Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq (Faux)

WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "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."...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Life goes on.

Redstone

Now that he won't be indicted, this piece of shit and his minions, like Santorum, are out there peddling this sad bullshit as the 2006 midterm elections approach.

This is sad. But what we should see now is an UNEQUIVOCAL, STRONG REBUTTAL FROM DEMOCRATS, at unison, calling them on their bullshit.

Where are the nukes, Santorum? Where are the nukes that Condi hinted Saddam was gonna use on our cities? Where are the nukes Cheney and Bush claimed Saddam built with alleged "yellow cake uranium" from Africa? Where are thy, motherfuckers, where?

Democrats and sane people alike with a sense of decency should flood the media with a STRONG RESPONSE against this latest attempt to bullshit and rewrite history.






----------------------------------------

But I remember when you still had positive energy towards our situation. I was there with you. Now...It's all so sad. So incredibly sad.

nation dugged up the dumpsites.

blah blah blah

they couldve been moved, they couldve been destroyed, they couldve been buried in the damn desert. Who knows.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1481756

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

enjoy your short stay

Darklord was pathetic. On the other hand, he managed to post a lot before he got sent to hades.

late at nite

when there are fewer Mods around

Gotta hand it to him. It's more than most trolls get off before they're tombstoned.

Even mods need sleep. :-)

But, but....Sec. Rumsfeld said we KNEW they were in the area of Tikrit!

Oh, and Vice-President Cheney (pronounced "Cheeney", according to the esteemed Mr. Matthews) said they were only 45 minutes away from hitting us!

Which is it? Tikrit, buried, on their way, ...?

OR MADE UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH?

yeah, i suppose it could.

but strangely, with them thar satellites, if i'm sunbathing on my back in my speedos, the government can tell if i'm gentile or jewish.

but we apparently didn't see a damn thing when they moved those wmds all over iraq (and into syria) in an attempt to hide them from us.

:shrug:

and Bin Laden is waiting in a freezer....

waiting in a freezer until such time as the Junta really needs a boost.

next to the SOS pads?

It's over Rickhead, you lost.

claiming that it's true because they heard it on Faux news.

He say they'll find some yet. Just be patient, sez he.

Maybe in Hussein's outhouse.

Haliburton was discovered to have gone into Iran to help them bring up their nuclear capabilities. This was right after the study was done that said they were 10-20 years away from nuclear capability.

Nice of Haliburton to help an enemy that way. Don't they still call that treason? Aiding and abbetting the enemy?

Do you mean to tell me with all the embedded reporters, iraqi citizens, and everyone else, the military managed to cart in 500 dead warheads without anyone noticing? You give em too much credit.

DOD is perfectly comfortable with lying their asses off usually... so if THEY are distancing themselves from Santorum... he is totally full of shit.

I don't know if I am giving them too much credit...

8.8 Billion Dollars of American Tax Dollars wandered into Iraq and got lost.

2500 caskets came in... who says they were empty to start with?

Granted, this administration is better at covering things up and hiding the truth than actually planting evidence... oh wait, there was that one little forgery about the yellowcake...

where were these munitions before now? Not to mention OBL.

MORE to the point: WHY was SANTORUM, in a C-Span moment, given the honor of announcing this retroactive raison d'etre, as opposed to GEORGE BUSH IN PRIME TIME???

YOU IDIOT, you pathetic GULL and DUPE.

The forever gullible will eat this shit up. Even after it's been demonstrated what pure crap this is, they'll continue to repeat it.

I bet Geraldo gave him the combination! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Faux is on full PRAVDA overload mode right now.

I'm impressed! They were able to keep this super-duper secret under wraps until 2006,
which just happens to be an election year.

Go figure.

In three years they have uncovered bits and pieces from labs that were non-functional (if my memory serves) but this was tied to the stories of mid to long range capable delivery units.

In other words, yes, there was evidence that Saadam had labs that had worked with nerve agents etc... but he had no system to use them in a war capable way on anyone but his own people and nearest neighbors.

Grasping for a defense of Bush
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410270010

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410270010

<snip>

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) refers to the definition established by the United Nations Security Council in the context of UN Security Council Resolution 687 (1991)." Security Council Resolution 687, in turn, defines WMD in terms of three separate international treaties: the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention. None of these treaties appears to forbid high explosives.

Moreover, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) publicly reported Iraq's possession of HMX before the war. If such a claim were remotely credible, it's reasonable to assume that the Bush administration would have used such explosives to make the case that Iraqi WMD posed an "urgent threat."

Alas, Republicans (who control Congress, the Executive, and Judicial branches of govt) do not. Let us pray they become so enlightened...and switch parties to boot. Commonsense needs all the help it can get right now.

