Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

They are already saying this is made up, this is a desperation ploy by Santorum, these Can't be the WMDs because they are from before 9-11.

Didn't Goebbels say that people are willing to swallow very big lies provided they are repeated often enough. I guess once you allow yourself to believe that two young politicians, facing elections in the near term, would justify the invasion of a country on a pretext they knew was false it's very hard to climb down, especially when one of the politicians is so unpalatable to the supposed liberals who dominate the media and academe. As for the politicians who prefer to see Bush as more devious and untrustworthy than Saddam Hussein and his various aiders and abettors under oil-for-food, well, add the adverserial, polarizing nature of party politics to the mix.

They are already saying this is made up, this is a desperation ploy by Santorum, these Can't be the WMDs because they are from before 9-11. Posted by: Gary

It's an amazing statement - that these are pre-91 WMD's, and not the ones we're looking for. In other words, we've tagged the WMD's that we demanded that Saddam disclose and destroy? Our demands didn't include those chemical weapons that were used at Halabja? Somewhere, I missed all the exceptions that the prez had offered Saddam - keep the pre-9/11 weapons, assuming they are degraded, but get rid of your newer stuff. (Incidentally, I'm sick of this phrase Weapons of Mass destruction, or WMD; can we simply agree to call them Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) weapons, or Atomic, Biological and Chemical (ABC) weapons? Or just be specific in cases where we know what we are describing, such as chemical for sarin or mustard, or biological for anthrax?)

So by that logic, if Iran ends up with a nuke from somewhere or sometime that was not covered by the current processing, say a smuggled nuke from Kazakhstan or Pakistan, it would be okay with the Alan Colmes' of the world? So if Iran were to formally ask China for nukes, and the latter obliged (they already have the US by the balls on Pyongyang), it would be okay, since Iran wont be processing Uranium?

The usual outcome when people on the Left confuse process and results.

/sarcasm mode: ON/

Thank goodness they found these chemical weapon filled artillery shells in time! Why Saddam may have fired these at the United States! We just barely averted this imminent threat. His artillery pieces might have had a range of nearly 1/1000 the distance from Iraq to the U.S.

/sarcasm mode: OFF/

Why are we trying to help people who want us dead? Our operation in Iraq was a mistake from the beginning. Blowing "the Stan" back to the Stone Age (a short trip) was justified by al Qaida and the Taliban, but Iraq wasn't a threat or even much of an annoyance.

The Democrats are also say that these WMDs are not the WMDs that were mentioned as one of the primary reasons for going to Iraq. UGH. I will wager as more information comes forward, there will be some documentation implicating al-Quaeda participation.
Of course, all the Dhimmis can do is whine and continue to dwell in denial.
Even if these are old, WMD IS WMD. OF course we knew all along they existed. As is often be said, Iraq used WMDs on IRan and Iraq's own people. To Deny they were not there has always been a foolish claim.
HEY DHIMMI ptttttttthhhhh.

"Liberalism is a mental disease." - Michael Savage

Let's watch the libs in the media print screaming headlines in their rags that go something like this: "NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION HAVE YET BEEN FOUND IN IRAQ BY US FORCES!!!!SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS AS INNOCENT AS A KITTEN!!!"

And the Euros will be screaming at their "cultured" anti-USA riots something to the effect that 'Saddam Hussein's regime was innocent. How dare those American bastards invade Iraq!!!!!!!!!!'

THAT'S HOW THIS NEWS IS GOING TO BE RECEIVED IN MOST OF THE GLOBAL MEDIA!

Apparently the dhimmis believe that the WMD's have a manufacturing and an expiry date, as per U.S. laws.

In fact, there are credible reports that Iraqi WMD were moved to Syria back 2002 and afterwards. Former PM of Israel, Ariel Sharon, announced in the fall of 2002 that the Iraqi WMD was being moved into Syria. Now I don't believe everything that my govt says, especially when they promise peace or prosperity or that kind of thing. However, when a PM of Israel talks about an issue like this, then I believe him. Next, Syrian exiles in France have publicly announced that not only were Iraqi WMD in Syria, but they knew where they were. This was on the French web site, Proche-Orient.info. Apparently, the NYTimes was not interested in knowing about real live Iraqi WMD hiding in Syria. There are other sources too on this.

