has been found to be lethal for decades - even some from WW1 - experts has so testified.
Are you an expert? Have you seen the canisters in question? Is there a reason you believe the libRats statements over others?
Inquiring minds want to know
No offense to Weldon, but we've been at war with Iraq from the first time Iraq violated the CEASE FIRE they signed in '91.
"Saddam was supposed to account for his WMD, as per the UN resolutions and he refused to do that. "
I doubt he really even knew or cared about these particular worthless munitions. All the good stuff that he knew or cared about, assuming it existing (and I suspect it did) has been moved or hidden.
"He claimed he destroyed the WMD and this proves that he didn't. "
As a technicality, I suppose that's right. But I don't think he was intentionally lying about these particular worthless pieces of crap. And I think most people understand this, so trying to hang one's hat on this is bad PR for Republicans. It just looks bad. There's a logical reason why the Administration has not tried to make that case.
::If you had been following any of it, there are also tons of documents showing that he has been working on WMD AND working with Al Qaeda - a lethal combination.
That's fine, but it has nothing to do with these old degraded munitions that people keep hyping.
"We will never know what catastrophy President Bush may have saved us from, by getting rid of Saddam."
That's precisely right. And I think my original post made clear that Bush had to do this and that Saddam's continued existance after 9-11 was simply untenable for a host of reasons, whether or not our incompetent intelligence agencies were able to find any convincing evidence of his covert involvement.
"Hey "Newbie" did you sign up just to counteract info inconvenient to the dimRats?"
You're obviously not reading the full content of my posts or grasping my intent, so I'm not sure this is worth pursuing. But I'll try again. I was, and still am, in favor of this war. I think it is bad PR to try to make a big deal out of these shells at this point. If you want to call me names, or question my intent, there's not much I can do about it.
I totally agree.
As to the rest, I disagree.
Mustard gas stays deadly for multiple decades, even over a century, as shown by the French WWI chemical shell experience;
The terms of ending the Gulf War I called for dealing with ALL Iraq's WMDs.
Even if the shells themselves were degraded, Saddam certainly did have ties to terrorists - first hand via his dealings with Palestinian bus-bombers, through his sons and their dealings with Zarquawi, and through his ministers and their dealings with Bin Ladin;
The 500, that we are being told about for now certainly is a lot, not a few shells. And what does the age of the shells have to do with their usability for a number of purposes?
This news is a big deal, and is sorely needed backing for those who staked their political careers on supporting the war. After all, would the world be a safer place with the Dems in charge? If not, then those that backed the war need all the facts we can safely provide to bolster their case to the voters, lest the voters elect those who would throw us to the wolves.
Says who? Please cite the Official List Of Types Of WMD On Which We Are Making The Case For War (Bush et al, 2002).
Oh wait, there is no such list.
These were proscribed items under the relevant UN resolutions. Bush's charge against Saddam in the UN was that he had proscribed items he had not reported or accounted for. That charge is now more than vindicated. Case closed.
More to the point, the "case for war" before Congress did not rest solely on "WMDs", of any type, in the first place. Read the War Powers Declaration.
we would not have invaded if our real reason was simply these lame shells.
Counterfactual nonsense. You have no basis whatsoever on which to sound forth on whether or not we "would have invaded" under this or that circumstance.
Bush said Saddam hadn't been forthright about his banned stock, and these shells ("lame" or not, whatever that's supposed to mean) prove that Bush was entirely correct. There is really nothing else to say.
These munitions were not a bona fide material threat to US.
Who said they were? That's beside the point. These were banned items, he had them, he didn't declare them, he didn't destroy them. Guilty as charged.
All this excitement over a few old shells just looks like desparation and detracts from the genuine reasons for the war.
You're right in a way, because it makes it look as if "WMDs" were the only reason for the war, which is false. However, by implying there's some secret magical list of WMDs that were the "type of WMDs on which the case for war was made", you place yourself among those perpetuating that misunderstanding, not I.
The invasion was not conducted in order to retrieve some WMDs, let alone some special "type" of WMDs which you think these aren't. The invasion was conducted - as invasions typically are - in order to destroy the government of the enemy (in this case, that of Saddam Hussein). Thus the case for war was of the form: the government of Saddam Hussein needs to be destroyed (because of some reasons, one of them being: "it's the type of government that makes/uses WMDs"). The case for war was not of the form: WMDs of such-and-such "type" exist and need to be retrieved, because they're a material threat to us right now. (Except in the carefully-constructed straw-man arguments of Democrats/media.)
Sadly, most Americans are so befuddled and confused by media/Democrat distortions and straw-men that they are unable to make this distinction.