Then the Iraqis would bring out the "Baby Milk Factory" sign and whine and cry while we roll our eyes again. Seriously, for a tiny fraction of what the war is costing us, we could have kept a tight lid on Iraq until Saddam Hussein died of Castro's Disease (extreme old age).

orum speek. and sure enough. it is Foxy tube!

"categorically UNtrue' says Santorium--that SH had no wmd. He came on like a cooky crook--with NEW just UNclassied information. Said he asked for this 2 and half months ago! But just in the nick of time he had to when it came time for him to speak on the Iraqi resolution. In the second thread below, it says that Keith Olberman (Newsweek reporter) just debunked it.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1479277

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1479297&mesg_id=1479934

Wed Jun-21-06 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
20. here is Santorum's nice WMD try
The following are the six key points contained in the unclassified overview:

• 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.

http://santorum.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...

in other words : NOTHING

BECAUSE the situation in IRAQ is so volatile with the US troops there and the terrorists having free run of the place... IF there are chemical weapons that WE don't have control over that get into the hands of people willing to blow up another plane to deliver it...

There COULD be problems.

However, this situation IS CAUSED BY the US interference in the UN Inspections process which was doing a good job keeping Iraq's weapons labs small and on the move.


We can't turn the clock back... but an administration with it's head firmly planted in it's collective ass is in no way capable of defending US in this situation anyway.

More than likely they know exactly which terrorist groups have any black market chemical weapons because they took their cut already.

The freepers were really rejoicing.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1653342/posts

>>This is bigger than you realize.

>>Well, I'm sure the DNC will need to pretend these are no big deal. But the truth is it shows that many of them have lied when they say Bush lied because many of them new these items had been found. So they've demogagued this issue to death. And now, the MSM will help conceal the essential truth of Bush's pre-war statements.

>>Any comment about this from Pelosi yet? She must be choking on her own tongue.

But this is what the article from Fox says:



These are *old* munitions! It will be so funny to see the press hit Santorum over the head. Likewise, it will be funny to see the freepers run with this and look foolish in the end.

Reports of "degraded" chemical weapons were around during 2003/04.

This is just the same damn story presented differently.

Oh yes, it's 2006, a few months before an election.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

I'm surprised Fox even printed that part. It sounds like that Defense Department Official hates America!

:sarcasm:

I love explaining to my co-workers that the document the "British" decided was proof positive was the same one Joe Wilson debunked.

I tell them in simple terms:

It's like you have a $20 bill from 1970 and the signature of the treasurer is the person who had the job in 1950, not 1970, an obvious fake to anyone with the correct information.

So the British take the SAME document/bill and say, "Looks good to me. Let's go to war." If it's the SAME document, nothing has changed and there were NO OTHER NEW PIECES of EVIDENCE that confirmed it... only unsubstantiated leads from an untrustworthy source in Saadam's own rank and file.

......."This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."

Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

Offering

They start out with "We have found the WMD" Santorum line, then basically refute it in the middle, just to bring it back for the big finale - "The Dems claiming NO WMD were wrong!" :eyes: Geez, and right after that great Frontline program last night. Did Tony Snowjob write this one?

Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Then it hints that the UN Inspections must have sucked, before it lays down the big DoD LIE

He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.

Heck to Santorum, anything that goes "boom" is a WMD.

These kinds of chemicals don't come from a lab in the desert. SOMEONE had to sell them the raw materials.

Right, Rumsfeld?

day with this report now on Hannity and Colmes. Asshole Hannity is saying that now he is waiting for the Democrats to apologize.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

POINT. recall when WH changed the language to 'program"?

....The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

if the weapons themselves were not in a usable condition- and I for one would like to know exactly how degreded they were, and how long it would take to get that degraded- then the weapons DON'T COUNT with regards to what were the stated reasons for the Iraq war.

At least, I don't count them among that number.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Not surprising that this 'news' is being prsented by Faux at this time. Should help Bush's cause. Possibly weapons that were disposed off by UN requirement?

with this announcement a while ago.

He will have his own; that headline is already written.

Sure. Okay. And tanks with flowers on them. Let's come home now.

Degraded Sarin. Lovely. According to Wikipedia, the insurgents are using it against soldiers:

"2004: May 14 Iraqi insurgency fighters in Iraq detonate a 155 mm shell containing several litres of binary precursors for sarin. The shell is designed to mix the chemicals as it spins during flight. The detonated shell releases only a small amount of sarin gas, either because the explosion failed to mix the binary agents properly or because the chemicals inside the shell had degraded significantly with age. Two United States soldiers are treated for exposure after displaying the early symptoms."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

Hey and when they come home with unexplainable symptoms, or develop inexplicable cancers, the budget cuts are ready! Support our troops! Until they get home and need medical coverage.

And the most likely explanation was that the insurgents had no idea what kind of shell they had. It also didn't work. The UN teams cataloged and controlled a set of munitions dumps where various left over chem shells from the Iran-Iraq war were dumped. These shells, as the DOD report makes clear, were all too old to be useful and were a nuisance and a moderate hazard, not dangerous WMD.

