Posted on 05/18/2004 8:21:40 AM PDT by JohnGalt
Washington-AP -- Don't jump to any conclusions just yet. That warning comes from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, after the U-S military in Iraq announced that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve gas had exploded near a U-S military convoy.
Rumsfeld told a Washington, D-C audience that the "field test" showing the presence of sarin may not be accurate. He says more analysis needs to be done -- and that it may take some time to find out just what the chemical was.
In Baghdad, officials said the bomb was apparently left over from the Saddam era. They said two members of a military bomb squad were treated for "minor exposure" -- but that there were no serious injuries.
One official says the shell apparently contained two chemicals that are designed to combine and create sarin -- but that they didn't mix properly.
As a freeper reminded us on another thread, sarin is regarding by the Department of Defense.
And I note that when you think something supports your position, you excitedly post it.
There is no excitement on the part of freepers that our soldiers are dying in Iraq and I think it's rather disgraceful of you to say that. There is a feeling of vindication on the part of Freepers and myself that WMD have been discovered not once but twice in the last two weeks in Iraq.
Most of us would prefer the war be fought by our armed soldiers in Iraq facing terrorists than fought over here by unarmed citizens. Given the decade's old ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, this war is being fought to take out as many terrorists as we can before they plan another attack against our homeland.
As I have mentioned on several threads today, you think that you are the only true conservative and that those of us who support the war in Iraq and the wider war on terror are not conservatives. To desire a strong national defense to protect those of us at home IS a conservative viewpoint, and all your lamenting otherwise will not change the fact that conservatives understand the stakes in this war on terror.
First sentence should read:
As another freeper reminded us on another thread, the Department of Defense DOES consider sarin a WMD.
No, I think you spread lies from the Chalabi camp and are soft on treason.
I hasten to add that even under that hypothesis, it remains true that Saddam had a secret CW program and was hiding it from the UN. It just would mean that the CW program was incompetent, insubordinate, and/or corrupt :)
Of course, now that our military has confirmed that this stuff really is sarin, it seems that perhaps this Saddam-got-fooled explanation was not true in *all* cases anyway... best,
LOL.
But you are never able to quite articulate what those "lies" are, John. Just a little problem.
You don't know squat to begin with anyway. Field tests (from the M-8 alarm to paper swabs) are extremely unreliable and flase positives happen constantly due to everything from rabbit-piss to cleaners and solvents.
People on both sides of the issue - left and right - HATE the truth if it doesn't fit the limited agenda they've manufactured in their little brains.
Why not just wait until the TRUTH is known and deal with such objectively?
"They seem to have a 100% false positive rate. Like that time we found what turned out to be merely pesticides in big, camoflaged drums near military installations, but the stupid "field tests" came up positive for chem. weapons. Like that. "
I found that whole story strange and suspicious. *BURIED* chemicals near an ammo dump? And they turn out to be pesticides? Maybe, then maybe the assumption should be questioned ...
There was an IGC survey member who went public (early April or so) saying that the IGC was jumping to conclusions in saying it was *not* chemical weapons. They found evidence Saddam had infrastructure to make chemical weapons. The question was, where were the precursors to make them? The chemical composition of pesticides and chemical weapons is very similar. Remember, pesticides are nerve agents applied to bugs. Chemical weapons are nerve agents applied to humans.
http://www.hereticalideas.com/archives/001816.html
Another find occurred around the northern Iraqi town of Bai’ji, where elements of the 4th Infantry Division (Mech) discovered 55-gallon drums of a substance that mass spectrometer testing confirmed was cyclosarin and an unspecified blister agent. A mobile laboratory was also found nearby that could have been used to mix chemicals at the site. And only yards away, surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, as well as gas masks were found. Of course, later tests by the experts revealed that these were only the ubiquitous pesticides that everybody was turning up. It seems that Iraqi soldiers were obsessed with keeping their ammo dumps insect-free, according to the reading of the evidence now enshrined by the conventional wisdom that “no WMD stockpiles have been discovered.” . . .
Other articles of the 'strange reporting but it means nothing so move along' variety:
http://www.hereticalideas.com/archives/001891.html
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/05/1b42f9f7-2e25-4ffb-8231-e407bee36977.html
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040426/D826NGT01.html
http://tides.carebridge.org/TIRR/TIRR075.htm#_Arms_found_by_Danish_troops_in_Iraq
Whichever ones said that. If the shoe fits...
