Posted on 06/22/2006 5:12:30 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
Oh Where, Oh Where is the WMD Coverage?
On Wednesday, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), quoting from a Pentagon report, announced that since 2003, over 500 weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. According to Santorum, these sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles prove that “weapons of mass destruction are, in fact, in Iraq.” With news this important, one would expect wide-spread coverage, right? Wrong. The so-called main stream media is silent on this discovery, instead painting their own view of Iraq.
At the press conference, Santorum along with Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) said, “It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq. I will continue to advocate for the complete declassification of this report so we can more fully understand the complete WMD picture inside Iraq.”
Santorum noted that the six key findings from the Pentagon report are as follows:
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. Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for Coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out. The most likely munitions remaining are sarin and mustard-filled projectiles. The purity of the agent 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. It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons. It’s quite interesting and disappointing to see how this news has been bypassed by almost all of the major media outlets. This morning, there was not a single mention of the story on the CNN web site. Instead, the main headlines listed under “Latest News” (in addition to prime space for coverage of Western wildfires) where:
4 U.S. soldiers die in Afghan battle Al Qaeda’s No. 2 releases new video Attacks kill 5 U.S. service members in Iraq Debate over Iraq heats up in Senate Marines, corpsman face murder charges On the ABC News web site, the lead story is “Seven Marines and One Sailor Charged With Murder.” Also listed on the main page under “Headlines” are the following stories:
U.S. Troops Killed: 4 in Iraq | 4 in Afghanistan Ariz. Wildfires Dangerously Close to Homes, Park Calif. May Soon Face ‘Big One’ Japan Ships to Monitor N. Korea’s Missile Tests The CBS News web site focuses on the wildfires as the lead story. Other main headlines include:
Duke Mom Wants Son ‘To Have Life Back’ Al Qaeda Tape Urges Afghans To Rise Up Updated: 5 U.S. Troops Killed In Iraq Times Have Changed In Germany Dark Days For Bureau Of Indian Affairs This morning, the FOX News web site had the WMD story on their main page, and it is now found in their political section. The main page of the New York Times’ web site makes no mention of the WMD story, but rather runs as their lead: “G.O.P. Decides to Embrace War as Issue.”
With all the one-sided reporting, is it any wonder that public support for action in Iraq will go down over time? So much was made of Abu Ghraib, yet where is the wide-spread reporting and outrage over what was done to two of America’s soldiers who were captured by Iraqi insurgents?
There is progress being made in Iraq, and the American people deserve honest, fair reporting on both the good and the bad. Their selective coverage does nothing to build a full story of what is happening in Iraq, but instead, is used to promote a left-wing agenda. That is not the role of the media, and hopefully, more and more Americans will see through their attempts to twist the news.
No, billklinton destroyed all the WMDs with his cruise missile strike during Operation Change the Subject...or was it called Operation Prezidue.
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.
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."
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!"
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.
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."
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.
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.