...is not that this deranged man can stand up in the Senate and spout utter bullshit, but that a supposed news journalism organization simply wrote it down like stenographers and reported the substance of Santorum's ranting as thougth it was news.

...is the fact that our politicians can not be legally punished for lying.

Surely lies in support of furthering a war that costs billions (ultimately $2 trillion, if you accept the Stiglitz model) along with thousands of lives and many more thousands maimed rise to a level so injurious to the nation that they require not merely censure but legal prosecution.

We will put away a poor person for smoking crack or stealing a TV set. War criminals are worse for America than every poor crackhead or thief put together.

His mendacity and ability to create his own convenient reality out of thin air are astonishing.






----------------------------------------

Hysterical! This old news, manafactured, has the freepers all abuz:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1653397/posts?q=1&&page=51

>>I was listening to FOX and a former military general (I think) said yep there are these 500, plus we have hours of tapes with Saddam talking about WMD and planning to create nukes.

>>In addition, he said the reason the President and others in the government haven't gotten into the defense of WMD were that Russia, France and China where the ones who helped Iraq move a whole bunch to Syria and had helped Iraq both get these things and then dispose of them.
Because Russia and others are helping now, this general said the President did not want to EMBARRASS them.

>>No words on the issue though of why we didn't sent special ops into Syria to get the WMD from Iraq.

***

>>"Santorum better be careful. Those could easily be old chemical warheads left over from the Iran Iraq war. Most likely not very lethal anymore and of no value as weapons."

>>There was never a manufactured by date on the weapons. It was incumbent on Saddam that per the UN resolutions, he document all WMD. Saddam didn't, which was reported by the UN investigation team, which is one of the reasons we went in to Iraq.

>>The Dates are irrelevant, although the left will use that.

***

>>This is solid proof that Saddam had weapons that he did not destroy after 1991 as he was supposed to have done as a condition of peace. How old they are or even if they are useable now are beside the point.

>>This won't appease the "Bush lied" gaggle of fools, of course, who will simply keep moving the goalposts. But clearly Saddam was in contravention of the UN resolutions that formed Bush's case for intervention. Nor is this dismissable as merely an odd forgotten round; 500 projectiles is a considerable stash.

>>The thing will be buried, of course


***

>>Well, they've demogagued this issue for a long time. They've slandered the President again and again. They've lied about the things they themselves had previously said about Saddam, and yet the MSM let's them get away.

So, 500 shells of useless chemical munitions are worth the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Nice.

>>So, 500 shells of useless chemical munitions are worth the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

More to the point, it is almost certain Saddam had no idea these existed. The Deufler (sp?) stated that Saddam had in fact destoryed all of his WMDs. There is absolute agreement on this point. If Saddam had not destroyed the weapons, you would not have found just 500 old shells, which is about the same as finding 2 pistols. You would have found stockpiles all over Iraq. These shells were simply forgotten about.

So the feeper point that Saddam was in violation of the UN resolutions is wrong, and will be treated that way by the press.

Faux news propaganda BS.

Aren't you embarrassed>

Truly mindbending, if you ask me.







----------------------------------

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Hope you had a good time in your short stay at DU.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

J'espère que vous avez apprécié votre visite

embarrassed.

They ping pong it from their shills in congress to their shills in the media and report it as "fact". Yawn.

Standard operating procedure, by the book. The word goes out and the Mighty Wurlitzer™ squeaks into action.

Santorum's intelligence allegedly comes from the National Ground Intelligence Center.

Before the war, the intelligence agencies debated whether aluminum tubes sought by Iraq were for uranium enrichment centrifuges or for rocket bodies. The National Ground Intelligence Center's position was, "These tubes were poor choices for rocket motor bodies." It turned out that the tubes were for rocket motor bodies, and were well suited to that purpose.

Why--because they weren't deployable with 45 minutes? Or because it proves they made the whole thing up?

Also, why is this coming from Rick Santorum rather than Bush himself? If it's "official" there should be a problem attaching the officials' name to it...

:evilgrin:
rocknation

it isn't worth the time an effort to refute..its just more crap..any american could turn frontline on and hear David Kay say it was all lies and bullshit..

guess rick missed the show eh????????

lol....does it get more stupid than this?

or do those who could possibly believe this bullshit get any more stupid????????

fly

:crazy:

Will we need a new commission to re-prove everything?

This will be the ammunition all freepers will spout. The intelligence level of the average Bush voter is so low, I think trout have higher IQ's. At this point, one must laugh to stay sane. New lows are discovered every day around here.

But we know. Blix knows. Ritter knows.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you're still believing the lies of the crooked thieves who are running this country into the ground. they keep blaming the liberals for everything that's wrong with this country and people on "your side" keep licking it up.