Most folks simply compared what was found after the war to what the pre-war rhetoric suggested they would find.
Pre-war rhetoric never suggested we would "find" anything, the rhetoric was about what Saddam had and/or wasn't reporting.
Let's say we find a videotape dated 2/xx/2003 which completely documents the production (from raw materials to final product) of materials that are clearly banned weapons. That alone would prove Bush was correct about Saddam having banned substances. Whether we actually end up "finding" the objects in the video has nothing to do with whether his claims were correct. The claims were not "will will find XYZ", they were "he HAS XYZ".
You are lying through your teeth or you are simply a Marxist,
Where you get "Marxist" from anything I've said, only God knows.
to argue even your one inconclusive point that an artillery shell from the Iran-Iraq War is somehow reason for 700 of your countrymen to die
I never said that.
I said it proves people wrong who continue to suggest that Saddam had no banned materials. If you're not one of those people, then we have no disagreement, you're actually conceding my point, right? You're agreeing that he had banned materials, you just (a) don't think they count as "WMD" and (b) don't think they justify the loss of life. Right?
Create strawmen all you like, we all know you will never apologize for your sins, but real conservatives see through such phony ploys.
WTF are you talking about.
#1. As I've mentioned before, I was told by at least 3 posters that you post under multiple freeper names.
#2. Chalambi isn't the only person who has linked Salman Pak with terrorist training. What the he!! are you talking about? I don't know of anyone on the planet who doesn't understand what Salman Pak was all about, well until I heard this from you, that is.
#3. I spread lies that undermine the adminstration by linking Saddam to 9/11? What planet do you live on anyway?
I have repeatedly stated that Saddam and Osama Bin Laden have a relationship that goes back over a decade. I think Saddam probably had a hand in AT LEAST planning 9/11, but admit that I don't know, of course.
What lies are spread by posting the many articles and investigative reporters who have written about the linkages between Saddam and OBL? Oh, I know - it doesn't fit with the Galt point of view and so it must be a lie because, gasp, I forgot again - YOU ARE THE ONLY TRUE CONSERVATIVE ON THE PLANET.
Forget that officials in 3 administrations have talked publicly and under oath to the 9/11 Commission about the fact that OBL and Saddam had a relationship. Forget the fact that a federal court of law has found Iraq was involved in 9/11. Forget the fact that Iraq at least knew that 9/11 was coming.
And, thanks for reminding me.
For the lurkers and those who haven't seen the links that John Galt belives are all lies (everyone being a liar but him) - here's the list again.
And let me be the first to give Galt's response to this: too many articles are written by conservative reporters and we all know we should only trust the liberal press. Snicker.
Less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper “Al-Nasiriya” carried a column headlined, “American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin.” (July 21, 2001)
In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the US “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”
The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the US “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” – an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, “New York, New York”.
(Link below)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1106657/posts?page=1
List of newspaper article in the 90's which mention the world's concern regarding the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946809/posts?page=1
Son of Saddam coordinates OBL activities:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts
The AQ connection (excellent):http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944617/posts?page=2
Western Nightmare: http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html
Saddam's link to OBL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts
NYT: Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts
Document linking them: http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297
Iraq and terrorism - no doubt about it: http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp
A federal judge rules there are links:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/986293/posts
Wall Street Journal on Iraq and AQ:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987129/posts
Iraq and Iran contact OBL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981055/posts
More evidence: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml
Saddam's AQ connection: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts
Further connections: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts
What a court of law said about the connections:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm
Some miscellaneous stuff on connections:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/989201/posts
Saddam's Ambassador to Al Qaeda: (February 2004, Weekly Standard)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083778/posts
Yes - it's NewsMax but loaded with interesting bullet points.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1097521/posts?page=1
Saddam's Fingerprints on NY Bombing (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1115387/posts
Colin Powell: Iraq and AQ Partners for Years (CNN, February 2003)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/
The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connections (September 2003, Richard Miniter)
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
Oil for Food Scandal Ties Iraq and Al Qaeda (June 2003)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1125899/posts
Saddam and OBL Make a Pact (The New Yorker, February 2003):
