The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

07 August 2006

Iraq WMD, Talk Radio, AP, Harris Poll


For WMD Sentiment, Talk Radio, Blogs Blamed

Here's a great question for the MSM's next poll: do you believe the AP is capable of reporting fairly on the situation in Iraq?

As it clearly isn't likely to occur anytime soon, don't hold your breath waiting for an unbiased look at public sentiment toward the war. Instead, we get survey results (released two weeks ago) inserted into this stealth editorial disguised as objective 'news' reporting.

If Charles J Hanley's piece is meant as a commentary, or subjective analysis, it should be presented that way. Instead, in one of the year's most slanted stories, opinions are presented as facts.

In a piece carried in hundreds of newspapers today, Hanley couldn't be more clear that anyone who believes there are still WMDs in Iraq is an idiot. Regardless of how you might feel about the subject, does it belong in this kind of a story?

For misleading the public, he blames talk radio, blogs and the Bush Administration. Going out of his way to make those polled feel downright stupid, Hanley considers the case closed for good, despite lingering questions raised by recent stories like these.

Buried in the story is any thought to the contrary and those points are glossed over, then quickly dismissed.

From the Washington Post's site, see for yourself:

Do you believe in Iraqi "WMD"? Did Saddam Hussein's government have weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

Half of America apparently still thinks so, a new poll finds, and experts see a raft of reasons why: a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq.

People tend to become "independent of reality" in these circumstances, says opinion analyst Steven Kull.

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

Despite this, a Harris Poll released July 21 found that a full 50 percent of U.S. respondents - up from 36 percent last year - said they believe Iraq did have the forbidden arms when U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, an attack whose stated purpose was elimination of supposed WMD. Other polls also have found an enduring American faith in the WMD story.

"I'm flabbergasted," said Michael Massing, a media critic whose writings dissected the largely unquestioning U.S. news reporting on the Bush administration's shaky WMD claims in 2002-03.

"This finding just has to cause despair among those of us who hope for an informed public able to draw reasonable conclusions based on evidence," Massing said.

Timing may explain some of the poll result. Two weeks before the survey, two Republican lawmakers, Pennsylvania's Sen. Rick Santorum and Michigan's Rep. Peter Hoekstra, released an intelligence report in Washington saying 500 chemical munitions had been collected in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

"I think the Harris Poll was measuring people's surprise at hearing this after being told for so long there were no WMD in the country," said Hoekstra spokesman Jamal Ware.

Checking a number of newspaper websites that carried this story, the Radio Equalizer has yet to find one that called this a commentary, column, or even an analysis. It's presented as straight news in every case. Since it's based on poll results released two weeks ago, how can that be?

Making sure talk radio, FOX News and blogs are sufficiently slammed, Hanley takes additional one- sided shots:

"Our top story tonight, the nation abuzz today ..." was how Fox News led its report on the old, stray shells. Talk-radio hosts and their callers seized on it. Feedback to blogs grew intense. "Americans are waking up from a distorted reality," read one posting.

Other claims about supposed WMD had preceded this, especially speculation since 2003 that Iraq had secretly shipped WMD abroad. A former Iraqi general's book -- at best uncorroborated hearsay -- claimed "56 flights" by jetliners had borne such material to Syria.

But Kull, Massing and others see an influence on opinion that's more sustained than the odd headline.

"I think the Santorum-Hoekstra thing is the latest 'factoid,' but the basic dynamic is the insistent repetition by the Bush administration of the original argument," said John Prados, author of the 2004 book "Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War."

After reading this "story", isn't it amazing that blogs and talk radio are being held to a standard that the AP itself clearly doesn't follow? With fellow- traveller Reuters busy retracting fake Lebanon photos today, shouldn't the AP correctly label this piece a commentary?

Thanks for your continued and vital Radio Equalizer support, via Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately order!

one Iraq WMD image: CBS


  • Charles Hanley has done approximately 60 stories on Iraq since March of 2003, almost all of which have been negative in tone as regards to the US and Coalition efforts. No one should be surprised that Hanley is doing another negative story on Iraq - his mind has long been made up on the subject.