Why don't you try and use what's left of that gently stewed stalk of rhubarb you use for a brain and justify everything Bush and his cabal have done.

I'd love to see how you do.

Start with the War, you pathetic half-wit.

I fucking dare you.

DEFEND THEM.

Sarin and mustard gas have a shelf life. After a number of months, they lose whatever properties they're supposed to have.

They may be poisonous, to be sure, but not militarily usable as a weapon.

If they can show that these chemicals were in the active state before or during the time of the invasion, then they might have something.

Let's see a study.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Republican lawmakers say munitions may prove Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

CAPITOL HILL Two Republicans lawmakers who insist Iraq may have had weapons of mass destruction are pointing to a newly declassified report.

The document says coalition forces have found 500 munitions in Iraq that contained degraded sarin or mustard nerve agents, produced before the 1991 Gulf War.

Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Congressman Peter Hoekstra of Michigan cited the report in an attempt to counter criticism by Democrats who say the decision to go to war was a mistake.

But a defense official says the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age. And Democrats say a report from the top U-S weapons inspector contemplated that such weapons would be found.

http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=5063004&nav=5kZQ

the fact that it isn't being picked up by all of the other news sources speaks volumes.

500 degraded weapons is not a sign of "mobile chemical labs" or an "aggressive WMD program." The UN et. al. knew that Hussein had chemical weapons before the first gulf war. In a country that size, it's like finding some change under the cushions of one's couch.

Plus, Santorum is one of the biggest douchebags to walk the halls of our government in history.


:)

I knew the media would laugh at this claim. But just go to feeperville, where the posters are just so convinced they found the smoking gun.

I wish the media had picked up the story. I would love to have a debate about the missing WMDs, and I'm sure that is the last thing the Bush admin wants.

More like a rusted gun from the Austro-Hungarian war!

I think that this summer is gonna' be no holds barred with the BS from these people.

Be ready!

:)

Right ... and these were NOT planted ... sure
So when did you say I needed to make that downpayment
on the bridge you were selling ????

No! Stop being so paranoid and conspiratorial. Read the article. The munitions are *old,* and the defense department claimed they were not WMDs and not the reason we went to war.

They'd have planted something newer and more dangerous. Our country probably has a lot more than 500 shells of ancient, aging, degrading stuff lying around that were forgotten about. It's really not the victory that republicans think it is.

How about TODAY, in order to turn attention from the CIVIL WAR, you war-loving, gay-hating, about to lose your goddamned ELECTION Mutha F'er!!


Wow, this really has me pissed. 80 people kidnapped, two US soldiers mutilated beyond recognition and this asswipe makes this claim NOW?????

Surely, it's a coincidence... :eyes:

And by the way, there could very well be WMD in Iraq now- the borders have been wide open since the invasion. For a politician to claim WMD's have been there AND FOUND for several years JUST TO SAVE HIS ASS is not only appalling, it's downright treasonous.

:scared: :scared: :scared:

...just a coincidence, mind you.

Tuesday, PBS Frontline's expose' of Cheney's OSP/PNAC lies and deception.
Wednesday, Santorum bullshits, and Faux goes into full echo whore mode.

By the way, weren't there two investigations done, with reports issued, saying the WMD claims were bogus?

Then again the Ministry of Truth wouldn't try to lead us astray, would they? :grr:

An attempt to steal some spotlight?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

SO FUCKING PRODUCE THEM!

I want to see these WMDs.

Also from the article:

"The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s."

I guess the writer forgot to add "or 2003."

d1

They've had all the time in the world to plant whatever they wanted anyplace they wanted. And I sure as hell wouldn't put it past them. The whole damn Boosh administration has spent the last five years proving themselves to be a pack of thieves and liars.

Holy Koresh!

They might have taken out a city like Wenatchee, WA!

Of course that would be after the Iraqi army had gained a foothold in the mainland US and set up mortars.

Just how many shovels of bullshit can America take?

>>They might have taken out a city like Wenatchee

The weapons were defunct, so they couldn't harm a person as much as a random machine gun attack.

Besides, I've heard it asserted again and again that sarin shells are a military field weapon, not a WMD. And they are a very ineffective weapon at that.

Ask The Darklord. He seems to have swallowed an entire truckload.

GOP is getting desperate if they are pulling that velour rabbit out of a hat.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

>>so i suppose the possibility that these were real, were bought by saddam, and were able to be used against us doesn't exist right?

There is no possibility. According to our own Pentagon, the shells are defunct pre 1991 shells. So it is impossible that they would have been used against us, unless you think Saddam is a magician.

You didn't trust em when they said he had em but you do now when they disprove these? How do you know they're not lying now?

:shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

about trusting the powers that be on this one, vs not trusting them before is a very good point. I don't trust them ever...so...I guess you can see where I'm coming from here.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You're not seriously that dumb?

