Rick Santorum’s WMD Tall Tale
by Pamela LeaveyRick Santorum told a tall tale during the debate on the Kerry-Feingold Iraq amendment and in a press conference on Wednesday.
Attempting to draw attention from the real issue of withdrawing our troops from Iraq, Rick Santorum used the Senate debate, for a highly staged act in which he asserted that “several Senate Democrats” had said that “no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq.” Their claim, he said, “proves is untrue,” thanks to a document that opportunely surfaced with the help of his crony pal, Rep. Pete Hoekstra.
“We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons,” Santorum claimed, smug and lying like a rug on the floor. He cited report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, that he had heard about a month or so ago, but “no one had seen before”. Oh, so very convenient, that Ricky pulled that one out of the air just in time for the debate on the Kerry-Feingold amendment, setting a timeline to withdraw from Iraq.
“Since 2003,” Santorum said, “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.”
Oh my! Well, not really…
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 rightwing blogosphere is in a virtual tizzy over this tall tale that turns out to be, simply more of the usual… Lies from the Republican party. Lies on top of more lies, will never justify a war based on lies.
Filed under: Bush Admin, Democrats, In The News, Iraq, John Kerry, Politics, Republicans, Senate | Get Permalink or trackback |
While you are certain to disagree, the age and condition of the of the shells is, in fact, irrelevant. Under UNSC resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to verify the location of ALL of his chemical weapons stocks and long-range rockets, and then dispose of them in a manner sanctioned.
He did not. If you read the summary provided, you will note that they expect to find more WMDs, as well.
Saddam failed to comply, and kept both WMDs and rockets he was required to destroy.
There is certainly lying involved here, but it doesn’t happen to be from Republicans. Instead, it comes from those of you who suddenly act as if 1991 was a magic number.
A sarin shell manufactured in 1990 and properly maintained is every bit as deadly (if not more so) than a sarin shell manufactured in 2000 and improperly stored. Chemical weapons aren’t milk; they don’t have a pre-determined spoilage date.
Not did any of the UN Security Council resolutions say Saddam could keep WMDs and missiles manufactuered before a certain date. It said he had to dispose of them, ALL, each and every one. Instead, he tried to hide them. Both SCUD-C rockets and WMDs have been recovered. Saddam lied.
It is sad to watch you grasp at any straw possible to maintain your “Bush lied, people died” narrative. Sad, but not unexpected.
The real question isn’t whether there was WMD, or if Saddam was misbehaving. It is certainly possible that 100% of the WMD wasn’t destroyed as was believed after final reports came out.
The real questions in judging the appropriatness of Bush going to war was whether we were threatened by WMD and whether war was the only means of containing WMD.
If Saddam had small amounts of chemical or other weapons, this did not represent an imminent threat to the United States. At the time the war began, the inspectors were back in and there was still discussion going on in the United Nations regarding possible international efforts against Saddam.
Citing violations of UN resolutions is not a valid justification for Bush gong to war. If Saddam violated UN sanctions, it was up to the UN to approve action against him. The UN did not approve of going to war when Bush did.
The only justification for Bush to go to war would have been if we were under imminent threat from WMD. Even if the current claims are true, they do not justify George Bush going to war when he did.
“The only justification for Bush to go to war would have been if we were under imminent threat from WMD. Even if the current claims are true, they do not justify George Bush going to war when he did.”
How do you determine “imminent”? Afghanistan was not an “imminent” threat to the United States on September 10, 2001. Yet, on September 12, 2001, there were suddenly 2800 less Americans. The threat wasn’t “imminent”. It was inevitable if sanctions were lifted abitrarily.
Mishu,
Your argument really does not hold up at all. You confuse terrorism with threat from WMD, and confuse lifting sanctions with going to war.
The attack from al Aqeda was not a military attack from Afghanistan. If you include the possibility of hjacked airplanes as weapons, every country theoretically has the same capacities. We certainly cannot attack any country which theoretically can recruit such terrorists.