Great post.
I think we should have an ongoing thread for the trial of those guys on trial in Jordan for that attempted attack.
They were said to be Zarqawi operatives and trained in WMD in 2002.
ping
I guess we can go ahead and build a soccer field next to the old VX cannisters we have stored in west-central Indiana then. They're old...harmless now....
bump
How much of the actual chemical compound used in these munitons was shared with other countries and with terrorist groups? This is serious sh#$!
So, Saddam says "General, did we get rid of all the chemical weapons?" And the general replies, "Yes sir, there are absolutely no chemical weapons left, we double checked."
Do you really believe they just lost or forgot about 500 chemical weapons? Forgot about 500 chemical weapons for 12 years? There were UN inspectors in Iraq for most of the 1990's. People were looking for these. They were just in some forgotten warehouse the whole time?
If "he" (i.e. the Hussein government) didn't know about them then his government was incompetent in its custodial role over quite a lot of highly toxic materiel it had created. It's odd that his autocratic, dictatorial government would have such a loose grip on power/control in this one area, however. (They know about and jail all their political opponents, Saddam's sons have pretty girls kidnapped off the street to be their sex slaves, but oops they have no idea where 500+ chemical weapons went?) And it's odd that you'd develop such a belief based, as far as I can tell, on absolutely no facts whatsoever. But anyway, even supposing you're right in that hunch of yours, I'd still say that government needed a good topplin'.
As for whether he "cared about" the weapons, well maybe he did maybe he didn't, but what the heck does that have to do with the price of tea in China? They were supposed to be provably destroyed or declared and they weren't. We "cared" about them. The UN (theoretically..) "cared" about them. His caring or not caring about them doesn't mean diddly squat.
[claimed he destroyed & didn't] But I don't think he was intentionally lying about these particular worthless pieces of crap.
Ok, your opinion on what Saddam was intentionally lying about vs. what he was simply ignorant of, is duly noted. Its relevance to the issue of whether Bush was correct to declare him in violation of relevant UN resolutions, is unclear however. Is the idea supposed to be that Bush should have said to himself, "Well now, it's clear that Saddam's in violation, but MOTR Newbie doesn't think Saddam was intentionally lying, so that changes things."
?
For three years running, Bush has been accused of all manner of fiendish mendacity, primarily "lying about WMDs" in his public case against Saddam Hussein before the UN. I am here to simply point out that a find such as this vindicates that case, and debunks the critics' slander. Can you really deny that?
He also had 31,000 chemical warfare weapons and more than 600 tons of material to produce a deadly VX nerve agent. The report also said inspectors were unable to document the whereabouts of 4,000 tons of chemicals that could be used to produce weapons.
Nor could UNSCOM verify Iraqi claims it had destroyed delivery systems, such as Scuds, airframes and warheads. A former U.N. weapons inspector gave one example of the vastness of the Iraqi arsenal that survived the Gulf War to Correspondent Betty Ann Bowser. DAVID KAYE, Former Chief Nuclear Weapons Inspector: Probably easiest to describe it visually and in dollar terms. In chemical weapons the major chemical weapons storage site is an area larger than the District of Columbia, and as far as you could look, all you could see is chemical weapons laying on the ground in bunkers, leaking. It was the most astounding site I've ever seen in the world.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: And do you have every reason to believe that there are even more sites than that today?
DAVID KAYE: I think I have every reason to believe that we have not found all of the weapons and all of the material.
UNSCOM's tally sheet.
PHIL PONCE: That site was destroyed by UNSCOM. But inspectors believe they still haven't found everything the Iraqi government may be hiding. That's because they've been denied access to some government buildings and compounds.
Here's what inspectors have been able to find and destroy so far: thirty-eight thousand chemical weapons, four hundred eighty thousand liters of chemical agents, forty-eight missiles, thirty special missile warheads for chemical and biological weapons, and hundreds of components used in chemical weapons production, an arsenal believed capable of killing every person in the world several times over.
Last week, United States National Security Adviser Sandy Berger said the threat from Iraq continues.
SAMUEL BERGER, National Security Adviser: Stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions and a small force of Scud-type missiles remain unaccounted for. And most importantly, Iraq still has the capacity to rebuild its production program for biological and chemical weapons and the missiles to deliver them.
As UNSCOM has come closer and closer to ferreting out Iraq's remaining weapons capacity, Saddam has become increasingly determined in his efforts to block the inspectors and end the inspection regime.
PHIL PONCE: Hours later, after watching the speech on CNN in Baghdad, an Iraqi spokesman rejected those accusations.