You take the view that these "scientists" funded by think tanks dripping with oil money count for something? All the article does is toss insults.

If that's the best you've got you're hurtin'

how come you trust gores scientists but not theirs? You only just trust scientists on silver screens?

and "Gore's scientists" outnumber the liars 1000 - 1.

You know what you are. You've made global warming a partisan issue. Someday you'll have to look in the mirror and come to terms with your willful deceit.

How do you know? Have you spoken personally with every scientist on both sides?

What I am is what I choose ot be at any given moment. And I look in the mirror everyday and you know what? I like what I see.

It's freely available.
How many distinct "scientists" are in your article? Three? Have you looked them up, found out what they're about? No, of course not.

I know you don't like what you see in the mirror. Nobody likes being a liar.

attack the scientists? Why not refute the information? convert me to your way of thinking?

Demonstrating what they are is all that's needed. Considering that all they can do is attack Gore, what more would you expect.

Convert you? No. Truth is a choice, a choice you reject. You have nothing left in the world, so you have nothing to offer.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Gore doesn't hire scientists.

Your life is a circle of lies. Are you suicidal?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thin out the herd a bit, wouldn't bother me in the SLIGHTEST.

(Nice ripostes, btw!)

is someone to take the side of the oil companies. God only knows that they are so put upon.

they supply gas for your car, for the trucks that ship your food, and for the planes that move your leaders, I'd protect em.

That's the part faux-watchers don't understand. They have one and all been hoodwinked into thinking "there are two sides to every story." What completely passes them by is the fact that one side can indeed be a web of lies.

If I look at a donkey and you insist it's a horse, when you very well know better, it's still a donkey. There aren't "two sides to the story", apart from you knowingly lying about the animal's species.

Faux divides America by intentionally telling partisan lies for political purposes. They even went to court once to defend that "right". Never ever trust faux without delving into the details of their stories. They are the American Pravda.

You're not the only one who can toss out challenges.
You must be one of those "truthiness" fans; you know, the ones who wonder why they don't read of all the "good things" happening in Iraq that they just KNOW are there, even if they NEVER READ or HEAR of any.

Harris works for the High Park Group, a consulting firm that deals with energy issues and whose clients include the Canadian Electricity Association.

duh.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's a compilation of insults and attacks to the serious scientific community.
It uses pseudo-facts and "exceptions to the rule" that have been tritely overused by pseudo-scientists working for the oil industry.
Doesn't use any serious or peer-reviewed data, only propaganda at the service of the oil industry.

FYI, there's a huge difference between a peer-reviewed thesis and the wild wankerings of a lone scientist working at the service of Exxon. Obviously, you prefer the later.

:spray:






----------------------------------

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

See realclimate.org

There are real sceintists there and they gave a very high review of Gore's movie. I tend to believe real scientist, especially when 90 percent of the nobel-prize winning scientist believe global warming is real.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

>>No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Your hype about facts is silly. Here is another quote from your article:

>>Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

But in fact, the scientist at realclimate.org think quite differently. They don't think he is an embarassment, so the article is full of trash talk.

Sorry, but as I already posted, virtually every scientist who studies climatology believes global warming is real. Did you even look at the link I provided?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Because they are real scientists who talk very technically and who don't agree with what you said? I looked at your link and it contained silly attacks on Gore, not on the specifics of his argument.

If you feel so strongly that CO2 does not cause global warming, then please go to realclimate.org and debate them there. I doubt you'll come out on top.

CO2 causes global warming. however, we as a species dont produce enough to affect global tempatures. The Earths orbit changes over time. Many scientists believe this is a natural warming cycle the earth has been going through since....ever. There are also cooling cycles.

>>however, we as a species dont produce enough to affect global tempatures

But earlier you state:

>>And no I know jack about climatology and dont claim to do so.

But the world's leading scientist believe global warming is real. So I am supposed to believe a blogger who admits he knows nothing over virtaully every scientist?

Even, as you guys claim I am, and Idiot like me can get that a bunch of factories cant possibly equate with the CO2 outputs from something like Kroakatoa or however the hell you spell it or Mt. St. Helens. Or, sicne you guys get facts from movies, Dantes Peak.

If you read realclimage.org, you would know that the myth that vocanoes produce more CO2 than factories is just that, a myth. I think you are really mixing up science with poor reasoning. You can't state something like "even I can see with my own two eyes..." That's not how science works. If it worked that way, we would be still in the medieval ages, when they thought that a heavy object fell to earth faster than a lighter one because it just made common sense.

And again, why should I believe a blogger who admits he knows nothing over virtually every scientist in the world?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

>>I dont blog. losers in need of social acceptance blog.

Then what are you doing right now? And asking serious question on a highly technical site is hardly showing you need social acceptance.

>>realclimate.org is as much a joke as moveon.org. I trust sites from organizations who do raw research. Not research "summaries".

