Shooting the Messenger: WMD’s in Iraq
Posted by Moonage on 22 Jun 2006 | Tagged as: National Politics
This document is too important to trust people to go look for it and read it. So, here it is in its entirety:
Now, this memo was requested by Rick Santorum. However, the members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence could have had access to this information at any time since it’s been de-classified. Given the generic nature of the information presented, I can’t see where it would have ever had any reason to be classified in the first place. I am also not sure exactly how that external list was created. All I do know is the people that have screeched the loudest that there were never any WMD’s in Iraq are now shooting Santorum for being a messenger. The question I have for them is why didn’t Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid feel compelled to let you all know that you have indeed been had. Only thing is, it was never Bush that was lying to you, it was Kerry, Pellosi, Reid, and now Murtha. Those two have known there were chemical agents in Iraq since 2003, degraded or not. But yet, for three years, they have continued to state assuredly there were NO WMD’s in Iraq and that it was all made up by Bush. You guys can’t have it both ways. Proof of WMD’s is proof of WMD’s. Just because they’re not of a certain age or make and model does not degrade the fact that there are WMD’s in Iraq. Now, the problem is freedom of speech is tantamount in the United States. Idiots can claim anything they want without fear of repercussion. That’s not the point. The point is, Hussein made a deal with the United Nations that he would destroy ALL WMD’s, degraded or not. He tried to shoot US and UN planes out of the air to keep us from proving they were there or not. He was telling the world there were NO WMD’s even after the US entered Baghdad. The entire time, before, during, and after, there have been WMD’s of poor quality. There’s your real lie people. Degraded or not, that’s exactly what Bush was saying he had. And, for Pelosi and Reid to know this the entire time and still stick to their “Poor poor pitiful me, I was lied to.” is the BS. The fact Santorum delivered the letter to the public has nothing to do with the content. The fact is, those are WMD’s and have been for a LONG time OBVIOUSLY.. The fact is Hussein said he destroyed it all. Fact is Pelosi has agreed with and sided with Hussein throughout the entire ordeal, believing his story over our President’s knowing full well there was evidence contradicting Hussein and her story. Now, the evidence is there for the world.
Go ahead, shoot the messenger. It’s the only shot you all have left. And, what amazes me, is how cocky they are shooting the messenger. Not one single person there has wondered why Pelosi or Reid didn’t feel the need to clue them in. Guess they’re smart enough to know the Kos Kids ONLY shoot messengers. It’s so much easier than addressing the real issue. I imagine a lot less nauseating as well.
4 Comments »
on 22 Jun 2006 at 3:03 pm 1.mw
said …
So … This was the imminent threat, the clear and present danger, that required pre-emptive unilateral action, the expendidture of over 2,500 American lives, and $300 Billion and counting?
on 22 Jun 2006 at 6:54 pm 2.Moonage
said …
No, Hussein’s actions and threats were. People chose to ignore everything Hussein was doing and harp on the fact that the only thing that ever mattered was the fact that no WMD’s had ever been found. As things stand now:
1. Bush said there were terrorist connections, that has been proven.
2. Bush said Hussein was in violation of the 1993 cease fire, that has been proven.
3. Well coordinated and financed terrorists were striking the US all over the world with NO repercussions.
4. Bush said Hussein had WMD’s, Russia and Germany said he did not. Hussein refused to allow us to check for them. Now that we’re there, we’re apparently finding them all over the place. According to the UN, they could have been there but well hidden. Hell, they’re apparently not even well hidden at this point.
5. Bush said a threat was Hussein supplying terrorists with those WMD’s to attack the US. Since it’s obvious he had them, and it’s obvious he had terrorist attacks, it’s obvious that COULD have been a threat.
In other words, every single reason given to finish the job has turned out to be true.
Would you have just preferred, as many others do, to pretend none of what Hussein threatened would have ever come to fruition? Losing 2,500 soldiers sucks. However, they were prepared for that possibility. The people in the African Embassies and victims of 9/11 were not. That’s the type of war Hussein was fighting against the US. He didn’t have the balls to just come right against our military. Rather, he was using proxies like Al Islaam and Al Qaeda via the Taliban to do his fighting against innocent civilians. I prefer to fight that war somewhere else other than downtown New York City.
If you’d prefer we hadn’t done the right thing, we would have saved $300 billion, but we’d probably be losing 2,500 civilians instead of soldiers. It’s your call. I’m fine with the call Bush made.