IRAQI SPOKESMAN: If they have any hint that Iraqi has developed a new weapon, why don't they put this in front of the Security Council, instead of speaking in front of the cameras and to the press? They can put it on the desk of the Security Council, and let them discuss it with UNSCOM people. It's nonsense.
PHIL PONCE: Whatever officials say in Baghdad in Washington, the countries in the Gulf region and Mideast continue preparations for a potential Iraqi strike with deadly weapons.
By the way....that was Feb 1998
Thanks Tribune7.
"Its relevance to the issue of whether Bush was correct to declare him in violation of relevant UN resolutions, is unclear however. "
I think I made clear, the relevance is political. I guess I'm telling you what I believe (in my OPINION) the reaction of the average swing voter will be (or the average citizen of our supposed allies), to the extent he or she is paying attention. Convincing you and me that invading Iraq was even more of a a necessity that we already thought it was is a useless endeavor. He had us at "hello." In other words, in my OPINION, trumping these munitions only appeals to the already converted. And, yes, I am a mindreader.
Anyway, sorry if I upset anybody here. I'm not trying to flick anybody's ear, I just think they should have sat on this until they had something more to show - all at once.
As an aside, given how little of that country we REALLY control, in the true sense of the word, I suspect there is a lot more still there.
I hope the truth doesn't come out until after the Dems have chosen a Presidential nominee. Let them paint themselves into the mother of all corners.
The Democrat response to the recent report of the finding of WMD in Iraq is that it never happened.
Democrats have based their entire opposition on the claim that President Bush knowingly lied when he took the nation to war because of WMD in Iraq. The party's culture of hate is also based on Bush's "Big Lie."
In an election year the Democrats cannot now admit that they were wrong so they are taking the position that no WMD have been found.
Hitler did not say, "Tell a lie enough times and it will be believed." He said, "Tell a BIG enough lie enough times and it will be believed."
Like Saddam breaking 18 resolutions wasn't?
But that's not even what we're talking about. You had made a claim regarding whether the voters/the Congress? would have approved of the invasion (i.e., in 2003), under such-and-such circumstances. (If the mythical List-of-WMDs consisted of these 500+ shells, I suppose.) My only point was, you don't know what the voters/Congress "would have" approved or wouldn't have. It's a counterfactual and you presume to know the mind of voters/Congress (in 2003).
I just get irritated being told what "would have been enough for war" or what "wouldn't have" by people who have no objective basis whatsoever for making such a claim. The fact-set was what it was, and the invasion was approved. Yes, it's possible that with a fact-set informed by later events, the invasion would not have been approved, but don't sit there and tell me you know what would have been "enough" and what wouldn't have. You don't, that's all I'm saying.
In other words, in my OPINION, trumping these munitions only appeals to the already converted.
Hmm. Speaking for myself, I think we're at cross purposes, you and I. Who's trying to "appeal" to anyone? Certainly not me. (Far as I'm concerned, that's a pointless exercise; the invasion happened, it's over, we can't un-invade, so why re-argue it?)
But what is worth arguing is the slander that "Bush lied". In the face of that, I am simply drawing objective, logical conclusion from these published facts. That conclusion is simply: Bush was correct to charge Saddam with being in violation of UN resolutions. He didn't "lie". That's a fact. Whether or not I "convert" or "appeal" to anyone by pointing out that fact, is neither here nor there. Obviously I would prefer to convert more rather than less, but nevertheless facts are facts: Bush didn't lie. That's why this find is relevant, and that's why I argue against those who poo-poo it.
I just think they should have sat on this until they had something more to show - all at once.
Perhaps. Personally, I think they don't really even know their heads from their a**es when it comes to how to handle PR :) But PR & political/emotional "public opinion" is not what I've been talking about, I hope you now understand. Public opinion can be swayed or not, but either way: these finds vindicate Bush's claims before the UN. PERIOD.
If you're point is that I don't really "know" anything with respect to how people would have reacted, I suppose that's true. But in a way, it's moot. If we had known this was all we were going to find, I don't think we would have made that case in the first place. We would not have allowed the issues at the UN and in the press to be framed so heavily in terms of WMD. Standing up and saying "We know that Saddam has 500+ pre-1991 shells scattered around the country that he hasn't located and accounted for" wouldn't have sounded very forceful. I think we'd still be there, but I think we would have made a different case. Again, just my opinion. But, just to show you where I'm coming from, I think we PROBABLY would have attacked Iraq even if Clinton was still president on 9-11. That's how crazy I am.