    What is unfortunate is that the AP is putting this out as "news" instead of as "analysis" or "opinion," but the subsidiary carriers are not going to slug a piece like this with those tags if AP isn't going to do so either.

    The major news wires need to come to grips with the fact that 'news' should be just that - news. Who, What, When, Where, How. Analysis and commentary articles should get into the 'Why' part of the story.

    The editors of AP should know that if a phrase like "in their own minds" finds its way into a 'news' article and is not under quotes as being spoken by somebody, then that article is opinion, and should be labeled as such.

    By Blogger JD, at 07 August, 2006 13:31  

  • For conservatives, balanced news on Iraq means:

    1. No reporting on G.I. deaths.
    2. No reporting on Iraqi deaths and sectarian violence.
    3. No reporting on how the administration lied to get us into this war.
    3. Reporting on all the good deads like handing out candy.
    4. Reporting on the occasional shells found with mustard gas.

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 07 August, 2006 14:03  

  • Brian
    Anyone who thinks Iraq still has WMD's, is believing a LIE. This is same as believing 2+2=5. The writer of the story is 100% correct it is called FACT BASED commentary. NO WMD's were found, no bio-labs were found, no WMD's capable of striking America in "45 minutes" as Rumsfeld explained were found. It is 100% fair to attack ANYONE who "believes there are WMD's in Iraq" simply because it is NOT TRUE. Yes, if you want you can believe 2+2=5, but you are still unequivocally wrong, and you deserve to be sited by believing a LIE. This is not hard, you are attacking a well written FACT BASED article. Brian, do you want American's to believe a lie? A lie with resulted in a $260 million a day adventure on the backs of the American tax payer, because the lie makes you feel better, for not questioning the war?? Can you not act like a man and say " I was wrong"??

    Brian displays his politics over country ethic. He takes party over country so blatently, he would rather Americans believe a lie, than come to grips that it is a lie. Instead of attacking the purveyors of the lie (FOX news, Limbaugh, Hannity, the GOP) he attacks someone who criticised the whole issue. UNREAL.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 07 August, 2006 14:19  

  • At least the conservatives know how to count correctly.

    For liberals, balanced news on Iraq means:

    1. Wall-to-wall coverage of G.I. deaths. Can I replay it in slow motion, please? Ah, come on, once more?

    2. Distorted photoshopped pictures on Iraqi deaths and sectarian violence. al-Reuters comes to mind.

    3. Constant reporting on the left's sing-song pointless phrases - hey,hey! ho,ho! Bush has got to go! What's next: Kumbaya?

    4. Distorting all the good deads like rebuilding schools, bridges, city waterpumps, etc.

    5. Reporting and photographing the shells found from WWII as current. (New York Times technique)

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 07 August, 2006 14:33  

  • RWW - you are 100% correct! How? "The writer of the story is 100% correct it is called FACT BASED commentary."

    Commentary. Which AP is slugging as 'news.' I'm sure that a responsible blogger and radio host such as yourself can tell the difference between 'news' and 'commentary.'

    Journalists are going to have opinions on what is going down in Iraq and Afghanistan. No prob where that's concerned. Anyone who has been watching the GWOT and does not have some kind of opinion is an automoton.

    But when the agencies are packaging the journalists' commentary or analysis, and slugging it as 'news', that is a problem that needs to be addressed.

    That piece by Hanley was straight-up analysis, and should have been slugged by the AP as such.

    By Blogger JD, at 07 August, 2006 14:44  

  • J.D

    Were there WMD's or NOT???????

    The story is FACT BASED commentary.

    Jeez, F*cking Christ , what on Earth is wrong with you folks?

    You want Americans to BELIEVE A LIE, becuase it fits your political agenda.

    You prefer American's to believe "2+2=5" !!!! WHY????

    the article is an opinion based on FACT, obvious to anyone who reads it. AN OPINION PIECE BASED ON FACT.

    Your opinions are based on LIES.





    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 07 August, 2006 14:51  

  • MOP or RWW:

    Hey, Master Debater! Just love your incoherent attemps at logic. Maybe you should take some time off to recharge your batteries and attend this important seminar in England. And hopefully, the US Customs Department will refuse your entry back to the USA.

