« Worst newspaper headline ever? | Main | More ways than ever to use All the President's Spin »

November 26, 2005

Comments

Hey, thanks a lot! Nice detailed debunking of a claim I run into all the time on comments sections and couldn't debunk because I didn't know what it was based on -- could've just been different news stories I didn't read because Slate didn't put them in "Today's Papers." Now I have a bookmark link to smack that down.

For what it's worth, the IAEA said the uranium "had been under IAEA seal since 1991. It was last visited by IAEA inspectors in February 2003."

What's more, that 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium probably wouldn't have been worth much anyway. "It was Low-enriched uranium" and uranium's, "extremely low radioactivity is harmless compared with high-radiation materials".

"Chemical warheads containing cyclosarin - The head of Polish military intelligence said the warheads are from the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s" -- would seem to confirm what everyone was saying until recently: that Saddam had chemical weapons, and that we were certain of that because he'd used 'em (in the war with Iran, against the Kurds, etc.): http://www.mooregop.org/WMDs_the_rest_of_the_story.html

So why do you call it is "misleading?" That seems misleading, to me.

-Dave

You obviously haven't read the Duelfer Report.If you had, you would have understood the depth of Saddam's weapons complex and his ability to re-arm once the sanctions were lifted.(go to volume 3, page 30...No WMD found in Iraq? it doesn't matter when they were manufactured, how many, how old, THEY WERE FOUND IN IRAQ)
For example, right up to the time of the war, Iraq was developing intermediate range ballistic missiles, in violation of UN resolutions.
On the nuclear subject, yes, Saddam was years away from a bomb.But, he had gathered all of the raw materials and much of the expertise to build one in the future.Ever heard of the Kahn network? There are lots of shortcuts...
In addition, you aren't informed when it comes to just what Saddam was up to the past 25 years.Ever heard of the ethnic cleansing of the marsh arabs? The killing fields in Hilla?
You wonder why Ansar Al Islam and AMZ were allowed to go in and out of Iraq at will, years before the war?
I will debate you any time on the FACTS...

"In addition, you aren't informed when it comes to just what Saddam was up to the past 25 years.Ever heard of the ethnic cleansing of the marsh arabs? The killing fields in Hilla?"
I like how "j" is educating us on things everyone who has a T.V., radio or access to a newspaper already does. Thanks for the breaking news!

Why is it that you think that just because someone was used/created during the Iran/Iraq war, it's okay to have and doesn't constitute finding WMDs? That's absurd and highlights the ignorance of the left. I don't care if they came from the middle ages, chemical weapons are chemical weapons.

Being a soldier who was there, I personally evidence of these weapons and chemicals...BEFORE the insurgency even picked up steam. It may not have been the 1500 gallons spoken of here, but it was chemical nontheless (http://www.soldiersperspective.us/?p=538).

People seem to forget that Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors, one of the reasons we were justified in going into iraq...to enforce UN resolutions.

Why do you continue to pass off legitimate finds and give them friendly uses instead of admitting we found evidence? How do you think most chemical weapons were discovered? Through legitimate medical and atomic energy research. Ammonium nitrate fertilizer is fine...until combined with diesel fuel.

seems like a your producing a little bit of spinsanity youself, eh?

question: were wmd's found

answer: yes

> "Ever heard of the ethnic cleansing of the
> marsh arabs? The killing fields in Hilla?"
> I like how "j" is educating us on things
> everyone who has a T.V., radio or access
> to a newspaper already does. Thanks for
> the breaking news!
> Posted by: Hahahah


I'm troubled by that message from "Hahahah."

He LAUGHS at genocide! Ethnic cleansing? He doesn't care. Mass graves full of women and children? He doesn't care!

Why do most liberals seem not to care about such people? Why, when they talk about Iraq, do most liberals not care enough to ever even mention the (average of) 100,000 people PER YEAR who died violent deaths directly caused by Saddam -- FOR TWENTY YEARS? Why don't most liberals care enough to even mention the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs and the other victims of Saddam's wrath?

When they say we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, it is equivalent to saying that the oppression and slaughter should have been allowed to continue, or at least that abating it wasn't important enough to justify going to war.

You never hear liberals even mention the carnage under Saddam. It is as if that is too unimportant to them for them to even take notice of it.

The phenomenon isn't just confined to Iraq, either. On issue after issue, American liberals just don't seem care about people unlike themselves who are hurt and dying.

Take African AIDS, for example. During the 8 years he was in office, President Clinton did nothing at all about the easily preventable transmission of HIV from mother to child, which causes so many AIDS cases in Africa. It was arch-conservative Republican Jesse Helms who led the crusade in Congress to do something about it, to the yawns of liberals everywhere (except Bono). After President Bush took office, he took the lead on this issue. Where were the liberals? AWOL, that's where.

Why is it that the number one thing most American liberals are passionately in favor of these days is aborting innocent babies? (Or, if you prefer, perserving the "right to choose" to kill innocent babes, without having to tell your parents, and without being exposed to any information about consequences and available alternatives, lest that information discourage you from committing the abortion.)

I am old enough to remember "bleeding heart liberals." Where are they now? What happened to them? Why is it that the bleeding hearts all belong to Christian conservatives, these days? Why are liberals so cold-hearted, now?

It wasn't always this way.

-Dave
dave at burtonsys dot com but please no spam

(This message was edited to address the objections of Mr. Nyhan.)

kudos to researching for yourself! it's hard to believe anything most the media say today, and finding info for yourself or researching the claims of others is what keeps intellegence around. kudos again.

The comments to this entry are closed.