This still left Saddam as much less a theat than many other countries. While some countries conceivably might have cooperated with al Qaeda, to bin Laden Saddam was an infidel who he wanted to overthrow, not work with.
The justification for attacking Saddam was based upon claims of WMD such as the ability to launch a nuclear attack. Saddam has never been shown to have such capabilities, even if you accept the claims made on poor evidence by the right, and was well contained by American military efforts already underway before the war. Bush had no justification for going to war.
We were not calling for arbitrarily lifting sanctions. The question was not one of lifting sanctions but of going to war.
The resolution to use force disagrees with you Ron.
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
mishu,
Not true on both counts.
There were claims of such terrorist ties, but they have been found to be false.
After the IWR was passed, Saddam allowed the inspectors back in. Once they were back in there was no longer justification for going to war.
mishu,
IWR gave the President the power to go t war after all other options were exercised.
Iraq was not an imminent threat. Sadaam had no ties to 9/11 or al Qaeda.
Colon Powell stood in front of the world with pictures showing the locations of nuclear weapons.
The whole thing was fabricated. Cheney said the people will support an attack if nuclear weapons are mentioned.
Those lying bastards have gotten a lot of folks killed; for what?
They let bin Laden get away at Tora Bora.
They fabricated Iraq’s involvement in 9/11 and bin Laden and possessing nuclear weapons to invade Iraq.
BushInc is guilty of war crimes – of crimes against humanity – and all those who created this mess needs seats at The Hague.
battlebob,
“Colon Powell stood in front of the world with pictures showing the locations of nuclear weapons.:
And in a more honest statement on a different day, Powell also admitted we had Saddam well contained. I wonder if Powell will ever tell the full story of what went on and how he would out doing the bidding of the neocons.
Bush forced the inspectors out so he could invade. They were not completed and found nothing up to the point they were forced to leave.
I always wonder how anyone could support an administration that lies, cheats, and steals.
They have made us less free and more vulnerable to terrorists.
Continuing the Bush course; stay the course as he says – will only bring continued ruin to Iraq and harm to our soldiers. There are many discussions about 4GW warfare on this blog and other web sites. Better yet, listen to Kerry because what he says is a good summation of what experts in this business say should be done.
Kerry understands what needs to be done to bring stability to Iraq and get our troops to safe havens.
Exactly, the long term stability of chemical weapons is unclear. Unlike milk, their spoilage date cannot always be predetermined. They can stay the same or degrade into other compounds. The ones developed after WWI are far more stable because of the findings then that those chemical weapons did degrade with time.
Santorum himself relays the report said, “coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.”
As far as destroying them or knowing the location of 500 pounds of this material – which sounds like it was not all found in one place- don’t give Saddam or his administration too much credit for competence here. It would not surprise me in the least, based on what Duelfer found during the inspections, that some of these items were not properly accounted for or maintained by the Iraqi government officials responsible for this.
The fact that the military representative explained that the weapons were not in useable condition and were ” not the WMDs for which this country went to war.” should be enough to discredit Santorum’s little ploy.
Battlebob
Totally right about Bush forcing out inspectors so he could invade.
As far as Santorum is concerned, what can you expect from a guy who is 12% down in the polls compared to his Democratic opponent?
There’s one thing that everyone seems to have missed: Unless a chemical weapon is in weapons form, it cannot be called a chemical weapon. If you own a can of Raid, you have a chemical weapon (in a diluted form) in your home. We crop dust; same thing. I served 8 years as a US Army, nuclear, biological, chemical specialist. I have friends over there, some that have been twice. Tens of thousands of 55 gal. barrels have been destroyed containing nerve agents-like Raid only stronger. As long as it’s not in weapons form it’s considered for “agricultural” use. Simply because it has not YET been poured into a shell doesn’t erase the fact that they have it.