You are just evading because you are wrong. Further, if you only trust sites that do thier own raw research (a ridiculous standard, since it would disqualifity almost every site on the subject), why did you link to an article that featured scientists who did not quote raw research?

You attack scientists when I present facts.

When I'm getting you in a corner you spit conspiracy theories.

You blame everyone for every inaccuracy on earth without dealing with the facts. If you cant present arguments to facts stop talking to me.

>>You attack scientists when I present facts

You haven't presented any facts yet. You only admitted you know nothing about climate.

>>When I'm getting you in a corner you spit conspiracy theories.

What conspiracy theories? I am quoting the consensus view of scientists. Global warming is a fact.


>>You blame everyone for every inaccuracy on earth without dealing with the facts. If you cant present arguments to facts stop talking to me.

This doesn't even make sense.

Again, why should I believe a blogger who admitted he knows nothing about the climate instead of virtually every scientist on earth? Would you?

I'm not a fucking blogger. Get it straight please.

Furthermore, there is no evidence tostate warming and cooling cycles haven't been going on since before the first microorganism was created.

I couldn't care less what you call yourself.

>>there is no evidence tostate warming and cooling cycles haven't been going on since before the first microorganism was created.

Yes, you are correct, but that is a different arguemnt. Scientists are claiming that CO2 is making the earth warmer than it would be without C02, and that that will lead to catastophic results. That is the consensus of virtually every scientist who studies climatology. Really, rather than having this debate with me, go to realclimate.org and debate there. You will get very specific answers to you questions or objections, such as the one about volcanoes.

And again, why should I beleive you who admits to knowing nothing over virtually every sceintist?

CO2 is making it warmer. but saying its going to cause a catastrophe is like claiming an ounce of poion in the Mediterranian will wipe out all life in the ocean.

Ça ne fait rien

>>CO2 is making it warmer. but saying its going to cause a catastrophe is like claiming an ounce of poion in the Mediterranian will wipe out all life in the ocean.

No, it's like saying CO2 will continue to make earth warmer which will melt the glaciers and further make things warmer and disrupt the fragile ecosystem.

As I said before in many of the posts that got deleted, is there any reason I should believe you, who admitted to knowing nothing about the subject, over virtually every single scientist on earth?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and your beach-front property is well-insured.
If you have offspring, I hope you can live with your pseudo-science.

As for "many scientists" agreeing with you: money talks to some in that community just like any other.

Please, educate yourself on the facts. Just ask yourself privately, what do you really know about the science behind Al Gore's efforts? Very little I'd suspect. You could use your energy and intellect to forward the good causes of the world. Taking care of folks...being tolerant..less selfish..more educated and well informed. I hope you'll come to see this. I'll help you out if you need it, but you can't just be making irrational statements without any support for your accusations. That's not the way it works here or anywhere else....except in the present administration of the US and THAT would be an abomination to the founding fathers and mothers.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There isn't a soul out there these days that isn't polarized by politics. That is to say, I believe NoOne has a personal opinion that isn't influenced by their political beliefs. Not Gore...not anyone else.

But here is the question:
What are their politics based upon?

Those of us here that trust a man like Al Gore, do so because his concerns are selfless. This man is working to help us all understand how to save our planet so that we and our children can have the kind of life we hope to have. On Earth. Not in a plastic bubble or in a respirator.

A man like Gore has ideals that work for the betterment of all people, NOT just those who can afford to buy politicians. There is no percentage in buying an environmentalist...that's why we trust him.

You have to see the corruption and lies of this administration. Tax cuts for the wealthiest...hell, these men are in the oil and defense industries, and while the Dow Jones index fell after 9/11, those stocks rose exponentially..

Are you following me here?

Follow the money...and there you will find the corruption and lies.

Take a while to think about it. I know you care, otherwise, you wouldn't even be here.

Who paid gores scientists? Who was making a movie?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Trust who?

There is universal agreement that there are no WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam had no program and no stockpile. Read the Duelfer (sp?) report. We now occupy Iraq and can look in every nook and cranny We interviewed hundrends if not thousands of Iraqis who would now, and their story all led to one conclusion: no WMD, no WMD program. In order for there to be WMD, there would have to be a conspiracy involving so many people and so many agencies it would be impossible.And it wasn't just the testimony of humans, but the lack of any evidence of labs and other weapon-making facilities.

The document that Santorum has is 2 years old. Do you seriosly think that the Bush administration would have been unaware of WMDs in Iraq? Do you realize how ludicrous your claim is?

I was just at Freeperville, by the way, and I am really laughing hard at their increduality. I really hope they try to make this an issue. I would love to see the non-existent WMDs become an issue in election year. I am sure the Republicans would not.

While they may not be threatening in their current state, they are, undeniably, WMDs. And a quick sheell swap and they would be lethal again.

