posted on May 3, 2007 12:38:13 PM new
That's right Linda. The Demomorons would rather cry and surrender instead of finding the real truth. Facts are Saddam did have WMD. The question remains, where did they go.
One has to wonder now that Al-Queda has now been linked to Saddam, if Saddam moved many of his WMD's to the Al-Queda opperative.
.
.
.
If it's called common sense, why do so few Demomorons have it?
To sink so low and use the troops and lie about them finding weapons of mass destruction just to continue your propaganda is despicable and anti-American, Linda_K.
Linda, those quotes are well documented and have NOT been dismissed by factcheck.
The quotes in that article were actually stated by Bush, Cheney, Powell and Rumsfeld. We all heard those lies. Some believed those lies and now we have thousands of American troops killed because of those lies. Thousands more will die because people like you persist in believing those lies.
posted on May 3, 2007 01:15:02 PM newLook at kiara....refuses to believe what our soldiers on the ground HAVE FOUND.
In 2001 Powell says Iraq has no WMD
But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
It is very sad when someone who claims they are patriotic and pro-American, continues to believe the mouthings of Republican rags and pro Republican talk show hosts over what has actually been reported by our own government.
Further more in one link that Linda provided, the article says of the WMD that had been found: The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s "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."
Ms. google pants should stop relying on google searches of key phrases to back up her claims as they pull up articles that contain any of the "words" in the original search.
Furthermore I guess Linda never learned her lesson when she cited a google link to all the articles on the Iraq reconstruction. When you looked at the pictures in the articles, they were of US Soldiers on camels and walking around bases. There were never any pictures of the Iraq reconstruction as she tooted.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 3, 2007 03:10:22 PM new
As I've already said....you uninformed progressives liberals....and those of you who are even FURTHER left than that....
only prove you don't really support our military.
You can't and NOT believe what THEY REPORT.
No, your NYT and WA Post know SO much more than they do. WRONG. Still haven't figured out THEIR ANTI-WAR yet?
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on May 3, 2007 03:12 PM ]
posted on May 3, 2007 03:43:47 PM new
Linda_K, if the troops had found the weapons of mass destruction that Bush based going to war over then Bush and all his boys would be telling the world as it would justify their reasons for invading Iraq. Word would spread like wildfire and everyone would be discussing it.
But Bush has admitted to the world that the weapons of mass destruction that Bush based going to war over were not found.
So if we are to believe you that the weapons of mass destruction that Bush based going to war over have been found it would mean that Bush is lying when he says they were not found, right?
posted on May 3, 2007 03:58:56 PM new
kiara....I think my link PROVES that womd HAVE BEEN FOUND in Iraq.
We've already discussed the wording issue. MASSIVE vs NONE found.
It should be simple for you to GRASP now.
IF it's not....that is YOUR problem.
I BELIEVE with no reservations what clinton told us about saddam HAVING A WOMD PROGRAM.
I supported his bombing of iraq in 1998 for THAT reason.
I believed ALL those in his admin. who said the SAME EXACT THING this administration said that took us to war.
I supported the Liberation of Iraq Act that made it OUR national policy to REMOVE saddam from power because of the THREAT he presented to the world and the US. AS clinton also stated.
I also understand, as it appears YOU DON'T that there were at least 28 reasons given for why we went into Iraq. It wasn't ONLY because of the NW the WORLD KNEW HE HAD....and that he HADN'T accounted for.
I agreed with going into Iraq because of this LONG TERM THREAT....and following 9-11 I believe that was the BEST decision this President could have made. The FINAL removal of saddam from power.
I fully support MY country no matter the political positions of those who refuse to acknowledge ANY threat, ANY wrong doing by saddam prior to this admin.
Now....have I made myself VERY clear to YOU?
You can post all the bloggers opinions you wish to. They will not change the FACTS as history has recorded them.
Officially, legally we were STILL at war with Iraq from the 1990's. They never lived up to the conditions that gave them a cease-fire.
So....imo, this war wasn't declared under this admin. to begin with. It was a continuation of the 1990 war....SINCE saddam never lived up to ANY of the UN resolutions.
Now...you are, of course, free to continue DEFENDING saddams position.
But we're there now....we're fighting a war with terrorists, AQ and others who don't wish to see a free nation in the ME.
Imo, YOU appear to be one of THEM. [being the later mentioned]
edited to add:
The reason YOU didn't hear about what our military said about the womd they DID FIND....is like I've addressed over and over again.
The liberal press REPORTS NO GOOD NEWS - nothing positive about anything our troops have done/found.
And those 'rags' you're always bitching about.....like Fox News..WND...etc....they DO REPORT THEM.
