Weldon: WMD discovery justifies invasion

Delco Times ^ | June 30, 2006 | William Bender

[FairOpinion]

U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon presided over a House Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday in which the commander of the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) acknowledged that the degraded chemical munitions revealed in last week’s report constitute weapons of mass destruction.

While the usefulness of the approximately 500 pre-Gulf War munitions is disputed by weapons experts, Weldon said in his opening statement their discovery over the past three years justifies the March 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime.

"I want to be absolutely clear about what we are talking about here. These 500 chemical munitions are weapons of mass destruction," said Weldon, R-7, of Thornbury. "Some may want to play down the significance of this report or even deny that WMD have been found in Iraq."

Weldon ... indicating that during his next trip to Iraq he would question military leaders on potential WMD sites that have yet to be searched.

Thursday’s hearing was in response to an April 2006 intelligence report that was partially declassified last week and released by U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra. The declassified section of the report said the projectiles preceded the 1991 Gulf War and contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

[FairOpinion]

Good for Weldon.

A lot of WMD and dual use materials, which could be used for WMD have already been found and there is more to be found.

We never found out what was in those trucks Saddam sent to Saddam.

[Peach]

You mean the trucks Saddam sent to Syria.

[FairOpinion]

Yes, thanks!

[MaineVoter2002]

Saddam's connection with Al Qaeda trumps the WMD justification.


http://jednet207.tripod.com/PoliticalLinks.html

[GW and Twins Pawpaw]

Rumor has it that we found a LOT of chemical protective suits over there and they weren't ours. Why would they need tens of thousands of chemical protective suits for the manufacture of pesticides?

[MOTR Newbie]

I still feel the war is justified, in part because i think there were WMD that were moved or hidden and in part because I think there were plenty of valid reasons to do this having nothing to do with WMD. In fact, I think it would have been dereliction of duty by Bush not to do it.

However, all this pointing at these old degraded munitions as justification for the war makes Republicans look a bit silly. Though they may technically qualify as WMD, this was not the type of WMD on which the case for the war was made, and we would not have invaded if our real reason was simply these lame shells. These munitions were not a bona fide material threat to US. All this excitement over a few old shells just looks like desparation and detracts from the genuine reasons for the war.

[piytar]

I know a moonbat whose response to this is, "Well, the UN knew about those from the first Gulf War." He conviniently ignores that Saddam had declared that he'd destroyed them after that war.

Moonbats really do disgust me anymore.

[FairOpinion]

Saddam was supposed to account for his WMD, as per the UN resolutions and he refused to do that.

He claimed he destroyed the WMD and this proves that he didn't.

If you had been following any of it, there are also tons of documents showing that he has been working on WMD AND working with Al Qaeda - a lethal combination.

We will never know what catastrophy President Bush may have saved us from, by getting rid of Saddam.

[maine-iac7]

However, all this pointing at these old degraded munitions as justification for the war makes Republicans look a bit silly

Hey "Newbie" did you sign up just to counteract info inconvenient to the dimRats?

Or do you simply still believe anything that gets printed?

Mustard gas and Sarin gas has been found to be lethal for decades - even some from WW1 - experts has so testified.

Are you an expert? Have you seen the canisters in question? Is there a reason you believe the libRats statements over others?

Inquiring minds want to know

[mewzilla]

No offense to Weldon, but we've been at war with Iraq from the first time Iraq violated the CEASE FIRE they signed in '91.

[MOTR Newbie]

"Saddam was supposed to account for his WMD, as per the UN resolutions and he refused to do that. "

I doubt he really even knew or cared about these particular worthless munitions. All the good stuff that he knew or cared about, assuming it existing (and I suspect it did) has been moved or hidden.

"He claimed he destroyed the WMD and this proves that he didn't. "

As a technicality, I suppose that's right. But I don't think he was intentionally lying about these particular worthless pieces of crap. And I think most people understand this, so trying to hang one's hat on this is bad PR for Republicans. It just looks bad. There's a logical reason why the Administration has not tried to make that case.

::If you had been following any of it, there are also tons of documents showing that he has been working on WMD AND working with Al Qaeda - a lethal combination.

That's fine, but it has nothing to do with these old degraded munitions that people keep hyping.

"We will never know what catastrophy President Bush may have saved us from, by getting rid of Saddam."

That's precisely right. And I think my original post made clear that Bush had to do this and that Saddam's continued existance after 9-11 was simply untenable for a host of reasons, whether or not our incompetent intelligence agencies were able to find any convincing evidence of his covert involvement.

[M1Tanker]

This was echoed in a book called "Weapons of Mass Destruction Found" by MAJ Bryan Russell, USAF. I met MAJ Russell and talked at length with him in Battle Creek, Mi during his book signing tour and have shared his book with other soldiers in my unit.

What other officers and soldiers have added to this list reported by MAJ Russell is VERY different from what the MSM and the left pound out daily.

The truth is, I believe we found enough WMDs and banned "dual use" items to contaminate large portions of the US water supply and cities. Add to this the radioactive material found, along with NEW processing tools, and groups could conceivably have contaminated large swaths of land including farms, food processing factories, city streets (imagine someone sprinkling radioactive material in Central Park or in the National Mall in D.C.), malls, or any other high traffic area.

