Oh Where, Oh Where is the WMD Coverage?

http://www.gopusa.com ^ | June 22, 2006 | Bobby Eberle

[Holicheese]

No, billklinton destroyed all the WMDs with his cruise missile strike during Operation Change the Subject...or was it called Operation Prezidue.

[lexington minuteman 1775]

Well, since our enemy has been trying to take over the world since the seventh century they won't quit until they either suceed or we stop them. So I pray it does not take 100,000's of dead. But you could well be right.

[pcottraux]

I don't think there will be any wakeup for the left no matter what. It just isn't going to happen. Should there be another 9/11, they will just blame it on "Bush's incompetence."

[Solamente]

That's true, but still just enough to pierce through any labels tagged on us by the world, and quench the enemy that is half of us within. It will come down to fight fire with fire. We can always say we are sparing our grandchildren from having to deal with the Muslims.

In all intellectual honesty, either we persuade Islam to tone the eF down big time, or we must exterminate them from the human race. "That's All, Folks!"

[attiladhun2]

According to Khidhir Hamza in Saddam's Bombmaker (pp.333-337), by 1994 Iraq already had an assembled nuclear device "capable of producing a nuclear explosion equivalent to a few kilotons of TNT... What we lacked was a complete nuclear core". (p. 334). He stated they were very close to having a nuclear weapon and that Saddam intended to drop it unannounced on Israel. What I want to know is why we never heard any of this from the MSM. Futhermore, what ever happened to this already assembled device? By the way, this was post '91. Saddam was supposed to destroy all WMDs according to the cease fire that ended Desert Storm. Even as late as Mar. '03 Iraq was negotiating with N. Korea for long range missles. So whether the stuff was pre-Desert Storm or not makes no diffence, Saddam was in violation.

[do the dhue]

Where is the coverage on the following:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101&o=DIB004
above: every American should read the above book by: Richard Miniter. This is only a partial list of the deadly weapons Richard Miniter reveals in his new book, Disinformation. Miniter systematically dissects the "No-WMD Myth" (how it started, and why it continues), as well as 21 other War-on-Terror myths perpetuated by the media.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/

above - 1.77 metric tons of uranium and 1000 and 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" CNN

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

above - 1.77 metric tons of uranium and 1000 and 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" BBC

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2004/mariani052804.htm
above - mortor shell sarin gas

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
above - Roadside Bomb and Mustard gas found FOXNews

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1078&dept_id=151021&newsid=12185667&PAG=461&rfi=9
above - WMDs Found in Iraq Consisted of Cyclosarin By MONIKA SCISLOWSKA, Associated Press Writer ©Indiana Printing & Publishing Co.


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112920-5897r.htm
above - Iraqi insurgents seek Saddam's chemical arms Washington Times (if the insurgents seek them, then they may know that they are present while are press seems to be naive about it - me). and here is more related to this concern: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39158

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/13/sprj.irq.mobile.lab/
above - mobile Bio weapons lab found CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0306/25/se.04.html
above - CNN has learned that the Central Intelligence Agency has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology CNN

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
above - I think this is a good read for all Americans

http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html
above: 27 December 2002, IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)

http://www.kentimmerman.com/2004_04_25syria.htm
above - more interesting reading and here is more from Timmerman: http://www.kentimmerman.com/2004_04_25wmd.htm


http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/005965.html
above - a good essay

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/13/115752.shtml?s=lh
Saddam's ambitions are clear


But the final report is this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm

[TheClintons-STILLAnti-American]

"I was surfing to find something about the Miami arrests and happened on Odorman on MSNBC. He's covering it. Called the segment "Santorum Reality Check". Need I say more? Excuse me while I wash my hands. I feel dirty"

I saw Pat Buchanon and some black lib- (I didn't get who it was because I was at the gym)-smirking uncontrollably while pretending to offer an unbiased assessment that Rick Santorum has egg on his face over the WMD news conference yesterday.

Their school-girlish analysis was that he was acting out of "desperation" due to being behind in the polls, and he made a terrible political faux pas.

[attiladhun2]

According to Kommie Oddball Subversives, Al Qaeda did not really attack the WTC, Bush had the WTC blown up. In other words, many on the Left are in denial that fanatics with a 7th cen. mindset are out to destroy them. More terror attacks will definitely cause the collapse of the Left in this country as it did in Israel. They will still be pains in the a$$, they will just be devoid of political power, which will suit me just fine.

[pcottraux]

Well, setting the wackos aside, if there's another terrorist attack, the left will be able to make the case that Bush failed to prevent another one (since he already had one). Considering the amount of money and effort we spend on security and prevention, that will really make us look foolish.

I'm actually worried that another terrorist attack will have the same effect on America that it had on Spain. It will make people say "What the current president is doing is wrong, let's try a new approach."

[Dave Burns]

We found them Mr. Clinton!
Clinton on Larry King aired 2003.

KING: President, maybe I can get an area where you may disagree. Do you join, President Clinton, your fellow Democrats, in complaining about the portion of the State of the Union address that dealt with nuclear weaponry in Africa?

CLINTON: Well, I have a little different take on it, I think, than either side.

First of all, the White House said -- Mr. Fleischer said -- that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. And then they said, well, maybe they shouldn't have put it in.

Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.

I mean, we're all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and biological weapons. So there's a difference between British -- British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, Well, we probably shouldn't have said that. And I think we ought to focus on where we are and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now. That's what I think.