500 WMD's found in Iraq, page 1

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:19 PM

link

Approximately 500 Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found in Iraq since 2003, according to US Senator Rick Santorum, (R-PA). The information was gleaned from a recently declassified report from the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit.

www.foxnews.com
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."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Sarin and mustard gas were among the chemicals found. These are very potent chemicals, and certainly do fall in the category of WMD's.

Many people have said that "Bush Lied!" about the reasons for going into Iraq. This announcement should put to rest any arguments that Saddam Hussein did not own Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The entire declassified portion of the NGIC report is available for review.

Related News Links:
www.mtv.com

[edit on 22/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]

[edit on 22/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]

niteboy82

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:39 PM

link

Ok, I am going to be the first to take this up, I suppose, because I would like to remind you of something...

WASHINGTON – President Bush and his vice president conceded Thursday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, even as they tried to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue – whether the invasion was justified because Saddam was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.

Source

So which is it? Did he lie the first, did he lie the second time, or is it in fact a lie now? I would also like to refer you to this thread, as this has been a huge discussion since this last weekend.

The Secret Battle Over WMDs

I can say this, I did vote for the story.

[edit on 6/22/06 by niteboy82]

grimreaper797

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:54 PM

link

"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."

Hmm I guess you just missed that part? These were all pre gulf war that were forgotten about, not newly made WMD. try reading what you post next time please, this isn't ATSNN worthy. Finding WMD which were from pre gulf war, that had been forgotten and not disposed of is hardly reason to go into Iraq after 9/11.

Majic

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 03:10 PM

link

All The News That's Fit To Spew

Originally posted by grimreaper797

try reading what you post next time please, this isn't ATSNN worthy. Finding WMD which were from pre gulf war, that had been forgotten and not disposed of is hardly reason to go into Iraq after 9/11.

ATSNN readers can decide whether it's ATSNN-worthy or not by voting or not voting as they see fit.

I voted for it because I think it's relevant to a rather major conspiracy story taking shape right now on ATS.

This article provides additional information that may help members decide for themselves what to think about that story and this question in general.

In my opinion, an article need not be excluded from ATSNN simply because it doesn't support the preconceptions of some members.

I voted accordingly.

Yumi

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 03:10 PM

link

Sorry, there is already a discussion uner War On Terror on ATS. I can't vote yes on this.

Also, they were old, ones sold to Saddam by Bush and Rumsfeld, can you sell Sarin to Mexico then invade them for having the Sarin gas you sold them?

elevatedone

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 03:20 PM

link

WMD's are WMD's, doesn't matter what time period they're from.

thecandyman

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 03:47 PM

link

This is old weapons and about useless... another BS story to get some percentage points back to the Bush Administration approval rating. When they show me an Iraqi nuclear missle then i will believe it. People need to wake up, that's all i gotta say... cuz half of you will be walking around in your Army patroled home towns going... "wow, wtf happened here". And we will all be saying "see, we flocking told you so".

[edit on 22-6-2006 by thecandyman]

[edit on 22-6-2006 by thecandyman]

Nygdan

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 03:56 PM

link

This announcement should put to rest any arguments that Saddam Hussein did not own Weapons of Mass Destruction

This is not new information, they're announced on other occasions finding munitions that had residues of chem weapons on them.

IOW, its not news.

Apparently, Santorum has sunk in his polls, so this was all orchestrated to give him a boost. MUCH better than actually doing something right Ricky???

ed, fixed tag

[edit on 22-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

dgtempe

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 04:13 PM

link

Selective WMD's just like selective hearing. We talk about 'em when we need to.

Lies?? yup

When its convenient.

DontTreadOnMe

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 04:15 PM

link

Yumi said:

Sorry, there is already a discussion uner War On Terror on ATS. I can't vote yes on this.

As a matter of fact, ATS allows an ATSNN story and a non-ATSNN story. So, you could have voted "yes". It's not a duplicate in that case.

nwomi

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 04:22 PM

link

cool, but i don't know if that's true!

grimreaper797

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 04:50 PM

link

Its not that it conflicts with my beliefs, its that its not actually anything NEW. So how can it be news? We have already known for a decade that saddam had WMD pre gulf war, so whats the deal? It doesn't say ANYTHING about WMD AFTER the gulf war, so how is it news?

jsobecky

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 04:58 PM

link

I hear a lot of talk that this is not ATSNN newsworthy. I would like to know why people think it is not newsworthy.

My guess is that it another piece of bad news for certain agendas.

And then, I would like to understand why the age of the WMD's matters? Like the commercial said, "Parts is parts".

grover

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:03 PM

link

Sorry Josbecky hate to burst your bubble BUT the DoD has already come out and stated rick sanitarium was wrong and that they pre-dated the 1st gulf war.

grimreaper797

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:03 PM

link

why does age matter? Because we already went to war once over them, so why would we, 10 years later suddenly go to war over the same forgotten WMD that are now 10-15 years older.

We already went to war over them, they were there when we left, why would we go to war over the same ones again? were they not a threat between when we left, to when bush came into office, then suddenly they became activated again and dangerous?

Now tell me why it IS ATSNN worthy? Then tell me why you believe we should go to war twice over the same weapons, if for 8-9 years we didnt care much after the first war was over?

jsobecky

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:04 PM

link

from grimreaper797
Its not that it conflicts with my beliefs, its that its not actually anything NEW. So how can it be news? We have already known for a decade that saddam had WMD pre gulf war, so whats the deal? It doesn't say ANYTHING about WMD AFTER the gulf war, so how is it news?

It is news because it was released just yesterday. Did you know of this news months, years ago?

Pre-Gulf War is totally immaterial.

jsobecky

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:06 PM

link

We already went to war over them, they were there when we left, why would we go to war over the same ones again?

Because we didn't finish the job the first time, is why.

grimreaper797

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:06 PM

link

yea Id say I knew that there were pregulf war WMD left behind since I first read about the first gulf war. Now if they said WMD made after we left Iraq, found yesterday, then yes it would be news.

The ONLY reason its news is because this representative brought it up, then fox ran with it. But even FOX had the decency to tell everyone the WMD were pre gulf war, thus not justifying anything about this second war. Thats the only real relevence this news article would have, if it justified the second gulf war. It doesnt so why should it be ATSNN?

jsobecky

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:08 PM

link

Well, all I gotta say, is if you disagree, don't vote for the submission.

grimreaper797

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:09 PM

link

we didnt finish the job the first time? thats why we waited 8-10 years to finish the job? o right clintons fault, sorry I forgot. I doubt the public would have gone to war had bush said "yea we didnt finish the job the first time" rather then "look saddam is making WMD still, hes providing them to terrorists"

there is a big difference...the second one is what we call LYING.