Eliyahu:

Former Iraqi Air Vice Marshall Georges Sada recently went public and also published a book in which he claims that Russia, China and France all sold Saddam WMDs after the sanctions were laid and the Russians sent in special forces to do a clean-up in fall 2002 just to make sure that if the US and UK did invade, that they wouldn't find evidence that incriminated them. And Sada is not alone in making such claims nor providing corroborating evidence.

And the stuff is all likely stashed in Syria and the Beka Valley.

Hey doughnuts:
Aside from the WMDs, we went to war because Iraq was in violation of 17 UN resolutions. Stop regurgitating moonbat dogma and do some thinking for yourself.

I find it rather telling there hasn't been one mention of this on the BBC's news website.

I wonder why?

Hey al-Masri, we will find you soon, too. Time to repent and become apostate.

This is Bad News for the Democrats, who for years, have been very vocal. "WHAT WMD?? LIE LIE LIE!!!,WE should go to 141 resolutions.blah blah blah.

Doughnuts

Iraq was also a major sponsor of terror, and in the aftermath of 9/11, under the template that the US was in a war against all Terror groups (albeit Islam not being mentioned), a war against Iraq was fully justified.

The only part of the war that I'm against has been the "Light unto all Islamic Nations" project that the administration has undertaken. I fully agree with Hugh in that department.

I say that all who claim that these are not WMD's be gathered into a sports stadium and then have the the shells opened so that these naysayers and doubting Thomases can prove the weight of their assertion personally.

Then we'll see who is "degraded" and "decayed" and "defunct".

Taqiyya, Congress-style.

Mass quantities of weapons of destruction is not the same as weapons of mass destruction. There is something curious here - we know that the insurgents massively looted arms depots in the wake of the fall of Saddam, and are using those weapons every day, yet I have never heard of a report of them setting off a chemical device. Hmmm....
This administration's sicophants are desperate to justify this huge blunder in Iraq and will grasp at anything.

Since finding WMD's in Iraq vindicates the administration's invasion, why was their discovery classified in the first place?

These are very old weapons. They were found dispersed all over the country, often in forgotten out of the way corners. The Iraqis were never very good at accounting for anything, let alone their WMDs. I'd suggest that these are munitions that were left over from the mass disposal that they carried out after the 1991 Gulf War. Because of their age, their viability is substantially decreased. They are no longer Weapons of Massed Destruction, merely Weapons of Massed Distraction.

These two politicians are grasping at straws in order to gain reelection. One wonders how many will believe their disinformation and their lies.

memo to "John Howard": In a videotaped interview catalogued at MEMRI and can which can be accessed by the public, one of Saddam Hussein's ex-generals maintained Russian spetznik forces removed much of the Hussein regime's weapons stash aboard trains that went to (or through) Syria. There are eyewitnesses to this removal of unidentified freight train cargo from Iraq by the way. And these eyewitness accounts were given BEFORE the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The same ex-general has also maintained that the Hussein regime had been supplied with weapons of mass destruction by the Russians during the 1990s. In addition, during the late 1980s, thousands of Kurds were massacred by the Hussein regime with chemical weapons (which you and other libs deny ever existed in Iraq).

Not everyone is as gullible or as desperate as you'd like to think.

One should be careful about believing everything your told. A lesson the US Government should be careful to remember. The US Government was looking for a causis belli to invade Iraq well before 11 September. It found one and "sexed it up" to justify the expenditure of a great deal of lucre and lives. It was WMDs. A great deal of that belief was based upon the testimony of expatriot Iraqis.

Your Iraqi General claimed this. Yet with a few minutes checking you'd have found that there are no direct rail links between Syria and Iraq.

achmed, er, I mean John Howard, I believe everyone here has cottoned on to you by now.

Mr. Sevak, I am but what I am. A liberal democrat who believes in the rule of law. I also can it seems use a web search engine well enough to discover there are no direct rail links between Iraq and Syria.

The interviews I read said nothing about rail, only airlift and truck convoy, although I did not read every interview.

