Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

[Tiger in Spain 0]

WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

He added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.

"The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," Santorum read from the document.

"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."

Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.

He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.

"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.

Hoekstra and Santorum lamented that Americans were given the impression after a 16-month search conducted by the Iraq Survey Group that the evidence of continuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction was insignificant. But the National Ground Intelligence Center took up where the ISG left off when it completed its report in November 2004, and in the process of collecting intelligence for the purpose of force protection for soldiers and sailors still on the ground in Iraq, has shown that the weapons inspections were incomplete, they and others have said.

"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.

"It is significant. Perhaps, the administration just, they think they weathered the debate over WMD being found there immediately and don't want to return to it again because things are otherwise going better for them, and then, I think, there's mindless resistance to releasing any classified documents from Iraq," Barnes said.

The release of the declassified materials comes as the Senate debates Democratic proposals to create a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq. The debate has had the effect of creating disunity among Democrats, a majority of whom shrunk Wednesday from an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts to have troops to be completely withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of next year.

At the same time, congressional Republicans have stayed highly united, rallying around a White House that has seen successes in the last couple weeks, first with the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then the completion of the formation of Iraq's Cabinet and then the announcement Tuesday that another key Al Qaeda in Iraq leader, "religious emir" Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, was also killed in a U.S. airstrike.

Santorum pointed out that during Wednesday's debate, several Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue.

"This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.

As a result of this new information, under the aegis of his chairmanship, Hoekstra said he is going to ask for more reporting by the various intelligence agencies about weapons of mass destruction.

"We are working on the declassification of the report. We are going to do a thorough search of what additional reports exist in the intelligence community. And we are going to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war," Hoekstra said.

Link

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Boy, you'll believe anything they say want you? Santorum is spent. They did NOT find one cache of 500 weapons but several small caches of weapons buried in dirt. No nukular weapons as of yet. And, they won't find any, because they had no real nukular program. Nice try:

Iraq Survey Group Final Report

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

ISG investigated a series of key pre-OIF indicators involving the possible movement and storage of chemical weapons, focusing on 11 major depots assessed to have possible links to CW. A review of documents, interviews, available reporting, and site exploitations revealed alternate, plausible explanations for activities noted prior to OIF which, at the time, were believed to be CW-related.

ISG investigated pre-OIF activities at Musayyib Ammunition Storage Depot—the storage site that was judged to have the strongest link to CW. An extensive investigation of the facility revealed that there was no CW activity, unlike previously assessed.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...ey-findings.htm

[AURaptor 1,126]

Boy, you'll believe anything they say want you? Santorum is spent. They did NOT find one cache of 500 weapons but several small caches of weapons buried in dirt. No nukular weapons as of yet. And, they won't find any, because they had no real nukular program. Nice try:

BF, are you TRYING to be this dense ? First of all, there wasn't ANY mention of a nuclear program in this thread. Nice try. Second, The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003. There's no mention that it was all found at once, in ONE CACHE. 500 weapons were found THAT IS THE POINT! 3rd, Iraq was obligated to reveal any old AND new programs of WMD it had. It failed to do that, which is precisely why we went to war....

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.

For it is the doom of men that they forget - Merlin

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Shoot they were buried in the dirt. If I bury something the chances remembering exactly when and where I buried it, ten years later, are slim to none. Some of those empty and full, were probably pre-1991 weapons, if not older. The reference to nukular weapons was to reflect the picture portrayed by Dubya at his state of the union speech were he decried mushroom cloud. Remember? You know the reason we went to war in the first place, remember?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Shoot they were buried in the dirt. If I bury something the chances remembering exactly when and where I buried it, ten years later, are slim to none. Some of those empty and full, were probably pre-1991 weapons, if not older. The reference to nukular weapons was to reflect the picture portrayed by Dubya at his state of the union speech were he decried mushroom cloud. Remember? You know the reason we went to war in the first place, remember?

242560[/snapback]

The reasons for going to war in Iraq are still clearly stated in the 17 UN Resolutions. However, it seems you'd prefere that an enemy intent on doing harm to the United States actually set off a nuke BEFORE we reply. Nuclear war wasn't the main reason for going to Iraq, but it was a legitimate concern. To deny that is like having Stevie Wonder as your chauffer.

If I bury something the chances remembering exactly when and where I buried it, ten years later, are slim to none - Thankfully, you're not a dictator of a rogue state. But maybe there's less comfort in knowing that you'd be so casual about storing away WMD either. What's so incredible is that you're actually taking the SIDE of Saddam. Unbelievable.

[GoAU 1,600]

You have got to be kidding me! Are you implying that you bury chemical weapons all over your country (likely to avoid detection from inspectors) and that it's perfectly undersatndable to forget where you put them??? We're talking about chemical weapons. not a jar of pennies under the front porch.

Whether it was burried in the sand, or in a bunker - let one of those Muslim extremists set one of those things off at a football game, or a subway at rush hour and the results are still the same.

Now all of the libs who have been crying about "See there weren't any WMDs in Iraq" are going to say "There weren't any Nukes" or "There weren't over X amount in a single area"? I would call 500 a significan number - just because they were old or disperesed throughout the country means nothing.

As a matter of fact - if what you are saying is true I would suggest that it was even more important for us to be in Iraq than if we had found huge stock piles in well equipped armories. Would you trust a country that has lost track of over 500 WMDs? What is worse - admitting that they were trying to hide them, or that they "lost" them?

Either way, your arguement is nothing other than trying to graps at straws to bash Bush.

BTW, what would be your response about out own goverment if, as you were digging in your back yard, you stumbled across some of our chemical weapons? Would you accept "Ooops, we forgot about that one" as a valid answer???

[channonc 466]

Wait a sec... we always knew Sadaam had chemical weapons. We gave them to him! The debate about WMD circled around nuclear stuff. Remember the claim that they were buying uranium.

This article is just trying to make what we already knew to be true, suddenly big news.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Wait a sec... we always knew Sadaam had chemical weapons.  We gave them to him!  The debate about WMD circled around nuclear stuff.  Remember the claim that they were buying uranium. 

This article is just trying to make what we already knew to be true, suddenly big news.

242592[/snapback]

Did we? That's not what the dems have been screaming about since the start of the war. Are the baselines shifting once again?

The report was released nearly two years ago to the day that President Bush strode onto a stage in Cincinnati and told the audience that Saddam Hussein's Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "is seeking nuclear weapons."

"The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time," Bush said in the speech delivered October 7, 2002. "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

Speaking on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, Bush maintained Wednesday that the war was the right thing to do and that Iraq stood out as a place where terrorists might get weapons of mass destruction.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take," Bush said.

But Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, seized on the report as political ammunition against the Bush administration.

"Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war," Rockefeller said in a press release.

Link

[BamaGrad03 0]

If a drug dealer buries all his crack rock in the dirt...does he still have to go to jail if the cops find it?

[channonc 466]

"Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war," Rockefeller said in a press release.

If you read this quote carefully, Sen. Rockefeller says he never thought they had active production capabilities, and stockpiles.

Sadaam clearly stowed away the chemical weapons in the sand which doesn't make them an active threat... who knows how long they had been there or if they would have been able to be used, had he even wanted to use them.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

"Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war," Rockefeller said in a press release.

If you read this quote carefully, Sen. Rockefeller says he never thought they had active production capabilities, and stockpiles.

Sadaam clearly stowed away the chemical weapons in the sand which doesn't make them an active threat... who knows how long they had been there or if they would have been able to be used, had he even wanted to use them.

242628[/snapback]

Hmmm, interesting theory. I disagree though. Chemical weapons in the hands of a ruthless dictator who has proven he has the cajones to use them should be considered an active threat.

The cry I recall hearing ever since Baghdad fell was, "There were no weapons of mass destruction. Bush lied." This find blows that falsehood out of the water.

[CCTAU 3,336]

"Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war," Rockefeller said in a press release.

If you read this quote carefully, Sen. Rockefeller says he never thought they had active production capabilities, and stockpiles.

Sadaam clearly stowed away the chemical weapons in the sand which doesn't make them an active threat... who knows how long they had been there or if they would have been able to be used, had he even wanted to use them.

242628[/snapback]

I say we take each of those containers and open them one at a time in your house while you are home. If you make it through all of them and they are all inert, then you were right. If not......

Are you willing to take that chance?

Neither was Bush.

And that is where I support and agree with him on his decison.

[Ranger12 46]

Chemical weapons in the hands of a dictator that has ties to a terrotist organization that has attacked the US. Hmm...I wonder if that equals a national threat or not.

You liberals are going to say that it has not been proven that he had ties with terrorists. Oh sure, they only were in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown. It was much easier for them to get into the country once the US military was there.

The thing is now there is actually more evidence of Saddam's ties to the Taliban and Al-Qeada, but the mainstream liberal media outlets are not reporting this.

Link

[GoAU 1,600]

"Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war," Rockefeller said in a press release.

If you read this quote carefully, Sen. Rockefeller says he never thought they had active production capabilities, and stockpiles.

Sadaam clearly stowed away the chemical weapons in the sand which doesn't make them an active threat... who knows how long they had been there or if they would have been able to be used, had he even wanted to use them.

242628[/snapback]

Hmmm, interesting theory. I disagree though. Chemical weapons in the hands of a ruthless dictator who has proven he has the cajones to use them should be considered an active threat.

The cry I recall hearing ever since Baghdad fell was, "There were no weapons of mass destruction. Bush lied." This find blows that falsehood out of the water.

242633[/snapback]

It wasn't even "if" he had the cajones to use them - it is the he DID use them. Ask the Kurds in Northern Iraq that Saddam gassed.

The bottom line is all the libs are going to discount this story, and try to continue bad mouthing a president who acted in the best interest of our country.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Chemical weapons in the hands of a dictator that has ties to a terrotist organization that has attacked the US. Hmm...I wonder if that equals a national threat or not.

You liberals are going to say that it has not been proven that he had ties with terrorists. Oh sure, they only were in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown. It was much easier for them to get into the country once the US military was there.

The thing is now there is actually more evidence of Saddam's ties to the Taliban and Al-Qeada, but the mainstream liberal media outlets are not reporting this.

Link

242665[/snapback]

I don't know, why don't you ask Pooty?

And, since when did it become my responsiblity to pay for the enforcement of violated UN resolutions?

[GoAU 1,600]

Chemical weapons in the hands of a dictator that has ties to a terrotist organization that has attacked the US. Hmm...I wonder if that equals a national threat or not.

You liberals are going to say that it has not been proven that he had ties with terrorists. Oh sure, they only were in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown. It was much easier for them to get into the country once the US military was there.

The thing is now there is actually more evidence of Saddam's ties to the Taliban and Al-Qeada, but the mainstream liberal media outlets are not reporting this.

Link

242665[/snapback]

I don't know, why don't you ask Pooty?

And, since when did it become my responsiblity to pay for the enforcement of violated UN resolutions?

242744[/snapback]

When enforcing them is in the best interest of our country as a whole, and the ineptitude of the UN leaves us no other choice.

As much as people love bagging on the president - there have been no additional attacks on the US. Imagine the response of the libs if terrorists were successful in releasing chemical weapons here.

Somehow I don't think you would use your same "they were buried in the sand, so it doesn't count" arguement. The bottom line is Bush's plan is working and the libs can't stand it.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

You mean Cheney's plan don't you?

[GoAU 1,600]

I don't care who's name is on the plan, and I wouldn't expect any 1 man to decide it all anyway. All I know is it's working and tucking tail and running because the liberals in this country don't have the spine to stick it out would be the worst thing we could do.

[TexasTiger 12,990]

Desperate men often grasp at straws.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Bested men often grasp clichés

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I don't care who's name is on the plan, and I wouldn't expect any 1 man to decide it all anyway.  All I know is it's working and tucking tail and running because the liberals in this country don't have the spine to stick it out would be the worst thing we could do.

242806[/snapback]

The liberals, as you call them, are for the most part people who have served our country honorably, unlike 'W' and company. "W" should have received a dishonorable discharge for being AWOL. Furthermore, according to "W" he has been to war. What war? Name one person on "Ws" staff/cabinet who has seen combat, just one.

The administration is famous for the tactic of turning weakness into strength and attacking their opponent's strength as if it was weakness. The classic example was to make Bush, the guy who pulled strings to stay out of Vietnam, then went AWOL, into a strutting fighter jock warrior, while using surrogates to tear apart John Kerry, the guy who actually went to war and won actual medals in the face of actual hostile fire.

Let the Democrats learn from that.

George Bush wants the war. He wants it to be his issue.

Yes. Yes, please, let him have it. Let it be all his.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/06/con06262.html

[GoAU 1,600]

The liberals, as you call them, are for the most part people who have served our country honorably, unlike 'W' and company. "W" should have received a dishonorable discharge for being AWOL. Furthermore, according to "W" he has been to war.  What war? Name one person on "Ws" staff/cabinet who has seen combat, just one.

Are you a vet? Have you been to war? Those that live in glass houses....

Kerry is a freaking idiot, and the fact that he served in Vietnam, and still doesn't realize that what he is doing fuels the fire of the insurgants - just like the damn hippies in Vietnam, proves my point.

Bush, unlike Kerry and Clinton, has the resolve to deal with these idiots. The scary thing is that I am really starting to doubt that our country has the stones required to see anything through that isn't over in a few days, with absolutely no civillian losses. Imagine if we had to go through something like WW II today - people like Kerry and Clinton would doubt whether or not we should be fighting Hilter!

[CCTAU 3,336]

I don't care who's name is on the plan, and I wouldn't expect any 1 man to decide it all anyway.  All I know is it's working and tucking tail and running because the liberals in this country don't have the spine to stick it out would be the worst thing we could do.

242806[/snapback]

The liberals, as you call them, are for the most part people who have served our country honorably, unlike 'W' and company. "W" should have received a dishonorable discharge for being AWOL. Furthermore, according to "W" he has been to war. What war? Name one person on "Ws" staff/cabinet who has seen combat, just one.

The administration is famous for the tactic of turning weakness into strength and attacking their opponent's strength as if it was weakness. The classic example was to make Bush, the guy who pulled strings to stay out of Vietnam, then went AWOL, into a strutting fighter jock warrior, while using surrogates to tear apart John Kerry, the guy who actually went to war and won actual medals in the face of actual hostile fire.

Let the Democrats learn from that.

George Bush wants the war. He wants it to be his issue.

Yes. Yes, please, let him have it. Let it be all his.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/06/con06262.html

242844[/snapback]

Thank you Dan Rather. Since you were fired for already lying about this, I just have to assume all you have is the internet now.

It has been shown in the past that yesterday's heroes are today's goats when it comes ot politics. And at no other time in history has that been more evident than right now in the US.

[Ranger12 46]

BF, I would be willing to bet any amount of money that 95% of the liberals never served a day in the military. Take the fact that the large majority of the vets on this board are conservatives. Take the fact that in my American Legion post alone, I have never heard a single member talk ill of President Bush, but I have heard them dog liberals left and right. Take the fact that I am very active with military and veterans organizations and you will hardly find them ever supporting a liberal platorm. Current military personnel and verterans are mostly conservatives and republicans because they know that the republican party is serious about defending this country, whereas liberals are usually more concerned with getting out of their DUI, bribery, and murder charges. Most veterans I know said WTF when the democratic candidate for president was have been shown to get three purple hearts within six months. Most found that very suspicious, especially when he would not release all his records. They also see that when the few democrats that are veterans say things that gives the enemy ammo for their propaganda which puts our fighting men and women in harms way, they see even more that the liberals are about appeasing their party members and not doing what is right in the eyes of the general population. Bottom line liberals are worried more about how to win in 2008 instead of taking care of the present and future concerns of the country.

Now, liberals are going to do just like you are doing, try to find some way to spin this recent find of chemical weapons, which were supposed to have been destroyed according to UN sanctions. Sanctions that Saddam violated and lied about. If he went against those sanctions, them what else was he doing that he should not have been doing? Again, you need to be reminded that the "nuclear" issue was about him seeking out the capabilities, nobody ever said he had them already when we went to war. We sure the heck did not want to wait until he had them, then we would have a mess like Korea on our hands. Actually it would be worse then Korea, because Saddam would use terroists to strike us from withing our borders.

[channonc 466]

Current military personnel and verterans are mostly conservatives and republicans because they know that the republican party is serious about defending this country,

No, I just think they are the ones the put the most pork into DoD Appropiations.