    Since you love facts, chew on these for a while, sucker.

    "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

    President Clinton - Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff / February 17, 1998

    "I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

    "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

    Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) - Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies / September 27, 2002

    Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
    During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
    February 24, 2002

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

    Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President - Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club / September 23, 2002

    "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

    Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California) - Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq / December 16, 1998

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."

    Robert C. Byrd - Former Ku Klux Klan recruiter, currently a US Senator (Democrat, West Virginia), Addressing the US Senate / October 3, 2002

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 07 August, 2006 15:07  

  • Benson

    posting your stale old Dem quotes regarding Saddam , is not going to work.
    60% of Dems voted against the F*cking war, you crusty freak
    As much as I dislike her, Hillary apologised for voting for the war.
    I do not care about thes quotes. None of them quoted stated" pre-emptively invadade". GOT IT?
    Heart of the issue is.......


    you shift it back to Dems

    Benson, I have been around long enough to know your trickery. Your quotes BORE me to TEARS. U have seen them all 10000000 times, Im not even a f8cknig registered Democrat, loser. I NEVER TAKE PARTY OVER COUNTRY
    I'M AN INDEPENDENT, who votes for the person over the LETTER. GET IT IN YOUR HEAD. Dem quotes mean little to Me, jeez!! You are a sheep, I use my head.

    why is Brian defending a LIE? this is the issue.
    grow up, crusty old man, grow the f*ck up

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 07 August, 2006 15:37  

  • Right Wing Whanker said:
    Your quotes BORE me to TEARS.

    Glad to hear that crybaby, (WAH), guess you are having some trouble digesting real facts. Here are some more FACTS to cry yourself to sleep with:

    BTW, no one gives a damn what your party affiliation is, especially after your lies about leaving this site.

    Some of Henry Waxman's comments (at the end) could certainly apply to your postings.

    "The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes."
    Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector - Addressing the UN Security Council / January 27, 2003

    Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.
    Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years - Interviewed on CNN / October 22, 2001

    House gives Bush authority for war with Iraq: The House voted 296-133 to give Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to make Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction.
    CNN / October 10, 2002

    The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."
    Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia) Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee -
    Addressing the US Senate / October 10, 2002

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."
    Congressman Henry Waxman (Democrat, California) - Addressing the US Congress / October 10, 2002

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 07 August, 2006 16:14  

  • Benson,
    Save the page long posts for your shitty blog.

    Regarding your statement:
    "Distorting all the good deads like rebuilding schools, bridges, city waterpumps, etc."

    First of all "deads" are people not living.

    Second of all, Give me an example where a good DEED was distorted. Unreported maybe, distorted no.

    Third, why the hell should there be coverage of minimal reconstruction when you had no fucking right to destroy it in the first place?

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 07 August, 2006 16:27  

  • Benson Report, thanks for showing how FACTS trump most everything and making the looney, unhinged left seem hypocritical.

    But since AP (or crAP as I would like to refer to them) is mentioned, I would like to add that AP has a radio service, AP Radio News (formerly AP Network News). The service is one of the largest in radio news, used both by commercial and non-commercial outlets.

    Here in The PRCT, AP Radio News is carried by 600 WICC Bridgeport and 1350 WINY in Putnam. The majority seem to shack up with CNN Radio, with splashes of CBS Radio and ABC.

    APRN was carried in nearby Westchester County, NY (White Plains) by 1230 WFAS--hardly a news/talk station these days (unless you count Money Matters with Gary Goldberg and a Real Estate show), but was a few years ago.

    One day I turn on the 1,000-watt station on my car radio, and over the static, what do I hear--FOX NEWS RADIO! Wonder what Cumulus, who owns WFAS along with WICC and a "few" stations, plans to do with WFAS. But I am speculating. FNR is also heard on 960 WELI New Haven.

    By Blogger The Real Bob Anthony, at 07 August, 2006 17:25  

  • Elle Monica said:
    First of all "deads" are people not living.