One of many reasons MILLIONS of American's flock to Fox News etc. TO hear the FULL war story - not just the biased liberal MSM's anti-war position
We LOVE having a PRO-American media of our OWN.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on May 3, 2007 04:07 PM ]
posted on May 3, 2007 04:14:04 PM new
When I wrote that last post I thought to myself that you would probably be too ignorant to answer, Linda_K, and to avoid doing so you would instead start ranting about Clinton and Saddam supporters. You are so predictable and such a coward when backed into a corner.
I posted facts and I didn't post a blogger's opinion. Once again you have me mixed up with other people lurking in your head.
More facts for you - the US was a big Saddam supporter for years.
Don't be anti-American and use the troops to support your lies on a chat board.
posted on May 3, 2007 05:48:46 PM new
"Linda_K, if the troops had found the weapons of mass destruction that Bush based going to war over then Bush and all his boys would be telling the world as it would justify their reasons for invading Iraq. Word would spread like wildfire and everyone would be discussing it."
What Kiara said is pure logic. Given the criticism he is receiving over the war, if there were any truth to this fact, he would be shoutiing it from the rooftops.
posted on May 3, 2007 06:06:46 PM new
LOL....no, CC, what kiara said is NOT true.
You don't believe our military on the ground in Iraq either?????
And here I thought you SAID you too support our troops. Must have been incorrect.
Now I'll KNOW differently.
These 'finds' WERE reported in what you and kiara refer to as 'rags'. So it's NOT like the public didn't hear of these finds. They did.
I EVEN provided a link to all the sites that WERE REPORTING on it.
But as I pointed out...when the LIBERAL, antiwar MSM refuse to report these finds.....then most American's aren't going to hear about them.
I've suggested over and over IF people really want to be informed they actually READ our military sites themselves.
Will they? OBVIOUSLY NOT. And if you have....then you're calling our troops LIARS.
I sure don't see THAT as any kind of support for our troops.
But then I NEVER bought the LIE that radical liberals, pacifists ever HAVE supported our troops.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on May 3, 2007 06:09 PM ]
posted on May 3, 2007 06:21:40 PM new
So you're telling us that the liberal media has Bush silenced over the discovery of the weapons of mass destruction and now he can't admit to the rest of the world they were found, Linda_K.
Only the military sites and the rag sites can say the weapons of mass destruction that were a reason for going to war have been found but Bush has to keep mum because the liberal media is stronger than the president when it comes to talking to America.
posted on May 3, 2007 07:02:17 PM new
"LOL....no, CC, what kiara said is NOT true.
You don't believe our military on the ground in Iraq either?????"
LOL Linda. I don't believe the REPORTS that troops found WMD. You don't really believe that the President, VP and the whole administration would stay silent if this were true? You are the one in denial. All Bush would have had to do is call a press conference and make the announcement.
posted on May 3, 2007 07:43:15 PM new
Right, CC. Reports of BY our military that our TROOPS did find them.
Figures.
I really never expect ANY liberal to believe any FACTS.
That's why the republican party has ALWAYS been seen as the party who has been willing to defend America....and the left seen as not being willing to ever do so. Not since the JFK years, anyway.
This is just one of those subjects the left and the right....along with our military will continue to disagree upon, I guess.
===========
The most recent article I could find [date wise] on this subject.
And guess what??? It's from the WA POST.
And my DEFENCE link to their decision that these munitions that WERE found....are womd.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 3, 2007 07:56:19 PM new
These so-called WMD were pre Gulf War and degraded from age. There were determined as not likely to harm anyone. These were not the WMD we invaded Iraq for. Use your head. I'll ask again-- Why hasn't the president made an announcement that refutes the criticism he has received about WMD? If it were true, he certainly would have.
posted on May 3, 2007 08:02:12 PM new
And from the Hill's blog....lanny asks a question I hope EACH AND EVER democratic candidate is asked during any of the upcoming debates.
GREAT questions....and while lanny is asking them in DEFENSE of hillary's making the decision to ALSO vote FOR going to war.....it should, imo, be ASKED OF ALL the dem candiates[/b].....ESPECIALLY ALL THOSE WHO ALSO VOTED FOR THIS WAR....and made many public statements about WHY THEY felt it was necessary[/b].
====
February 20, 2007
Memo to John Edwards and Sen. Obama:
Suppose There Really Were WMD? (Lanny Davis)
@ 11:48 am
On the issue of whether a vote for the 2002 Iraq war resolution was or was not a ?mistake? at the time, I have three questions for former Democratic North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama that, for some reason, at least as far as I know, no one in the press has yet asked:
First, did you believe in October 2002 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction â€" at least chemical and biological weapons, and possibly the beginnings of a nuclear program?