"Who's trying to "appeal" to anyone? "
The politicians who have been most vocally publicizing this in an election year. I wasn't speaking to your actions, or anybody else on this forum. My point from the get-go (perhaps inartfully stated) is that I don't think it's likely to redound to their benefit in the way they hope.
But your point is taken about the "Bush lied" issue. To the extent that this helps dispel that particular myth, then I suppose it's useful, but I don't think it will convince anybody who actually believes he lied.
text of UN SC Res 1441 and Blix's ltr to Saddams "adviser":
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
index of all UN SC Res (these are pdf):
http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
-Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.)
"All this excitement over a few old shells"
-MOTR Newbie
Thanks for linking us of your excellent 2004 post.
"We would not have allowed the issues at the UN and in the press to be framed so heavily in terms of WMD."
ya mean like this?........
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.
###
They would be if they were smuggled into the US and detonated here by terrorists, Newb.
Quite welcome!
Let's see the Democrats open one of these "old, degraded" munitions on national TV and breathe the contents.
Because the Democrats know that the Bush Administration is in a Catch-22 about the WMD evidence, they continue to say that "BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED." The Left's accomplices in the press will not connect the dots. In fact, any evidence that supports the truth is ignored.
As a side note, this same game is being played with the prisoners in Guantanamo, Cuba. If we were to try them using the United States court system, the evidence necessary to convict these prisoners would reveal TOP SECRET information. Again the Democrats would charge the Bush Administration for the breach of national security.
At the same time, the New York times will breach national security anytime they can embarrass the Bush Administration and cause our efforts against the Islamo-fascists to fail.
What's wrong with this picture? Beam me up Scotty, the Left's got this brave nation in self destruct mode.
Exactly right. Another reason these blithe "we wouldn't have invaded if..." claims people so easily and casually toss out there make no sense. In any given counterfactual the "case for war" would likely be different as needed and we may have still invaded. Or not, as the case may be.
My point from the get-go (perhaps inartfully stated) is that I don't think it's likely to redound to their benefit in the way they hope.
Indeed, it might not. Nevertheless, it vindicates the WMD claims at the UN, as a simply matter of fact. To me, that's why it's relevant. When people imply it's not relevant, this is what they are missing.
I don't think it will convince anybody who actually believes he lied.
Me neither :) but it should, logically.
Bush HAS the authority to declassify information, the NYT does NOT.
Does anyone on FR know which organophosphate pesticide was found in bulk at an Iraqi military site? I've done Google searches intermittently since the find in 2004, and still haven't gotten an answer.
"That's fine, but it has nothing to do with these old degraded munitions that people keep hyping."
If you have the time, please read the following thread. The link to the BBC article is there. If you click on it, it is the second story on the page, and CONTINUES down to the bottom.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654560/posts
If you take the time, and read the article,it even tells how the piles of these "old degraded munitions" waiting for pick up by the military for destruction, are being STOLEN AND SOLD on the black market, before some of them can be collected for destruction.
They would make a NASTY IED.......
I just did a quick Google search and didn't find what pesticides, but came across this article:
U.S.: Mobile labs found in Iraq
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/
April 15, 2003
U.S. troops have found 11 mobile laboratories buried south of Baghdad that are capable of biological and chemical uses, a U.S. general said Monday.
Troops found the mobile laboratories near a weapons plant outside Karbala, about 50 miles south of Baghdad. Though buried, they appeared to contain about $1 million worth of equipment and were "clearly marked so they could be found again," Freakley said.
Last week, troops from the 101st Airborne found a stash of chemicals, which was investigated as possible nerve agents, but the material turned out to be pesticides, Freakly said. The United States will further examine the latest find, he said.
=====
Now why would someone use a million dollar worth of MOBILE equipment, then bury it, if all they were doing is manufacturing innocent pesticides????
I certainly don't know. As for an exercise in logic, it seems that if large quantities of chemical protective suits were found, including antidote kits, then there were, or had been, lethal chemicals nearby.
Here is a little bit I came across:
Iraq's Five Most Toxic SItes to be Decontaminated
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2005/2005-11-14-06.asp
"The Al Suwaira pesticided warehouse complex was used to store, mix and dispatch a range of pesticieds over its 30-year life. These included mercury, zinc, and calcium compounds, as well as organo-chlorine and organo-phosphorus substances like lindane, heptachlor and DDT."
Chemical weapons:
sulfur, mustard, VX, chlorine, sarin, H. Cyanide
See my previous post go to the article, it mentions losts of H. cyanide was found also.
Sorry about the piecemeal post -- I forgot to post the link to the site which identified what are considered chemical weapons.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/biochem.weapons/
Where the heck is his report on what Sandy Berger took? He told Savage it would be out soon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.