    Buenas tardes, senorita. Como le va?
    Well, if you go back to you own posting, you will see why I used the word deads. It was in your second #3 comment (not to be confused with your first #3 comment). Here is what you said:

    3. Reporting on all the good deads like handing out candy.

    You also said we had:
    no fucking right to destroy it in the first place?

    Muchas gracias for asking because it gives me a chance to answer you with an nice long response. I know how you like long postings. Enjoy!

    Letter to President Bush
    December 5, 2001

    "Dear Mr. President:

    The events of September 11 have highlighted the vulnerability of the United States to determined terrorists. As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq. This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.

    The threat from Iraq is real, and it cannot be permanently contained. For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.

    Mr. President, all indications are that in the interest of our own national security, Saddam Hussein must be removed from power."

    Congressman Harold Ford (Democrat, Tennessee)
    Senator Bob Graham (Democrat, Florida)
    Congressman Tom Lantos (Democrat, California)
    Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)
    Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas)
    Senator Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina)
    Congressman Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois)
    Senator Trent Lott (Republican, Mississippi)
    Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona)
    Senator Richard Shelby (Republican, Alabama)

    And of course, don't forget about this jewel either:

    House gives Bush authority for war with Iraq: The House voted 296-133 to give Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to make Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction.
    CNN / October 10, 2002

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 07 August, 2006 17:56  

    And the crowd goes wild!

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 07 August, 2006 18:07  

  • Same old stale quotes, same old stale diversions. The fact remains, THERE WERE NO W.M.D'S in IRAQ. There were no "nukes capable of hitting America within 45 minutes, no bio-labs, NOTHING. You can argue about the original news-story as to whether it belongs in an op-ed page or in the news (note NY POST, puts op-eds in the new section EVERY DAY), FINE.
    The news-piece is FACT BASED. There were no WMD's in Iraq, and the 50% polled who think there were, were mis-lead by POOR JOURNALISM, from FOX NEWS, and the other cases listed in the article. Showing me quotes from Democrats, does not make the case that the WMD'S were there. Quotes from Lieberman,Rockerfeller, Pelosi etc etc (some as old as 1998) will not change the FACT. To the Democrats credit, none of them insisted that we invade as weapons inspectors were reporting back with negative results. That was the GOP's idea. The point of the writer's story is clear, the media mislead a trusting audience.
    SLAM DUNK!!! Isn't that what Rummy said when describing how there will definatly be WMD's in Iraq?

    Patriot World, obviously wants news that fits his opinion, not REALITY. That is scary. You folks, want so badly to save the GOP's face, you are willing to turn 2+2=5 into a FACT, by repeating it.
    If you took someone from another planet and showed them this whole situation, they would conclude the same thing.
    Patriotworld= PARTY LINE HACK

    Nothing will stop their party over country message. Repeat the lies, repeat the lies, divert the topic, rerpeat the lies.

    Enjoy your $280 million a day fiasco. Keep FOX tuned in , they will feed the lie to make you very happy.
    The rest of us will stay tuned to the reality based world


    Another day of thrashing party line Bush hacks, beyond belief.
    Remember keep telling yourselves
    WE WON WE WON!!!

    Tune in tonight 10-Mid EST, if you can stomach the TRUTH.

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 07 August, 2006 18:29  

  • RWW/MOP - Excellent threadjacking.

    Has anyone ever noticed that anyone who disagrees in the slightest with RWW/MOP/Whomeverthefarkever is instantly labeled by RWW/MOP/Whomeverthefarkever as a (CapsLock required) "PARTY LINE HACK"?

    Nowhere in this thead have I made any assertion as to whether there were WMDs in Iraq prior to the beginning of hostilities on 03/17/03. The extent of my commentary has been limited to the fact that Associated Press is letting analysis go out under the description of 'news,'in an article written by somebody with more than a little axe to grind on the subject.

    As a self-described seeker of truth, I would think that RWW/MOP/Whomeverthefarkever would have concerns about this. I guess I was wrong.

    And for pointing this out, I am evidently a "PARTY LINE HACK." Nice.