It is as simple as that. WMD are weapons of mass destruction, weapons meant that can cause mass destruction. These were defunct, unknown by Saddam, and to quote the Pentagaon, "Not the reason we went to war."

Do you have any facts to believe these are really WMDs?

The word warheads speaks volumes to me. Warheads are generally defined as weapons, though there are those that are delicious candy...

Anyway, how do you know he didn't know about them? I suppose he said he had no idea of their existence. Sorry, I dont trust a dictator who uses gas on his own people. Call me provincial.

>>The word warheads speaks volumes to me

No. The argument is not about weapons, but weapons of mass destructions. Are you suggesting that we went to war not because of dangerous WMDs but because of defunct sarin shells?


>>Anyway, how do you know he didn't know about them?

Becaue if they were really WMDs he was trying to conceal, the Bush admin and the Duelfer report would have told us this. It is not Saddam I am trusting, but the mass of evidence from observers on the gound.

Moreover, undercover CIA officials (I think?) interviewed the upper escelons of Saddam's circle after the war. The people they interviewed did not know the identy of the CIA personal. What came out was that they all frankly admitted Saddam had no WDMs. This was revealed in a *New York Times* article.

Do you have any facts to back up your assertion that these are live WMDs, that Saddam knew about them and that they constitute a pattern of Saddam's concealing WMDs? If you do, please let the Bush amin know, because they have said flat out that Saddam has no WMDs and no WMD program.

I'm not shifting any targets I'm saying that the man can't be trusted.

I dont read the new York Times. They have a severe case of foot in mouth syndrome.

They aren't Live. I know that (and said it like 6 times...).

I provided a lot of material to prove my case, including the words of the Bush admin and the Duelfer report itself. Yes, you shifted the target. I pointed out the sarin shells are not WMDs and you pointed out they were weapons. I'm sorry that you don't read the NY Times; that's not my problem. I have no idea what you mean by foot in mouth. As with your debate on globalwarming, you feel a need to attack the messanger when the facts don't agree with your idealogy.

Again, do you have any proof that these shells are live, that they were produced in violations of the UN Sanctions, and that Saddam knew about them? The Pentagon clearly thinks he did not, and the Duelfer report agrees with me, as does the NY Times article.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No you are name calling? Good grief! And you call me a moron yet you never heard of the Duelfer report? That was the name of the report that was done by the Bush admin to determine the whereabouts of the WMDs in Iraq.

And like I said before, I am sorry that you don't read the *NY Times.* That's not my problem. It was a factual article.

Right-Left.

Up-Down.

NY Times-facts.

In other words, you have no coherent argument. Why should anyone on this blog take you seriously?

But please, I hope the WMD issue does come up again. I would love to see it debated.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You haven't answered any of my arguments. Making generalization about this forum won't change that.

>>This forum is a collection of like minded people who pat each other on the back. If you want real debate go to www.theamericanright.com.

If you are an example of the type of debate, I doubt it. When we cite sources, you present a moving target and then just dismiss the source. Notice how I actually read the Fox news article about the supposed WMDs? I just didn't say "Oh Fox news, up is down, right is left, truth is lies."

Since you haven't presented a coherent argument here, why should I go to theamericanright.com?

I'm not much in the debate section of that site. I'm more the guy who make sjokes and puns. but I have my moments.

And you should because both sides of poltiics are there, not just the left.

Calling it a warhead and confirming that it's a real weapon are two separate issues.

Who gets to call it a weapon? Santorum?

Santorum wouldnt know his ass form his elbow.

And actually I love cats, I have 3. But they are rather dangerous. Claws and all.

Still waiting for some facts to show:

1.The sarin shells were live WMDs

2. That Saddam knew about them

3. That they showed Saddam was violating UN resoltions.

If you can't show any of these things, then the Santorum media even was just a PR stunt. They aren't WMDs as Santorum claimed. They don't change anything about the debate over the non-existent WMDs in Iraq.

1. They weren't. I'm not saying this again so please make sure you get it this time.

2. Unless you can hack minds we'll never know for sure.

3. The man gassed his own people. If that isn't a violation of UN resolutions then the UN is even more useless than I thought.

If (1) isn't ture, then the sarin shells are not WMDs. Then not a single WMD has been found in Iraq. That means Santrum is wrong and there is nothing new added to the debate

As far as (2) is concerned, I don't have to hack minds. It would be easy to establish if the sarin shells were part of an active chache or a forgotten chache. Since the Duelfer report never mentioned any active caches, it is safe to say that Saddam did not know about them. Furhter, since they weren't active, it would be silly to say that Saddam kept them around, knowing the UN inspectors could find them, but also knowing they did him no good.

Point (3) is a silly evasion. No one is debatting that Saddam gassed his people. That is not the arugment Santorum is making. He is stating that WMDs were found. They weren't.