Also, this "sexed up" assertion is non-sense. We are just beginning to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Also, liberal democrats don't believe in the rule of law unless handed down by activist judges. Just go to one of their conventions.

Who needs enemies when you've have Liberal Democrats.

And what is wrong with Liberal democracy? Outside the USA, to be described as Liberal in one's outlook is a compliment, not an insult. Western Democracy is founded upon the principles of liberalism. Something Americans appear to have forgotten unfortunately.

"The interviews I read said nothing about rail, only airlift and truck convoy, although I did not read every interview."

I've read those interviews. I have yet to see anything substantial behind them being revealed though.

"Also, this "sexed up" assertion is non-sense. We are just beginning to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes."

This would explain why there have been no substantial revelations about the discovery of WMDs within Iraq, right?

The reality is that the governments of the US, UK and Australia looked for and found a causis belli. Whereas their intelligence agencies emphasised their caution in claiming there was anything definitive about the presence of WMDs in Iraq, the government and the media who were fed by those governments, discarded those cautions and turned it from a possibility to a definitive article. From "there may be WMDs" to "there are WMDs" and thundered it from the rooftops.

The UN, on the otherhand, took a more cautious approach, actually investigated the claims and found them unsubstantiated. Iraq had been the most inspected nation on earth. It was impossible to hide more than a few fragments of their WMD programmes and some documentation. All the industrial base on which they were founded had been destroyed, there had been no more manufacture of WMDs since 1991 and anything that was left after the mass disposal panic after the first Gulf War had by the time the UN inspections were over, decayed to the point of uselessness,

"Also, liberal democrats don't believe in the rule of law unless handed down by activist judges. Just go to one of their conventions."

That is untrue.

I say that all who claim that these are not WMD's be gathered into a sports stadium and then have the the shells opened so that these naysayers and doubting Thomases can prove the weight of their assertion personally. Then we'll see who is "degraded" and "decayed" and "defunct". Taqiyya, Congress-style. Posted by: profitsbeard

Brilliant idea.

I suggest that we test that experiment on Mr Howard here. He can't say we are being malignant - if he really believes what he says about their "viability". While there is no way to determining whether he is lying or not about whether he is a Leftist, rather than a Muslim (not to rule out the combination), he should have no problems putting such material under his kitchen sink, and going about his usual business.

achmed, er, I mean John Howard, what problem do you have with the U.S. invading iraq. Don't you agree that sada was responsible for several genocides ? And do you have a problem with the Indian security forces killing jihadis in Kashmir, which they are claiming as 'muslim territory'. Do you think Putin is right when he quashes the jihadis when they seek to 'liberate' Chechenya ?

I guess some more facts won't muddy the water much more, so in defference to the libs you can call these lies also.

The facts are that Saddam had chemical weapons and was itching to use them against Israel when he lobbed all those scuds at them. Israel allowed the U.S. to prosecute the war as long as Saddam didn't start using chemicals(sarin) in his missles.

What deterred dear old Saddam were real weapons of mass destruction...Israeli nukes that were on alert in case they were necessary.

Wonder what would the dems say if terrorists-or for you libs- Iraqi "freedom fighters", could put some of these "old, harmless" nerve agents in a few IEDs?

Mr.Sevak, my name is displayed, why do you call me "Achmed"?

Once you address me properly, I'll reply to you questions.

Mr.Sevak, my name is displayed, why do you call me "Achmed"?

Once you address me properly, I'll reply to your questions.

"I suggest that we test that experiment on Mr Howard here. He can't say we are being malignant - if he really believes what he says about their "viability". "

You appear to misunderstand the difference between "toxicity" and "viability" as Weapons of Massed Destruction. These weapons may still be toxic but that toxicity may well only be lethal in their immediate area wheras to be a viable Weapon of Massed Destruction they must be toxic to a much higher level to have a much more effective radius of destruction.

"While there is no way to determining whether he is lying or not about whether he is a Leftist, rather than a Muslim (not to rule out the combination), he should have no problems putting such material under his kitchen sink, and going about his usual business."

Infidel Pride, what difference would it make if I was to admit I was Muslim (which I am not BTW)? Moreover, what difference does it make what my beliefs are on the traditional political spectrum?

If you can't address the points I make and would prefer to hide behind mindless ranting and bigotry, I would suggest you've lost the argument even before you've begun.

achmed, er, I mean John Howard, so you can't answer my question. All of them are 'freedom fighters' right ? LOL. All you jihadi achmeds are the same. Ask a simple question, get an evasive answer, or no answer at all.

Mr. Sevak, run along, its obvious you don't want an answer, you merely seek the chance to insult. I'll leave you to it.

achmed, er, I mean John Howard,

LOL.

Mr.Sevak, just for you:

http://www.smileyworld.com/dictionary/images/smileys/MoodHands/yawning.gif

Infidel Pride, what difference would it make if I was to admit I was Muslim (which I am not BTW)? Moreover, what difference does it make what my beliefs are on the traditional political spectrum? Posted by: John Howard

These are not fictitious changes - they are already trends in much of Europe, particularly Netherlands and Sweden. Normally, it wouldn't be a big deal if you had Buddhists becoming a majority in Sweden, or Jews in France - the native Lutherans or Catholics would still have equal protection under the law. However, this wouldn't be the case if Muslims became the majority in such a country. How do we know? Because in every country that has a Muslim majority, whatever minorities exist there lose their rights and become 2nd class citizens. Some strong examples are Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Nigeria.

If you were a Muslim in such a country that was being Islamized by its Muslim population, you'd stand to gain as a member of the ummah, which would recognize you as a superior to your infidel fellow citizens. Which would explain why you believe what you do, but aren't being forthcoming about it.

Assuming that you aren't a Muslim, but just someone on the Left, the explanation for your pro-Islamic stand is simple - hatred of the West. I can understand the Left resenting the defeat of Communism after the Cold War. But their alliance with Islam, while logical in that both are totalitarian ideologies that seek to dominate their members - is in other respects bizarre. For instance, most of the traditional constituencies of the Left - Feminists, Gay-Rights Advocates, Atheists, Racial/Religious/Ethnic minorities, et al would stand to be badly hurt by their societies becoming Islamic. However, in many of these cases, like Netherlands, Leftist parties have chosen to openly abandon their Gay supporters for their Muslim supporters - thereby demonstrating their hypocrisy.

Your other point about "toxicity" vs "viability" is a lame one at best: there is a reason WMD was such a potent issue with people when it came to terrorism. It's not just an academic issue discussed on TV: in the weeks following 9/11, there were a lot of anthrax cases in the mail, and a lot of people were very jittery about handling their mail - there was a handful of deaths due to anthrax. Similarly, if someone was attacked by such chemicals, it would be just as lethal. You may want to quibble as to whether they would then be classified as capable of "mass" destruction, but for people who might accidentally happen to be near the site of an attack, the fact that it would be toxic for only 1 yard instead of 10 is small consolation. Therefore, while it's okay to berate the Intelligence community for not correctly assessing whether or not Iraq had chemical or biological weapons, I would rather have a country invaded and us find out that there are no weapons, a la Iraq, rather than not invade a country, and one day discover that they have nukes a la Iran.

HEY JOHN HOWARD
In 1987 a rail line was built.A 550-kilometer line, built by a Brazilian company and extending from Baghdad to Qusaybah on the Syrian border, was also opened in the same year.
This information is found by using the search engine GOOGLE , then key in Iraq Railroads.
You state.Mr. Sevak, I am but what I am. A liberal democrat who believes in the rule of law. I also can it seems use a web search engine well enough to discover there are no direct rail links between Iraq and Syria.
Check again. Also these rail lines can be found on any new maps of the country of Iraq.
Being a liberal Democrat may be your choice. BUt like the liberal Democrats in office now, you choose wishful thinking over recognizing facts.