If the answer is yes (which I am assuming, since virtually everyone else did, including the majority of Senate Democrats who voted for the war resolution),
then the second question is:
Do you still say it would have been a mistake to vote for the authorization even if you believed that Saddam in fact had WMD?
If the answer to that question is yes â€" and that appears to be the case as of now â€"
then the third question must be asked and answered:
What would you have done to cause Saddam to dismantle and give up the WMD, once and for all?
A realistic, concrete answer is called for â€" especially because Mr. Edwards implicitly, if not explicitly, has criticized Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for not stating she made a ?mistake? in voting for the resolution.
(Sen. Obama, it must be said, has not taken any shots directly at Sen. Clinton on this issue â€" as contrasted to John Edwards, although he reminds audiences that he was opposed to the war resolution, albeit while he was an Illinois state, not U.S., Senator.)
If their answer is to keep the UN inspection in place and do not worry about Saddam?s ability to hide the WMD in a hole in the desert or sell them to al Qaeda, then they should at least admit that that is a fairly major gamble in the case they turn out to be wrong.
And they should at least concede to someone else making the good-faith judgment that Saddam needed to be taken out to avoid this danger.
To repeat â€" a majority of U.S. Democratic senators made the same judgment, and only two â€" Sens. Edwards and John Kerry (D-Mass.) â€" have said their vote was a ?mistake? â€" but without being forced to answer these three follow-up questions.
It isn?t really credible for Mr. Edwards and Sen. Obama to say now that they never believed Saddam had WMD back then. That must be deemed wisdom gained by hindsight â€" since neither one said so at the time (Obama as a state senator not facing the reality of having to cast the October 2002 Senate war authorization vote and John Edwards voting for it).
They can?t duck these questions if they are allowing (or encouraging) the anti-war Democratic electorate to pressure candidates to admit they made a ?mistake.?
Although I am an ardent Iraq war critic and from the earliest days had serious doubts about granting the president discretionary authority to go to preemptive war in October 2002, I believe Sen. Clinton (whom I am supporting for president) has shown integrity and courage in refusing to pander to state that the vote at the time was a ?mistake? â€" given the information and belief she had concerning Saddam?s WMD AND the clear conditions she set in her Senate speech explaining her vote.
[b]First she stated her belief that Saddam had WMD and was ready to use them.
?It is clear ? that if left unchecked,? she said on the Senate floor, ?Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons[/b].?
Second, she said she trusted President Bush to comply with two understandings about his use of the authorization power â€" that he wouldn?t ?rush to war? without allies and international support and that he would go to war only as a ?last resort.?
As she said on the Senate floor prior to her vote:
?A vote for the [the resolution] is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president and we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort ? ?
If she (and a majority of her Democratic senatorial colleagues) made a mistake, it was not the vote to authorize, based as it was on a belief in Saddam?s WMD, but in trusting President Bush to comply with both of those understandings.
When she was in New Hampshire several weeks ago she stated, now with the benefit of hindsight, that she would not have voted for the resolution had she known then what she knows now â€" indeed, she notes that there would have been no vote at all, meaning the Democrats would and could have blocked a vote.
So the next time Mr. Edwards and Sen. Obama are in New Hampshire, the same questioner who insisted on Sen. Clinton admitting to the vote as a ?mistake? in fairness should ask them these three questions.
The irony here is that Sen. Clinton is often criticized for seeming to be too calculating and opportunistic in taking positions on issues. Yet here she is standing on the truth and the facts known at the time, and refusing to pander and rewrite history.
Will Sen. Obama and Mr. Edwards at leaat grant her position as one of consistency, taken in good faith?
=========
I doubt it....why should they give a consideration to her when they won't to THIS admins.????
She, herself, told the public that SHE went to her own, trusted intelligence sources....ones THEY had used in THEIR admin....and consulted with THEM. Then she admitted they supported THIS ADMIN. intelligence as being correct.
So....here's one hillary supporter who asks for hillary to be 'given the benefit of the doubt'.....one NO LIBERAL here is willing to give to this admin.
Who, by the way, had the SAME EXACT intelligence staff as clinton did.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 3, 2007 08:06:41 PM new
Yes, CC....munitions that the womd inspectors NEVER FOUND....and that saddam said to the UN had ALL been destroyed.
Guess what, they HADN'T been.
And yes, some believe over the years they've lost some 'power' lol....but many others disagreed...and believe as my link points out...they were STILL womd...and STILL dangerous.
AS to your other questions.....sure, as soon as you answer a couple I've asked of you liberals. LOL LOL LOL
This is NOT going to be a one-way questions and non answer session.
posted on May 3, 2007 08:11:44 PM new the shells were "a potential risk to our service members in Iraq" but not to 275 million Americans.