Santorum IS wrong. What I'm saying is these are evidence that he has access to WMDs at any time. Or at least he HAD.

>>Santorum IS wrong. What I'm saying is these are evidence that he has access to WMDs at any time. Or at least he HAD.

This is the first time you have brought up this argument. And according to all the evidence, after 96, Saddam had no WMDs and no WMDs program. That is according to all the facts.

Say someone commits murder. just because the cops cant find the evidence to convixct him doesnt change the fact that he did it. Lack of evidence is not exauneration.

>>Lack of evidence is not exauneration.

Unless you want to start running the world by crazy standards, yes it is. Othewise, I can accuse you of killing someone, and when you say there is no evidence, I can simply say "Well, that doesn't mean you didn't do it."

Further, as I stated before in an earlier post that there is tons of evidence that proves Saddam had no WMDs. I'm not going to repeat what I already posted about the interviews, the Duelfer report and physical evidence. So this isn't a case of lack of evidence, but a case of an abundance of evidence.

An interesting mix of pragmatism and sheer ignorance.

>>The word warheads speaks volumes to me.

I'm sure it does to you. But to anyone who read the Fox report, it means nothing, because Santorum claims he found "shells" not warheads.

>>And a quick sheell swap and they would be lethal again.

No. According to a BBC report from 2 or so years ago when the shells were found, 400 of the shells were in the bottom of a river. No shell swap would make them leathal. Even the ones kept by villagers--not by Saddam's army--were "useless." I don't know what you mean by "shell swap." Do you mean swap a good shell for a bad one? That would be a silly argument. Saddamn didn't have any good ones, and proving something non-existent is like proving Santa Clause exists because of the Easter Bunny.

If you admit they are not live, then they cannot be WMDs. It is that simple. This is exactly why the Pentagon dismissed the Santorum report.

And we've been known to use them, and to attack and invade a sovereign nation that hadn't attacked us.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Typical falsehoods.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3407853.stm

than they really are.

Since those are obviously fossil weapons.

and a 1/48 scale pilot at the controls.

what would have been the chances he would have ever used it we hadn't?

These guys are all certifiable.

And I hate the manipulators who are trying to prevent Americans from making informed decisions.

I have been HORRIFIED listening to some of the people who have called into Air america, and various other Media Outlets.

My friends, this is getting scary.

There is a portion of our population who is willing to grasp onto ANYTHING to help them rationalize what has been done.

I have gone beyond fearing for my country. I have become afraid OF my country and my fellow countrymen.

I simply do not know what to do with these people who no longer have the ability to foment reason or logic of any kind.

Last night I heard rage in Malloy's voice that was borderlining on the psychotic when one of these freaks called his show, but that is what is happening to many of us. Things have gotten so bad that whenever I come across one of these lost, completely useless people I get so enraged I simply lose it. I can no longer maintain civillity with them, and it scares me.

God help me, I am NOT a violent person. I never knew I was capable of such hate, such bile. It shames me.

But dear God, HOW do you reach those who not only don't want to be reached, they are willing to be destroyed and TAKE YOU WITH THEM in order to keep believing, fomenting and LIVING the lie?

What do we do?

"they are willing to be destroyed and TAKE YOU WITH THEM in order to keep believing, fomenting and LIVING the lie?"

No, the same bunch who swallow this whole plan on
LEAVING US BEHIND (TM).

They believe in absurdities.
It's WHO they are.

At least Santorum believes in recycling!

now does not even pretend to be producing journalism. They know exactly what santorum did: he lied, and they are reporting his lies as news. All pretense has been dropped. It is the full court press from here to November, they will stop at nothing.

Consider that a Democratic chamber will have full subpoena power. Consider that the cabal has committed numerous crimes, some of them very likely treasonous, many that should warrant long terms in federal prison. How can they possibly allow a defeat?

Paris Hilton calls herself releasing a music album :eyes: Like I really care for either one of thiese pieces of shit!

for maybe getting a story wrong, but ol' Man on Dog Santorum pulls a factoid out of his ass and it's gospel for Faux? What journalistic integrity these folks have. Not!

"The truth shall set you free" not yet I guess.................

ESPECIALLY as he was testy over in Europe, telling Europeans they just didn't "get it", in so many words.

PUH-LEEZE. Even Little Rickety could barely spew his crap with a straight face; he was stuttering and stammering all over the place.

the bud. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/dod-disavows-santorum/. :spank:

Just before 8 am EDT the Fox group was yelling about this. Then at the top of the hour 8EDT, it was not mentioned.

New memo came down apparently. (Someone called Rove and he told them how such a lame example would backfire and make them look ridiculous.")

I guess their net work was chastised about this ding bat reporting of brainless Ricky

The idiot crooks are lying and getting away with it.

Who's going to stop them? Nobody.

Their inbred base will probably bring the failure and thiefs ratings up now.