DEAR JOHN,
I forgot to include, not only was the railroad built from Bagdad to Syria, it was photographed by the US military (you know, the ones trying to preserve your freedoms)before the first Gulf War and many times since. The story about the Russians helping transport weapons of mass destruction may in fact be true. At the time of the US shock and awe campaign starting the second Gulf conflict. A large contingent of Russian Military personel were trapped at the Bagdad airport. They eventually returned to Russia. The MSM elected not to report the involvement of the Russians in Iraq. BUt they were there.The Russians also left behind a bundle of documents which were picked up by the US Military (you know , the guys trying to preserve your freedoms)to be analyzed. The contents of the confiscated documents remain classified to this date. Know the truth and the truth will set you free (or at least help you understand what is needed to keep your freedom)

Dear John,

Finding the weapons of Mass destruction , Even if they are old, clearly shows Sadaam lied (not BUSH). You may recall Sadaam said he did not have any weapons of this type.
If these weapons are old, it does not change the fact that they are still leathal.
Would you want to be near one that is being used?
Do you think some of these weapons may be in the hands of the Peaceful Religion of Islam and are just standing by, waiting for the opportune time to be used?
Do you think some of these weapons may have been smuggled into Spain, France, Germany, Great Britain, Afganistan, or even the USA.?
Do you theorize the whole episode is a made up story fabricated by the Bushites?
Do think the Peaceful Religion was storing these weapons while trying to find a way to use them in a peaceful manner?
Do you think if the USA leaves Iraq and the rest of the world gives in to the Peaceful Religion of Islams demands to surrender that the terrorists of Islam will leave you alone.?
Would it take a thousand deaths in a subway or skyscraper near you to convince you of what Islam thinks of you?
Would it take your loss freedom, your lifestyle, your family, or your religion to sway you?
Islam in your life would definitely sway you one way or the other.

John Howard:

You've left so many posts above, I'm not sure what relevance you accord to rail lines between Iraq and Syria, but if it is with regard to the transport of WMDs out of Iraq, I suggest you look into what former Iraqi Air Vice Marshall Georges Sada recently had to say about the role played by Russian special forces and truck convoys deployed in the fall of 2002 to move contraband out of Iraq to hiding places in Syria and the Beka Valley, for which the Russian general seconded to Iraq was awarded a medal of honour by Saddam.

It never ceases to amaze me that people would rather believe that two young politicians facing elections in the near term would launch a contraversial invasion on a knowingly false pretext rather than believe that a thug like Saddam would do everything he could to carry on business as usual and that there would be craven countries like France, China and Russia that are only to willing to help him in exchange for lucrative oil contracts and the satisfaction they get out of giving the middle finger to the hated Americans and Brits.

exsgtbrown, According to the map supplied by the United Nations Joint Logistsics Centre showing the Iraqi rail network, there is no direct link beyond the Syrian-Iraqi border. The railway stops at the border at Hasieba. Bit hard for freight trains to go to Syria, don't you think. Further, it appears that after the 1991 Gulf War the Iraqi railways were in rather a shambles for some reason - perhaps the extensive interdiction campaign? The line Mosul to Aleppo was reopened in 2001 but this according to the maps at my disposal apprently goes via Turkish territory.

As for the US forces in Iraq "defending my freedoms", as far as I am aware, before the US/UK/Australian decision to invade Iraq, my freedoms weren't under threat from Iraq, as it had made no statements specifically threatening Australia or Australians.

Johnboy,
THe rail lines do go to the Syrian Border, at which point the cargo is offloaded to vehicles to another location. The Syrian Government is complicent in helping hide and/or relocate the cargo.

you state my freedoms weren't under threat from Iraq

Iraq is just a pawn in the conquest goals of Islam and as such was and still is a threat to you and your freedom as long as the Islam ideology pervails. You fail to see to overall scheme of the real world of Islam. Just like the likes of Pelosi, Kennedy, Murtagh, and such.Iraq was promoting the ideals of global conquest by Islam and was actively arming and supports terrorist groups which have been attacking Americans and American interests as well as other foreign countries and foreign interests for many years. The list of Islamic terror attacks is long and verifiable. The grows each day, and if Islam succeeds you lose your freedom and possibly your life.

Just a quick question...why did Santorum call a 'quick press-conference', rather than a Pentagon/Administration spokesman, with appropriate charts/graphs/pictures, etc...?

This claim is absolute confirmation that the invasion of Iraq was justified...so why the silence from Rice and Rumsfield? This sort of news usually earns it's own graphic intro and theme music on CNN/FoxNews...