    Evidently he is instead far more concerned with propogating the "BUSH LIED!!!" meme rather than whether or not one of the major newsgathering services is engaged in shading its 'news' with editorial analysis. But woe to he who accuses RWW/MOP/Whomeverthefarkever of party line hackery. For RWW/MOP/Whomeverthefarkever is just a Speaker of Truth To Power, whose comments can Never Be Wrong, and whose Opinions Trump All Facts.

    I guess inability to stay on thread topic (or to even be coherent) goes along with the inability to release the CapsLock key.

    Memo to RWW/MOP/Whomeverthefarkever: Get over yourself.

    By Blogger JD, at 07 August, 2006 19:04  

  • No Slam Dunk Benson gordo,

    Touche on the spelling correction. I won't pull a Radio Racoon "mis-spell" hypocrisy though we both know you used "dead" unintentionally.

    You didn't provide an example of a good DEED that was distorted by the media.

    Isn't it a little pathetic that your worried about television coverage for reconstruction of schools destroyed in a war started by us that the majority of Americans and the whole world believe was a mistake?

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 07 August, 2006 19:09  

  • J.D
    I pointed out that there is an argument as to whether the story is news or op-ed. The fact remains that the story is FACT BASED, and the point of the story is vital. Americans are being mislead by the media, as The Washington Post writer points out.
    Maloney's point is tiny, in the overall scope of issues the story sheds light on. Sorry if you think I hijacked the thread. IF you find no fault with FOX news distorting the WMD findings, maybe you really are as I stated "a party line hack". J.D do you find fault with distortions of the truth?

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 07 August, 2006 21:22  

  • RWW - No, there is no question as to whether the piece is 'news' or 'op-ed.' When you take poll results from two weeks ago and get commentaries on them, and then repackage it as another article, that is analysis. Therefore it should be slugged as such. Any attempt to excuse that as "FACT-BASED" news is just spin - which as we all know here, you hate with a passion, right?. When the author is using - not under quotes - a phrase like "in their own minds," that is spin. It's opinion. And it should be labeled as such; in all fairness, it should have been placed as an analysis of the July 21 Harris poll.

    I have attempted to limit my responses in this thread to the subject matter in the thread, namely AP's dishonesty, and I do not care to get into any kind of flamewar with you about your version of "truth" of the reportage of OIF versus my version of "truth" except to say that we live in two completely different universes of perception, where there will be no common ground.

    The only way for there to be common ground is for the people who report on such matters to play the game straight - something with which Reuters (Adnan Hajj photos now all pulled) and now AP are having some amount of difficulty.

    You keep trying to prop up the FoxNews strawman, and for that strawman I could surround it with the Legacy networks plus CNN and MSNBC, and then we could have a dandy little bonfire with them, pissing about who is slanting what in the news, with particular attention paid to Eason Jordan and Dan Rather and Christiane Amanpour and Olby-wan versus the Fox Folks, and see where things shake out.

    I consider FoxNews to be similar to a Hearst newspaper of the early 20th Century - you know what you'll get when you turn it on, and they're not bashful about saying so. Can anyone honestly say the same about CBS? MSNBC? CNN?

    And are the wire services now going to proclaim themselves as partisan in the light of the recent events? Or are they going to clean up their acts and make sure that things are played down the middle?

    The days of getting news from one broadcast/cable source have long since ended. I think we can all be big boys and girls and find the news and the "truth" for ourselves.

    I would encourage you also to consider that it's not just FNC that "distorted" evidence of Iraq's alleged possession of WMDs, as TBR pointed out in his compendium - CNN, Gannett/USAToday, and various congresscritters - particularly Scuba Teddy and Young Master Harold - can all be held accountable for that particular sin as well.

    You can't have one without the other. It wasn't only FNC that was reporting on the alleged presence of WMDs in Iraq. Either everybody screwed up, or nobody did.

    Pick one and go with it.

    By Blogger JD, at 07 August, 2006 23:44  

    " Rep. Gil Gutknecht, R-Minn., once a strong supporter of the war, returned from Iraq this week declaring that conditions in Baghdad were far worse "than we'd been led to believe," and urging that troop withdrawals begin immediately.
    During a debate last month, Gutknecht intoned, "Members, now is not the time to go wobbly." This week, he conceded "I guess I didn't understand the situation," saying that a partial troop withdrawal now would "send a clear message to the Iraqis that the next step is up to you."

