Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
"WMDs" begin to turn up
Published on May 17, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

Just for the record - stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons were never the principle reason for the coalition to remove Saddam from power.

But the lack of these stockpiles is something those who have opposed the war have, in my view, cynically jumped onto to argue that the war was unjustified (as if those who were in favor of removing Saddam were losing sleep over mustard gas).

Anyway, they are apparently starting to find some of this stuff. For whatever it's worth.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on May 18, 2004

If it was in Iraq, and it contains Sarin, then it was an "illegal" bomb.  It doesn't matter how long it has been there as they were supposed to remove all weapons of that nature.

I think it should also be noted that Brad pointed out that they are "starting" to find this stuff.  Maybe they are just now getting deep enough to find the chemicals.


Reply #9 By: stevendedalus - 5/17/2004 11:43:42 PM
Draginol, remember how you jumped on the Drudge Report on Kerry's intern? It remained on the "featured article" list quite awhile. I do hope you will remove this one more quickly.

Why should he remove it?  Can you prove that the bomb did not contain Sarin, or that there is not mustard gas in Iraq?  Can you prove that this is only one and that they will start to find more?

 

on May 18, 2004
It seems logical to me that if we've been in the country for over a year, put out rewards for information, and talked to every competent scientist in the nation and most important army officers, and we haven't come up with a significant stockpile, then it's highly unlikely that a significant stockpile exists. Maybe there are occasional old small shells buried here and there, left over from the first Gulf War and since forgotten by everyone, but it seems very implausible to me to think that there's anything major.
on May 18, 2004
Yes, it is far more likely to be located in Syria IMHO.
on May 18, 2004
I have found the double standard imposed on Bush throughout his Presidency humorous. On the one hand he is a bumbling idiot that can't get anything right, and on the other he is some insidious monster with the ability to make immense conspiracies happen with a mere thought.


Cool comeback BakerStreet!! Gotta remember that.
on May 18, 2004

I don't remove featured articles.

Secondly, this article was from the front page of Fox News as well as many other news sources.  Just because something doesn't match your left leaning sympathies doens't make it invalid. I suspect you would have no problem if I featured one of Wakhkonta's kooky conspiracy articles. I read one recently where he was claiming that Bush stated that US troops would begin pulling out of Iraq on June 30. I suspect if I had featured that you wouldn't be complaining.

Third, as I indicated at the beginning of this article - Sarin gas and mustard gas were never the primary reason for the US to remove Saddam. There are idealogues on the right who will use this as some sort of justification but they're just being idealogues. There are also idealogues on the left who were clinging to the lack of finding stockpiles of this junk to argue that the whole point of invading Saddam was based on a false premise. Neither are correct.

If anyone from either side thinks that the reason the US spent billions in blood and treasure to remove Saddam was becaue of canisters of mustard gas and Sarin (or worse, oil) all I can say is I have pity for their lack of understanding of the issues.

on May 18, 2004
As for the oil issue, apparently we have done a very poor job of raping Iraq for oil. It certainly has not shown up at the pumps!
on May 18, 2004

Reply #21 By: greywar - 5/18/2004 12:12:17 PM
As for the oil issue, apparently we have done a very poor job of raping Iraq for oil. It certainly has not shown up at the pumps!

Amen to that...... 

on May 18, 2004
Yeah. I heard it'll be 3 bucks per gallon soon. Certainly not a war for oil.

Man I think it's time top move to alternative fuel.

Anyway, it may depend on how it was found by Iraqi. They may have lost track of some of those, or it could be a hidden cache.
on May 18, 2004
I seriously doubt the validity of such claims at this point in time. If there were things to find, they would have found them already. I think your first response was the most accurate, a political election. Pay particular attention this fall as I am certain the threat level will be elevated once again in the sept-oct months. Loss in polls = crisis event.

on May 18, 2004
JakeD - lol, if they wanted to plant evidence they could do so easily and by the bushel. They would have *buried* Kerry with it already. Next tell me about how they are holding Bin Laden in a secret safehouse until October! You guys crack me up:)
on May 19, 2004
I seriously doubt the validity of such claims at this point in time. If there were things to find, they would have found them already. I think your first response was the most accurate, a political election. Pay particular attention this fall as I am certain the threat level will be elevated once again in the sept-oct months. Loss in polls = crisis event.


Just because a stockpile of weapons has not been found yet, does not mean they don't exist. Iraq is a big place, and there are many possibilities of what happened to the weapons. Let's not forget that just as many democrats said Iraq had WMD's as Bush did. The only difference is the democrats seem to forget that now.

It's funny how the media always reported that no WMD's have been found, now they say "no stockpiles of WMD have been found".
on May 19, 2004

I'm still looking for a piece to my printer from our last move. It's somewhere in our house, but I can't find it -- even after a year. That doesn't mean it didn't exist.

But that's besides the point. We didn't go into Iraq because Saddam had mustard gas or Sarin.  We went in there because in the post 9/11 world, dangerous enemies in that part of the world couldn't be tolerated. Dangerous enemies who had tried to murder the former President of the US. Dangerous enemies who regularly shot at our planes. Dangerous enemies who funded terrorists in the west bank. Dangerous enemies who bided their time for the "international community" to soften and end sanctions so that he could move forward with the WMD *programs* he demonstratably had in place.

on May 19, 2004
double post
on May 19, 2004
is a big place, and there are many possibilities of what happened to the weapons.


No matter what happened to the weapons, *if* there was a stockpile, there had to have been at least hundreds, probably thousands, of people who knew about it. Scientists, engineers, military officers, government officials, etc. Imagining that not one of those people would have come forward by now to collect our reward is simply not believable to me.

We went in there because...


There are many reasons we went. Lots of hawks disagreed with each other. Some arguments for war were purely humanitarian, some were legalistic, some were out to spread democracy. Some hawks wanted disarmament, others wanted regime change. There's no one true motivation but rather a bunch of mutually reinforcing reasons. And WMD are irrelevant to some arguments and relevant to others.
on May 19, 2004

Draginol, give me more credit than this. I know perfectly well Bush never said he would remove troops--quite the contrary. My reference to Drudge was that it was indeed stuck on the main feature list for an excruciatingly longtime. However, I notice that now the list is frequently rotated. I've also stated many times in my blogs that I do not oppose the war, only the manner in which it was carried out.

I commented in WiseFawn's article on points that I too had lost several hundred points[user list] but that I was confident Wardell had nothing to do with it. Even though today I lost 150 points, I'm afraid, I suspect Kharma. 

2 Pages1 2