Wikileaks reveals WMDs

[JakeStarkey]

Both sides do it, gunny, and neither side is right to do so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It always gets me how Democrats conveniently forget about their own Democrat Party Leaderships belief in WMD's.

I'm not surprised though..(an inconvenient truth... I suppose).

believing there might be something, and invading a country because you believe there might be something are not the same.

the little difference is the invasion.

an inconvenient truth, i suppose.

So true.

Isn't a good thing none of the Democratic Party leadership voted for the invasion of Iraq?

Oops, that would be the real inconvenient truth.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am sure that early on I said that, and then later, when small labs or whatever, I have said that the Iraqi programs had been generally ended. I am sure you said, "The Syrians have it. Invade Syria to find out." This issue is a non-issue. Bush himself has said that if he had flatly known that the WMDs were not there,he would not have invaded.

You are not a conservative, that's for sure, only a stupid reactionary, while I am a GOP moderate conservative. So two words for you: buh bye.

If I did say anything like that I have since had a severe attack of amnesia. Not that I am calling you a liar or anything, but do you have any sort of evidence to back up your Bush quote? Most of the stories I have read said he planned to invade Iraq even before 9/11. If those are true there would be no reason for him not to do so if there were no WMDs.

Since I never claimed to be a conservative, I do not mind not be called one. It will probably be a surprise to many liberals on this board that the resident conservative expert does not think i am a conservative, but I don't care. One thing I know for a fact, you are no more a moderate conservative than Bush is.

I heard him on the TV as did millions of others. This is common knowledge, so go look it up.

Common knowledge? Not in my universe.

Funny thing about making wild statements. The guy that makes them is the one that has to prove them, not the people who wonder what it is he is talking about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am sure that early on I said that, and then later, when small labs or whatever, I have said that the Iraqi programs had been generally ended. I am sure you said, "The Syrians have it. Invade Syria to find out." This issue is a non-issue. Bush himself has said that if he had flatly known that the WMDs were not there,he would not have invaded.

You are not a conservative, that's for sure, only a stupid reactionary, while I am a GOP moderate conservative. So two words for you: buh bye.

i'd like to see a source for that

Actually the claim was made by Rove in his book.

Rove on Iraq: Without W.M.D. Threat, Bush Wouldn't Have Gone to War - NYTimes.com

Karl Rove, the chief political adviser to President George W. Bush and architect of his two successful campaigns for the White House, says in a new memoir that his former boss probably would not have invaded Iraq had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction there.


“Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D.? I doubt it,” he writes. “Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the W.M.D. threat. The Bush administration itself would probably have sought other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about regime change, and deal with Iraq’s horrendous human rights violations.”

But, that can't be right. Jake just said he heard Bush say it, not that Rove said Bush say it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gotta love Wikileaks.

By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.
In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.
Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”

Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”
Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com

Myabe Bush did lie to us after all, if you call keeping evidence that will exonerate him lying.

Chemical weapons are not WMDs.

Yeah I know that people call them WMDs but they're really not.

They're tactical weapons at best.

Yes they are.

Weapon of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

i'd like to see a source for that

Actually the claim was made by Rove in his book.

Rove on Iraq: Without W.M.D. Threat, Bush Wouldn't Have Gone to War - NYTimes.com

Karl Rove, the chief political adviser to President George W. Bush and architect of his two successful campaigns for the White House, says in a new memoir that his former boss probably would not have invaded Iraq had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction there.


“Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D.? I doubt it,” he writes. “Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the W.M.D. threat. The Bush administration itself would probably have sought other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about regime change, and deal with Iraq’s horrendous human rights violations.”

But, that can't be right. Jake just said he heard Bush say it, not that Rove said Bush say it.

The point is not where I heard it, QWB, but the fact that Bush did say it, and the fact that Rove repeated it in his book. That's what you can't deny.

 

[JakeStarkey]

QWB, quit your lying. You are a poor excuse as a Weapon of Mass Deception. You have been exposed.

(1) Bush would not have invaded Iraq had he known about the absence of a WMD capability.

(2) A few chemistry labs do not make a WMD capability.

Your lies availeth you nothing.

 

[DiveCon]

QWB, quit your lying. You are a poor excuse as a Weapon of Mass Deception. You have been exposed.

(1) Bush would not have invaded Iraq had he known about the absence of a WMD capability.

(2) A few chemistry labs do not make a WMD capability.

Your lies availeth you nothing.

wow, thats some massive projection

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Chemical weapons are not WMDs.

Yeah I know that people call them WMDs but they're really not.

They're tactical weapons at best.

Actually..most of the bio agents and chemical weapons they found were very old and might have well been forgotten by the Saddam Hussien's regime. They were basically pretty harmless.

Even if they'd been 100% effective they still aren't WMDS.

Its that pesky word MASS that makes pronoucing chemical weapons WMDs a misnomer.

WMDs have got to TRULY cause MASS destruction to fit into that catagory.

Right now the only thing that really fits the bill is nuclear weapons.

Biological weapons might, but (thank god) nobody has yet fielded one of those.

But chemical weapons? Nah!

They have very limited ability to cause mass destruction since they're so damned hard to get into the field.

If you really want to destroy a city or village, its easier to do with standard ordinance than chemically.

And if you truly want to cause mass destruction there's nothing like a nuclear weapon.

Really?

Biological weapons could potentially wipe a significant fraction of the world's population. I think that would qualify as mass destruction in anyone's book.

With a bit of ingenuity it is possible to make enough botulism toxin to wipe out a large city, the only real problem would be delivering it.

Besides, US policy clearly states that a WMD is a WMD, and we have always made it clear that we would retaliate in kind if one is used against us. Since we do not admit to developing either chemical or biological weapons we would respond to any attack using either with nuclear weapons.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually the claim was made by Rove in his book.

Rove on Iraq: Without W.M.D. Threat, Bush Wouldn't Have Gone to War - NYTimes.com

Karl Rove, the chief political adviser to President George W. Bush and architect of his two successful campaigns for the White House, says in a new memoir that his former boss probably would not have invaded Iraq had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction there.


“Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D.? I doubt it,” he writes. “Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the W.M.D. threat. The Bush administration itself would probably have sought other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about regime change, and deal with Iraq’s horrendous human rights violations.”

But, that can't be right. Jake just said he heard Bush say it, not that Rove said Bush say it.

The point is not where I heard it, QWB, but the fact that Bush did say it, and the fact that Rove repeated it in his book. That's what you can't deny.

No.

The point is you claimed that you heard Bush say it, and that it is common knowledge. Rove is not Bush, and him saying that Bush would not have invaded Iraq if he knew there were no WMDs is not the same as you hearing Bush say it. Nor is it Rove saying Bush said it. He does not say that Bush said it, he just states that he would not have done it.

That is a complete failure on your part to prove anything you said. Thanks for playing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QWB, quit your lying. You are a poor excuse as a Weapon of Mass Deception. You have been exposed.

(1) Bush would not have invaded Iraq had he known about the absence of a WMD capability.

(2) A few chemistry labs do not make a WMD capability.

Your lies availeth you nothing.

Oh No

The Great JokeStarkey has proved nothing, and his brain is working in full denial mode. We all know what will happen next.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Quantam Wind Puffery, all of the posts in the world by you does not remove the facts that:

(1) Bush would not have invaded Iraq had he known about the absence of a WMD capability. Both he and Rove have attested to that.

(2) A few chemistry labs do not make a WMD capability.

As a propaganda tool, you are nothing by a Weapon of Minuscule Deception.

Even bigrebnc is better than you at this, and he is laughable.

The fact that you have been proven wrong again but can't admit it means that you are both wrong and petty. Move along, son, nothing here for you.

 

[rdean]

Gotta love Wikileaks.

By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.
In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.
Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”

Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”
Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com

Myabe Bush did lie to us after all, if you call keeping evidence that will exonerate him lying.

Uh, let's see. Bush said Iraq had WMDs. People called him a liar. Bush discovered WMDs but kept it a secret because he preferred that people call him a liar. Because only he knew he wasn't lying. That's why he was always smirking. Because he knew people calling him a liar were wrong.

 

[rdean]

It always gets me how Democrats conveniently forget about their own Democrat Party Leaderships belief in WMD's.

I'm not surprised though..(an inconvenient truth... I suppose).

believing there might be something, and invading a country because you believe there might be something are not the same.

the little difference is the invasion.

an inconvenient truth, i suppose.

So true.

Isn't a good thing none of the Democratic Party leadership voted for the invasion of Iraq?

Oops, that would be the real inconvenient truth.

The American people believed the President and the Republicans.

 

[DiveCon]

believing there might be something, and invading a country because you believe there might be something are not the same.

the little difference is the invasion.

an inconvenient truth, i suppose.

So true.

Isn't a good thing none of the Democratic Party leadership voted for the invasion of Iraq?

Oops, that would be the real inconvenient truth.

The American people believed the President and the Republicans.

so the democrats were such idiots that someone you call stupid was able to fool them
LOL
yeah, run on that


and amazing how Bush was able to do this as Gov of TX too

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Uh, let's see. Bush said Iraq had WMDs. People called him a liar. Bush discovered WMDs but kept it a secret because he preferred that people call him a liar. Because only he knew he wasn't lying. That's why he was always smirking. Because he knew people calling him a liar were wrong.

You got it.

 

[American Horse]

Gotta love Wikileaks.

By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.
In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.
Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”

Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”
Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com

Myabe Bush did lie to us after all, if you call keeping evidence that will exonerate him lying.

Uh, let's see. Bush said Iraq had WMDs. People called him a liar. Bush discovered WMDs but kept it a secret because he preferred that people call him a liar. Because only he knew he wasn't lying. That's why he was always smirking. Because he knew people calling him a liar were wrong.

Bush did not respond because it would continue to be a distraction. Had he mounted a defense he would've been hassled no end. He fixed a smile on his face, the adult thing to do, and relegated it to the past. Since when is it a personal flaw to smile privately to oneself? It just proves the left and their sophomoric pals in the lapdog press that perceive a "smirk" in a president's private smile and go all hysterical while he can remain unperturbed.

He was a confident adult being harassed by a tribe of Lilliputians. That's why almost no one on the left can stand to see him simply be himself; they don't uderstand a completely confident man, being confident because he's satisfied he's doing the right thing.

 

[rdean]

So true.

Isn't a good thing none of the Democratic Party leadership voted for the invasion of Iraq?

Oops, that would be the real inconvenient truth.

The American people believed the President and the Republicans.

so the democrats were such idiots that someone you call stupid was able to fool them
LOL
yeah, run on that


and amazing how Bush was able to do this as Gov of TX too

Zogby International

Referring to our soldiers going into Iraq according to a Le Moyne College/Zogby International Poll of the troops taken as they were entering Iraq:

•Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11

So are you calling our troops "stupid, idiots and fools"? I just want you to be clear. Is that what you are calling our troops? Because they also believed Bush and the Republicans.

 

[rdean]

Gotta love Wikileaks.




WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com

Myabe Bush did lie to us after all, if you call keeping evidence that will exonerate him lying.

Uh, let's see. Bush said Iraq had WMDs. People called him a liar. Bush discovered WMDs but kept it a secret because he preferred that people call him a liar. Because only he knew he wasn't lying. That's why he was always smirking. Because he knew people calling him a liar were wrong.

Bush did not respond because it would continue to be a distraction. Had he mounted a defense he would've been hassled no end. He fixed a smile on his face,the adult thing, and relegated it to the past. Since when is it a personal flaw to smile privately to oneself? It just proves the left and their sophomoric pals in the lapdog press that perceive a "smirk" in a president's private smile and go all hysterical.

He was a confident adult being harassed by a tribe of Lilliputians. That's why almost no one on the left can stand to see him simply be himself; they don't udersfand a completely confident man, being confident because he's satisfied he's doing the right thing.

Seriously, you don't really believe that bullshit do you?

 

[DiveCon]

The American people believed the President and the Republicans.

so the democrats were such idiots that someone you call stupid was able to fool them
LOL
yeah, run on that


and amazing how Bush was able to do this as Gov of TX too

Zogby International

Referring to our soldiers going into Iraq according to a Le Moyne College/Zogby International Poll of the troops taken as they were entering Iraq:

•Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11

So are you calling our troops "stupid, idiots and fools"? I just want you to be clear. Is that what you are calling our troops? Because they also believed Bush and the Republicans.

god damn you are a fucking idiot
i never said anything of the sort