In addition, US troops have been attacked twice with chemical agents in IED form. So not only did Saddam have WMDS, he made provisions to give them to terrorists (Baathis or non-Iraqi terrorists like the now brimstone eating Zarquawi)

Also, remember the failed VX/Sarin gas attack on Amman, Jordan in 2004? If not, don't worry, most of the media never mentioned it. 17+ Tons of Plastic Explosives, VX and Sarin agents (along with several other chemicals) were intercepted crossing the Syrian boarder in Jordan. Sarin is a binary agent. As long as the two components are kept sealed, it will not "deteriorate" as some on the left state. Also, it is not hard to make, as the Tokyo Dooms-Day Cult showed us a decade ago. VX, on the other hand is volatile and doesn't store well in 130deg heat (an average Iraqi summer day). Saddam's Iraq is the only Middle Eastern nation to ever import (from the USSR) or produce VX nerve gas.

The bottom line is, like the Oil for Food fiasco and the fact Saddam's Army was fully re-equiped with tanks during the "Arms embargo" of the 1990s, the WMDs open a Pandora's Box of possibilities on who was dealing with Saddam during the 90s. How dirty are the hands of the French gov't, or the Germans, Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, members of the British Parliament (MP Galloway), US Citizens (Mark Rich), and several dozen other groups????

[MOTR Newbie]

"Hey "Newbie" did you sign up just to counteract info inconvenient to the dimRats?"

You're obviously not reading the full content of my posts or grasping my intent, so I'm not sure this is worth pursuing. But I'll try again. I was, and still am, in favor of this war. I think it is bad PR to try to make a big deal out of these shells at this point. If you want to call me names, or question my intent, there's not much I can do about it.

[Yossarian]

I still feel the war is justified, in part because i think there were WMD that were moved or hidden and in part because I think there were plenty of valid reasons to do this having nothing to do with WMD. In fact, I think it would have been dereliction of duty by Bush not to do it.

I totally agree.

As to the rest, I disagree.

• old degraded munitions

  Mustard gas stays deadly for multiple decades, even over a century, as shown by the French WWI chemical shell experience;

• this was not the type of WMD on which the case for the war was made

  The terms of ending the Gulf War I called for dealing with ALL Iraq's WMDs.

• These munitions were not a bona fide material threat to US.

  Even if the shells themselves were degraded, Saddam certainly did have ties to terrorists - first hand via his dealings with Palestinian bus-bombers, through his sons and their dealings with Zarquawi, and through his ministers and their dealings with Bin Ladin;

• All this excitement over a few old shells just looks like desparation

  The 500, that we are being told about for now certainly is a lot, not a few shells. And what does the age of the shells have to do with their usability for a number of purposes?

This news is a big deal, and is sorely needed backing for those who staked their political careers on supporting the war. After all, would the world be a safer place with the Dems in charge? If not, then those that backed the war need all the facts we can safely provide to bolster their case to the voters, lest the voters elect those who would throw us to the wolves.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Though they may technically qualify as WMD, this was not the type of WMD on which the case for the war was made,

Says who? Please cite the Official List Of Types Of WMD On Which We Are Making The Case For War (Bush et al, 2002).

Oh wait, there is no such list.

These were proscribed items under the relevant UN resolutions. Bush's charge against Saddam in the UN was that he had proscribed items he had not reported or accounted for. That charge is now more than vindicated. Case closed.

More to the point, the "case for war" before Congress did not rest solely on "WMDs", of any type, in the first place. Read the War Powers Declaration.

we would not have invaded if our real reason was simply these lame shells.

Counterfactual nonsense. You have no basis whatsoever on which to sound forth on whether or not we "would have invaded" under this or that circumstance.

Bush said Saddam hadn't been forthright about his banned stock, and these shells ("lame" or not, whatever that's supposed to mean) prove that Bush was entirely correct. There is really nothing else to say.

These munitions were not a bona fide material threat to US.

Who said they were? That's beside the point. These were banned items, he had them, he didn't declare them, he didn't destroy them. Guilty as charged.

All this excitement over a few old shells just looks like desparation and detracts from the genuine reasons for the war.

You're right in a way, because it makes it look as if "WMDs" were the only reason for the war, which is false. However, by implying there's some secret magical list of WMDs that were the "type of WMDs on which the case for war was made", you place yourself among those perpetuating that misunderstanding, not I.

The invasion was not conducted in order to retrieve some WMDs, let alone some special "type" of WMDs which you think these aren't. The invasion was conducted - as invasions typically are - in order to destroy the government of the enemy (in this case, that of Saddam Hussein). Thus the case for war was of the form: the government of Saddam Hussein needs to be destroyed (because of some reasons, one of them being: "it's the type of government that makes/uses WMDs"). The case for war was not of the form: WMDs of such-and-such "type" exist and need to be retrieved, because they're a material threat to us right now. (Except in the carefully-constructed straw-man arguments of Democrats/media.)

Sadly, most Americans are so befuddled and confused by media/Democrat distortions and straw-men that they are unable to make this distinction.

[ikez78]

Great post.
I think we should have an ongoing thread for the trial of those guys on trial in Jordan for that attempted attack.
They were said to be Zarqawi operatives and trained in WMD in 2002.

[Tribune7]

ping

[digger48]

I guess we can go ahead and build a soccer field next to the old VX cannisters we have stored in west-central Indiana then. They're old...harmless now....

[NonValueAdded]

bump

[GOP_1900AD]

How much of the actual chemical compound used in these munitons was shared with other countries and with terrorist groups? This is serious sh#$!