    By Blogger qw3rty, at 07 August, 2006 23:53  

  • More Democrat WMD quotes, including John Fing Kerry asserting their existence and the need to do something about it. Remember, leftards, you voted for this guy, who voted for the war. You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts.

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
    - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S
    - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
    - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
    - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
    - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

    By Blogger Good Lieutenant, at 08 August, 2006 07:51  

  • Again, dumb Lt, the quotes mean nothing to me nor most "liberals", 60% of the Dems voted against the war. End of story. None of the Dems demanded we invade as the inspectors were on the ground reporting, there is nothing to be found. Remember that. This tired, old stale tatic, means NOTHING in the scope of things.

    again enjoy the $280 million a day disaster, 60% of dems voted against it, 100% of Republicans voted for it.
    continue with the old quotes if it makes you feel better

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 08 August, 2006 09:31  

  • What happened to the days when Conservatism equated to fiscal responsibility. Now it stands for "shit on future generations".

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 08 August, 2006 10:10  

  • So 60% of Democrats, after their own party leaders claimed repeatedly that Iraq under Saddam was a danger that had to be disarmed, still voted against going to war and doing so? Which group of politicians was putting party over country in that decision?

    By Blogger JohnReb, at 08 August, 2006 10:19  

  • The Democrats, of course. Minister of Propaganda (appropriately titled) denies the facts right in front of his face, doesn't cite the congressional vote on the Iraq war, and goes on to rant and yell.

    A typical leftist McGovernite lunatic - now the vogue of the Democrat party.

    By Blogger Good Lieutenant, at 08 August, 2006 11:18  

  • Democrats voted for the war to get the UN to put inspectors into Iraq. And it worked. Except that after there were hundreds of UN inspectors in Iraq, Bush pulled them out and invaded anyway.

    Bush and Kerry on war vote:

    "Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited."

    President Bush, Cincinnati speech Oct. 7, 2002.

    "As the president made clear earlier this week, 'Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.' It means, 'America speaks with one voice.' ...

    "In giving the president this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days: to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

    "If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."

    Sen. John Kerry, Senate floor speech, Oct. 9, 2002.

    "In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat. Members of both political parties, including my opponent and his running mate, saw the threat, and voted to authorize the use of force."

    President Bush, speech to the Republican Convention, Sept. 2, 2004.

    By Blogger qw3rty, at 08 August, 2006 12:40  

  • MOP posted:

    NO WMD's were found, no bio-labs were found, no WMD's capable of striking America in "45 minutes" as Rumsfeld explained were found. It is 100% fair to attack ANYONE who "believes there are WMD's in Iraq" simply because it is NOT TRUE.

    Really? 1500 Gallons of chemical weapons, thousands of powdered radioactive material, ideal for dirty bombs, mustard gas IEDs, sarin gas IEDs, 1.77 TONS of enriched uranium and the list goes on and on...

    Prior to the War, everyone pretty much agreed that chemical weapons were WMDs. That tons of enriched uranium and weaponized/powdered radioactive materials would be WMDs. Why aren't they considered as such now?

    And of course, remember it was President Clinton who made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the US; which is worse, the person who orchestrates the plan or those who carry it out? Are both equally culpable, in your eyes? In that case, I take it you will repeat all the claims you've made above but replace President Bush with President Clinton...

    So, we see that your claims of no WMDs are in fact incorrect (and if they continue they become lies since you now know the truth), and the Iraq War was simply the fruition of a Democratic administration's plans.

    Not to mention the conclusion of 16 UN resolutions.

    In reality, it is you who are misguided, misled, and refusing to learn the facts. Documented WMDs. Documented violations of UN resolutions. Documented policy from a Democratic administration. Yet somehow "Bush Lied, People Died" and so on...

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 08 August, 2006 16:00  

  • Rooster - you forgot something in your list:


    By Blogger JD, at 08 August, 2006 18:48  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger