I just wanted to add a bit of non-partisan commentary to a tiny point on the original article that kicked off the raging the fracas above this post.. It refers to pre-1991 munitions that were already acknowledged by the White House’s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed. The document the senators refer to is a summary of classified information, not the classified material itself. This is not too significant, I just include it in the name of accuracy. The ISG refers to a ’small number’ of degraded munitions found. The classified document is a National Ground Intelligence Centre report that refers to ‘500′ degraded munitions. Determining whether ’small number’ and ‘500′ are compatible terms is up to the persuasion of the reader, and if I’d bothered to learn the names of the contributors to this page, I would be able to anticipate the response of pretty much everyone. Hail the one or two amongst you who don’t have or manage to set aside a rabid agenda when you communicate.

To say that the ISH has concluded that there have been found and may continue to be found degraded munitions and conclude that these do not contribute to bolstering pre-war claims is a fair assessment to my mind. But to say that the NGIC document describes munitions that had aleady been acknowledged and dismissed by the ISG is not supported. The classified document may refer to munitions found since, in different condition (possibly more deadly than the ’small number’ found by ISG), and in greater number, even in large stockpiles. The details are not public.

David Kay has since dismissed the senators’ announcements. While his experience lends lends considerable weight to his counter-proposition, it must be remembered that he may not have access to later findings. His words imply as much, borrowing from his past experience.

The unnuanced assertion in the article above is ther kind that draws partisanship like the kind endlessly expressed on this page. All of you have asserted opinion with none of the actual data present. It’s understandable, though; the two senators did exactly the same. From the moment of their announcement, the conversation has been all political and barely analytical.

Saddam did everything possible in the period between 1991 and 2003 to preserve WMD materials, equipment, personnel and expertise in order to restart his WMD programs when sanctions ended,
He devoted funding to keeping those programs alive,
He was able to game the sanctions system in order to bring in $11 billion obtained illicitly,
Saddam’s regime believed by 2002 they had effectively defeated sanctions.

The conclusion is not hard to reach: The world would now be facing 3 rogue states — Iran, Iraq and North Korea — with active WMD programs, rather than only two, had Saddam not been removed.

What the Left doesn’t seem to get — mainly because they’re too busy lamely repeating the “no WMD in Iraq” mantra — from the anonymous DoD official’s statement is why, if the 500 chemical munitions aren’t dangerous, should U.S. military forces in Iraq bother collecting them? He says simply that their contents are degraded. He doesn’t say they’re useless. And why can’t he tell us where they were found? Why does that represent a danger?

This harks back to the summer of 2004 when the Polish military contingent in Iraq paid thousands of dollars to recover chemical weapons filled with sarin and cyclosarin. The Poles became aware that there was a market for those weapons and resolved to stop it. They collected 17 WMDs at that time. And there have been other incidents since then when terrorists have attempted to use chemical weapons connected to IEDs.

It may well be the case that they could be put to effective use by individuals with sufficient knowledge and skills to know how to use them.

The fact is that Clinton thought there were WMDs. Was he lying? Could be. He lied about everything else. We know from even the mainstream media that trucks were moving from Iraq to Syria prior to and shortly after the invasion began. We know from several sources that the Iraqis were actively seeking materials to manufacture more WMDs with. We know that the actual labs needed to only be the size of a small kitchen. We know that they had the technology to make chemical weapons, as well as the ability to deliver them. Lastly, we know that they had used them in the past. Iraq repeatedly thwarted the UN while it weakly tried to enforce its resolutions. And, as a nice little bonus, this PROVES that Iraq was in violation of the UN resolutions that allowed member states to take action.

Can any of you say with truth in your heart that you really don’t think that Iraq had a chemical weapons program before 2003?

Until the Democrat Party begins to pay attention to some reality, they will continue to lose ground in “fly-over country.” And, like it or not, that is where they need to gain traction. As long as the Dems continue to bury their head, or worse, act counter to the best interests of the country for the purposes of trying to regain power, their gaming won’t play in middle America.

Appeasment is not a reasonable strategy. That isn’t how to keep a secure country. Just like with your children, if you keep telling them they’ll be punished if their behavior doesn’t change, but you never actually give them the punishment, their behavior won’t change. One cannot project power without actually using it when needed.

I guess the thing that pisses off the left is that W says what he is going to do, then does it. It isn’t as nuanced as a Kerry responce, like “first I voted for the funding, before I voted against it.”

Comment by Simon Cassidy — June 23, 2006

Such stunning honesty, the likes of which most liberals would never admit! Simon shows how the ‘moral equivalency’ argument calls all freedom-minded people to rise up and do…..nothing. On to defending Hugo Chavez next? After all, who are we to judge facist dictators who provide strong leadership to their people, clearly better than the alternative,’disorder’?

[url=http://robertlair.com/Blogs/lair/archive/2005/08/29/3561.aspx]Evidence I[/url]
[url=http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101&]Evidence II[/url]

When you actually get educated on the content of UN resolutions I just might be able to continue to have a debate with you otherwise I will wait untill someone who knows what they are talking about shows up in this forum.

“The government said he did. This was not why we went to war. Those WMDs are still missing (they never existed or he would have used them when we attacked).”

The U.S. government said Iraq was not in compliance. The reason we went to war was NOT just post 1991 WMD production. You know at this point it would be a miracle if you would actually read UN R1441.

“Since when do you care what anyone else thinks?”

I guess I really don’t considering those that were opposed to taking Saddam out lost the debate when it counted, i.e. the vast majority of Congress supported the 2003 invasion.

“No Tracy, you’re only calling it irrelevent because it invalidates your case.”

In regards to UN R1441 which is what the entire invasion was premised on, tell me how what some intelligence officals say about the inert nature of those found shells makes Iraq not responsible for them?

“That’s all you have – inert remnants that didn’t work. That’s not only not WMD, it’s not logical.”

Are you a WMD expert? How do you know that these shells would still not be considered by UNMVOIC to be WMDs? Please provide something that says that they aren’t…other than your unqualified opinion. You know for a fact the UNMOVIC said that these inert shell would still not be classified as chemical weapons? If these intert shells are so safe then you wouldn’t mind keeping one in your neighborhood or in you house…correct?

Actually, if you do the research here are some of the translations concerning Saddam and WMDs. Santorum is not such an idiot afterall…

An undated Top Secret document, written by the Director of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS), informs Iraq’s military brass of potential Western plans to attack weapon sites. He urges them to shift the materials to keep the programs intact, and deceive the free world:

We learned from one of our sources working overseas that the Western Intelligence Services are working on gathering information on some military and scientific targets in the country, and the mentioned source provided us with a map of the target(s)… we will list for you… these interests and also maneuver to change the places of these targets according to the capability to prevent the opportunity for the enemies and make their plans unsuccessful.

A 1997 memo from the Iraqi intelligence officers demanded that employees swear not to store information about the country’s weapons programs on their computer hard drives. Bill Clinton and the Dems were complaining about Saddam’s WMDs. Now the liberal “mainstream media” and some Dems have complained that “Bush lied about WMDs!”. The truth is that a 2002 memo, one year prior to our invasion, describes “the transfer of Top Secret and Very Important WMD documents from the Iraqi National Monitoring Agency to more secure locations” where it will be nearly impossible for UN inspectors to find them. Saddam knew that Hans Blix of the UN would be easily deceived.