I’ve been sick and tired of this “Bush lied” crap from day one. As I noted on other boards, Bush, in an interview well before the election, stated he was more than ready to take Saddam out if elected. People elected him. He never said otherwise. Then, after things got nasty and Bush gave the UN WAY TOO MANY WARNINGS to do the right thing, he utilized a war powers act that had been passed a decade before and ignored while we got shot at all over the planet. How many major terrorist attacks have occured since? How long do we have to keep waiting before people like finally give up and admit that taking out Hussein and focusing the terrorists on someplace other than US soil has accomplished something? How long will people like you stick the fantasy that this is purely a coincdence?
It’s not. We’re dealing with them on our terms now instead of theirs. Instead of having innocent unarmed civilians being shot at, we’re shooting at them first. I wish not one single soldier had died in the process, but what they’re fighting for is worth it and the soldiers I do know KNOW it’s worth it no matter how people like you belittle what they’re doing.
on 23 Jun 2006 at 1:50 pm 3.Londonboy said …
‘Its confusing these Days’
I’ll enter were no man fears to tread. First can I say that initially I supported the war based on the so called evidence by Bush and Blair.
I think both the UK and US intelligent agencies have had very bad intelligence. I do not think they lied in the way anti-war people would have us believe. But 9/11 and 7/7 here in London has shown that the intelliegence community has not been as good as it should.
While I accept what you are saying about the mustard gas we were led to believe there was a more imment threat form other forms of weapons including biological. Basically, the information has been ’sexed up’ to coin a phrase used over here.
As far as I am aware from what I have read there is no evidence to support that Saddam was funding terror attacks. There is no eveidence to link him to 9/11. I would look to Saudia Arabia and Iran for that. I find it amazing that we have found Sadam but have never been able to bring Osma bin Laden to justice. Both the UK and US goverments have failed the Iraqi people miserably with the lack of foresight about post invasion Iraq. There are more Iraqi children dying from avoidable diseases than there ever was under Saddam. The Iraq war has been a tantamount failure.
There is still the question, certainly here in the UK, as to whether the war was actually legal or not. i have big misgings about the UN but I thought at the time it was a major faux pas not to get their backing.
I will think more about this and get back to you. these are just my initial thoughts.
on 23 Jun 2006 at 2:27 pm 4.Moonage
said …
There are vast differences between the Iraq/US relationship and the UK/Iraq relationship. So, it’s not very easy to mix the three together and compare notes. I’m not going to pretend I have a clue what all was going in the mind of Blair. However, I am extremely confident in what I state about the US/Iraq relations. You have to understand first and foremost that the US, in legal terms, declared war on Iraq in 1991. The terms of the ceasefire were that Hussein destroy all WMD’s. It wasn’t that he stop producing them, or hide them, or anything else. He had to destroy them all with UN verification. He refused to allow veification up to the point of shooting missiles he was not supposed to have at our monitor flights. Along the timeline, the US was getting bombed all over the planet by someone hiding in Afghanistan. 9/11 was not an isolated attack. The USS Cole had just occurred, our embassies had been bombed in Africa, and the World Trade Center itself had been attacked eight years before by the same group hiding in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. New documents have been translated that proves beyond a doubt that Hussein was working with the Taliban to coordinate Al Islaam in Iraq and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It is no longer a question of doubt. What the anti-war people in the US have been arguing is that there was no evidence of WMD’s in Iraq, and there was no evidence Hussein had any connections to terrorist groups. That was not true then, and it’s even clearer now that it never was true. I just get tired of people twisting the story every time what they don’t want to hear is proven wrong. Now, if people want to argue the merit of whether it was worth it, knowing Hussein still had WMD’s and had terrorist ties, to have taken him out and gotten into the quagmire that is Iraq, that’s fine. But that’s not what they’re doing here. They change the story every time. Now, the headlines are reading that Hussein didn’t produce WMD’s after 1991. That’s not what caused the 1991 war, and that’s not what caused the cease-fire to have never been lifted by the US Congress. There were not supposed to be any in Iraq, period. He had told the UN repeatedly he had destroyed them all. Even Duelfer Report, which started all the “lies” claims, says there were none there. They were there obviously. And apparently, they weren’t even hidden all that well. How di Duelfer miss them if soldiers have stumbled accross 500 in 3 years? That’s BS.
Now, like I said England’s history is totally different and I make no claims one way or the other on why Blair made the decisions he made. However, lying that there were WMD’s or no terrorist ties definitely has to be taken out of the equation at this point. That’s a given now, not speculation. The only speculation is how deep those ties were and how much control Hussein actually had over those WMD’s.