500 artillery shells of various amounts of degraded material that fit the technical definition of chemical weapons . . . buried in various bunkers in various states of disrepair that we are not even sure Saddam Hussein knew about.
These are NOT the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq was invaded for.
posted on May 3, 2007 08:17:15 PM new
Today, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference and announced “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Santorum and Hoekstra are hyping a document that describes degraded, pre-1991 munitions that were already acknowledged by the White House’s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed.
Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”
Fox’s Alan Colmes broke the news to Santorum.
Transcript:
COLMES: Congressman, Senator, it’s Alan Colmes. Senator, the Iraq Survey Group — let me go to the Duelfer Report — says that Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there. And Jim Angle reported this for Fox News quotes a defense official who says these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded. And the official went on to say these are not the WMD’s this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMD’s for which this country went to war. So the chest beating at this Republicans are doing tonight thinking this is a justification is not confirmed by the defense department.
SANTORUM: I’d like to know who that is. The fact of the matter is, I’ll wait and see what the actual Defense Department formally says or more important what the administration formally says.
posted on May 3, 2007 08:20:32 PM new
So NOW....lol lol lol lol
BOTH CC AND kiara ADMIT there WERE womd found in Iraq.
LOL.....and here I THOUGHT they and helen were ARGUING that there WERE NO WMD found in Iraq.
Not one drop helen's blogger said. LOL LOL LOL
Now, they want to CHANGE the focus of what they WERE arguing AGAINST....which was NONE WERE FOUND>
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 3, 2007 08:23:40 PM newREAD - LEARN - BECOME INFORMED for ONCE
Yes, Linda you should read and learn. All the reports issued from the government and CIA confirm that the WMD that the Bush administration claimed were in IRAQ have never been found.
It is only you that continue believe everyone else is lying. It is you that will not accept any other answer.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 3, 2007 08:27:16 PM newLinda_K, if the troops had found the weapons of mass destruction that Bush based going to war over then Bush and all his boys would be telling the world as it would justify their reasons for invading Iraq. Word would spread like wildfire and everyone would be discussing it.
Exactly Kiara, if the all the stockpiles upon stockpiles of nerve gas and WMD had been found in IRAQ Bush would be celebrating, but he is not.
OUR government has issued reports saying that they have not found the WMD that were supposed to be in Iraq - the ones we went to war for.
Only the totally brainwashed people are now going to continue to believe the government is lying.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 3, 2007 08:28:41 PM new
"A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”"
"pre-1991 munitions that were already acknowledged by the White House’s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed"
Keep ignoring the facts and trying to deflect attention from them.
posted on May 3, 2007 08:33:34 PM new
Linda_K, weapons were found but NOT on the large scale or condition of ones that would destroy everyone - the ones that they said were such an immediate threat that they had to invade Iraq immediately.
That's why Bush announced that the weapons of mass destruction that they went to war over were NOT found.
Those weapons were not found.
Now read it again.
Those weapons were not found.
Read, learn and become informed.
I just saw on Anderson Cooper that Bush is calling himself the "Commander Guy" now ......... hahahaha
posted on May 3, 2007 08:34:14 PM newBOTH CC AND kiara ADMIT there WERE womd found in Iraq.
The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. "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."
While weapons were found, they were not the stockpiles that Bush claimed were there and they were not new ones that Bush and Company claimed Saddam was making.
This does not prove anything Linda.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 3, 2007 08:36:59 PM new
LOL...oh yes, and ld, another liberal who continued to LIE that NO WOMD WAS FOUND.
Another liberal who will NEVER believe what our troops on the ground FOUND and what was reported they found.
DENIAL runs pretty THICK in those liberal minds.
SCREW the truth....which is Iraq/saddam DID still have womd. Even though they continue to argue/DENY he didn't.
sad, sad
========
And have any of you ACTUALLY READ the report from our military on the ground in Iraq as to what they DID find?
Doesn't look so to me.
You'd much rather change the FOCUS of the FACT that you were PROVEN WRONG once again.
=========
As I said....I'll believe our military ANY DAY over what ANY liberal says.
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 –
The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.
This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.
"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."
Though about 500 chemical weapons - the exact number has not been released publicly - have been found, Maples said he doesn't believe Iraq is a "WMD-free zone."
"I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions," he said. "The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons."
The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.
Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.
There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center's report on WMD in Iraq.
Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center's report.
Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning.
Biographies:
Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, USA
Related Sites:
Defense Intelligence Agency
National Ground Intelligence Center
===============
So....CC....was clinton and his hold administration LYING to us ALSO?????
lol
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Are YOU a Bunghole?