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030210fa_fact
Al Qaeda's Poison Gas (Wall Street Journal, April 2004):
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005016
Wolfowitz Says Saddam behind 9/11 Attacks:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921398/posts
Saddam behind first WTC attack - PBS, Laurie Mylroie:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/mylroie.html
Growing Evidence of Saddam and Al Qaeda Link, The Weekly Standard, July 2003:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/946997/posts
Qusay Hussein Coordinated Iraq special operations with Bin Laden Terrorist Activities, Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts
The Western Nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden vs. the Rest of the World, The Guardian Unlimited:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html
Saddam Link to Bin Laden, Julian Borger, The Guardian, February 1999
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts
The Al Qaeda Connection, The Weekly Standard, July 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944617/posts?page=2
Cheney lectures Russert on Iraq/911 Link, September 2003:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/982713/posts
No Question About It, National Review, September 2003
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp
Iraq: A Federal Judges Point of View
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/986293/posts
Mohammed's Account links Iraq to 9/11 and OKC:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987075/posts
Free Republic Thread that mentions so me books Freepers might be interested in on this topic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/977221/posts?page=8
The Proof that Saddam Worked with AQ, The Telegraph, April 2003:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml
Saddam's AQ Connection, The Weekly Standard, September 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts
September 11 Victims Sue Iraq:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2237332.stm
Osama's Best Friend: The Further Connections Between Al Qaeda and Saddam, The Weekly Standard, November 2003
Terrorist Behind 9/11 Attacks Trained by Saddam, The Telegraph, December 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts
James Woolsey Links Iraq and AQ, CNN Interview, March 2004, Also see Posts #34 and #35
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1104121/posts
A Geocities Interesting Web Site with maps and connections:
http://www.geocities.com/republican_strategist/Iraq-Bin-Laden.html
Bin Laden indicted in federal court, read down to find information that Bin Laden agreed to not attack Iraq and to work cooperatively with Iraq:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm
Case Closed, The Weekly Standard, November 03
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
CBS - Lawsuit: Iraq involved in 9/11:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml
Exploring Iraq's Involvement in pre-9/11 Acts, The Indianapolis Star:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/746225/posts
The Iraq/AQ Connection: Richard Minister again
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/989201/posts
Militia Defector says Baghdad trained Al Qaeda fighters in chemical weapons, July 2002
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/743892/posts
The Clinton View of Iraq/AQ Ties, The Weekly Standard, December 2003
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
Saddam Controlled the Camps (Iraq/AQ Ties): The London Observer, November 01
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/741676/posts
Saddam's Terror Ties that Critics Ignore, National Review, October 2003:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005579/posts
Tape Shows General Wesley Clark linking Iraq and AQ:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1056113/posts
Freeper list of links between AQ and Iraq:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/850346/posts
Salman Pak (Aviation Weekly)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/865435/posts
Bush says Zarqawi killed Berg, cites Saddam ties (Reuters, May 2004)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1136076/posts
It has been reporting all day that the find was confirmed sarin. Old Media (this article) is behind the times and Galt just couldn't wait to post it to bolster his view that WMD never existed in Iraq.
The truth, as you say, already IS known. Perhaps you haven't heard the confirmation reports.
And, by the way, how I address another Freeper is really none of your business so stick a sock in it.
Go see the first few
replies to my post number
four. There are very
good reasons Rummy
said this, he knew what he was
doing saying this.
Another good point.
The poster did nothing but post an article, something we used to be able to do around here without being called a traitor from some mindless piranha.
Lately the "T" word is being used every time someone disagrees with anothers worldview.
When you accuse someone on a public forum of supporting Saddam Hussein it becomes everyone's business. If you don't like that learn some discretion and have some manners.
Old Media refers to the AP which can't update its web site often enough when it's good news for liberals. It also refers to the alphabet networks.
You haven't seen Galt accuse me and others of being soft on treason? Read a little more and educate yourself before you interject your asinine comments into post that does not involve you. I haven't accused Galt of being a traitor, although he has accused me and multiple other Freepers who support the war on terror of just that.
Now go read a bit before you go spouting off again about that which you know nothing.
You seriously need to lighten up. Go out and get some air, FR is not that big a deal. Really.
Officially confirmed as sarin. Sorry.
You'd better go back to your "I don't care" talking point because this is the real thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.