A letter fromJohn Negroponte to the following congressmen and women:

Jane Harman, Dennis Hastert, Nancy Pelosi, Duncan Hunter, Ike Skelton, C.W. Bill Young, John Murtha, Bill Frist, Harry Reid, Rick Santorum, Pat Roberts, John Rockefeller, John Warner, Carl Levin, Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye

Pete Hoekstra sent a letter to Negroponte to declassify "key points" from a National Ground Intelligence Center report on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq.

The report states that since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. While these have been recovered, there are still many munitions out there left undiscovered. The fear is that these will get into the hands of terrorists.

Although these are degraded, they are still hazardous and remain lethal.

Now, I am not posting this as a "see the war was right" post. Just interesting that I do not see this posted elsewhere. This did not come from the Fox site. It came from my local news site...WWW.WWMT.com. This article is on the website from the US House of Representatives "Permanent Select Committee on Itelligance.

I did check CNN..and they have nothing that I found on this....interesting.

Yet I still have this memory of Bush speaking at a dinner making a "Where are the WMD?" joke and looking under the dinner tables for them. Oh, yes. HILARIOUS. Make jokes while thousands die for your cause while you are out golfing three months out of the year. What a loser. I want to kick him in his moronic face.

Ten there's this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/

KR this was not a post about Bush. It was a post about what has been found in Iraq. My brother who has been there three times and going back...willfully, said he knows this stuff has been found and it is WMD as it was used on his own people. The mustard gas and sarin are degraded sure, but they are still harmful and deadly.

I did not post this to be used as an attack thread and it seems you would have learned the lesson many of us did regarding turning posts into hate threads.

WMD were in Iraq...FACT....Saddam used them...FACT....Saddam did not account for more than half of the WMD he had....FACT. So where is it? If you can provide that information, bring it on. It would make things easier.

The stuff was found, no one can dispute the fact that is was. It is WMD, even in a degraded form.

Chris, that article you posted is accurate...there is no proof that Saddam was MAKING weapons after the 1991 invasion, the point is he had WMD that he had not accounted for and lied about and covered up..therefore making it plausible that he would use them, has he had before on his own people. I am not saying he was making WMD...the facts are, we are finding WMD that he never accounted for as being kept or destroyed. And these munitions that are being found can still be used against us, or anyone and be harmful and leathel.

Whenever I hear of WMD, that's what I think of. Bush making a joke and laughing about it. So, deal with it. Or ignore me.

Whenever I hear of WMD, that's what I think of. Bush making a joke and laughing about it. So, deal with it. Or ignore me.

When did he make this joke? Sounds like something that would come from him, but I've never heard of it.

I love that this is coming out NOW and am curious why it took so damn long. That's all I've got to say. Especially after the Bush Administration went on record a while back saying that WMD were not the reason for invading Iraq, but freedom and Democracy. That's my issue.

I'm glad they found them. Makes me, as a citizen, not feel like a complete idiot, especially when I've had cousins over there who I simply could not support, because it seemed like everything was lies. Tiem is an important factor in anything and i think it speaks volumes that this has come out now.

I do not find it funny at all of the timing. It is information that had to be declassified, and plus...have you really heard many news outlets reporting it? Nope. Go figure.

As for the joke comments. Yes they were made at the Correspondants dinner a few years ago I believe. That is where EVERY President makes jokes about himself to the media. "W" did no different than those before him, it just came off as wrong to some. I can see why, but every President has done it, but if you are "W" you are called out on it.

And KR, I do not care what you think. This was not a post for you to come in and slam the President who you do not like. Good for you that you hate that someone made a joke. Keep your negativity out of my post. This was about WMD, not the President.

You get called out on it if it's in horrible taste.

W could have mocked how he makes up words, or any of the other Bushisms. But he didn't.

Kwing, you should know by now when you make political topics involving the President, that his detractors will come in to comment, so why do you continue to get upset and fight with everyone?

I know this war is a personal issue for you, but you are not the only one affected by what's going on in Iraq. Enough is enough.

And KR, I do not care what you think. This was not a post for you to come in and slam the President who you do not like. Good for you that you hate that someone made a joke. Keep your negativity out of my post.

Um, how about a big fat stinking NO????? I'm not a mod. anymore, so I am going to do as your sig SAYS you do and call it like it is, and let the chips fall where they may and be warned by the mods the way every other member is.

PEACE!

Or since this is a topic about the current state of politics in America, it's probably more appropriate to go with.........

WAR!

Obviously I can not start a post about a topic and have it stick to a topic because a certain moderator and others have a problem with a President.

Sorry people for trying to have a discussion about WMD's and the possible effects they could have on us, our troops and others if they fall into the wrong hands again.

Go ahead and disrespect me and my right to post a topic. I will respect your rude, offcomment topics and just stop the discussion, since you all turned it into a hate thread.

Peace and War to you and yours.

Kwing has every right to discuss topics that he deems necessary to discuss. Whether or not it is about the President of the United States and his job performance in particular, or the War in Iraq, that is his right. Anyone choosing to respond to his topics good or bad, should not take offense by what Kwing responds back with; unless it oversteps our rules/policies.

Now, please return to the discussion at hand.

These were old degraded weapons which we probably knew about all along. If Saddam Hussein was planning to attack the US, he would have built new, modern weapons. The Bush administation not only told us that these WMD were an imminent threat, but that Iraq was cooperating with al-Qaeda. We know now that was a lie.

Yet I still have this memory of Bush speaking at a dinner making a "Where are the WMD?" joke and looking under the dinner tables for them. Oh, yes. HILARIOUS. Make jokes while thousands die for your cause while you are out golfing three months out of the year. What a loser. I want to kick him in his moronic face.

I remember that speech and it made me furious. I wonder who thought it would be appropriate for Bush to take pictures of himself searching around the Oval Office for fake weapons men and women had lost their lives looking for. It shows how little Bush actually respects the troops.

To respond to the allegations of Sen. Santorum, Prof. Juan Cole, a Middle East historian, came up with this list of the top 10 reasons why we know that Saddam did NOT have WMD:

here are the Top Ten Ways We know Saddam Didn't Have WMD:

1. The authors of Cobra II show that before the 2003 Iraq War, Saddam called his top generals together and let them know that he did not in fact have any WMD any more. They were allegedly shaken and disturbed.

2. The Saddam regime faced certain destruction in March-April 2003, but no Iraqi military unit deployed any WMD to save themselves.

3. All searches of all tagged facilities in post-war Iraq found that the weapons programs had all been closed down by the mid-1990s.

4. On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report concluded, "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn (sic) possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability." Let me put that in bold for Mssrs. Santorum and Hoekstra: not of a militarily significant capability.

5. What most people mean by weapons of mass destruction is nukes. Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program after the United Nations weapons inspectors dismantled it in the early 1990s.

6. Remember those "mobile biological weapons labs"? When Irv Lewis Libby, now in custody, realized that UN inspectors were finding no evidence for biological weapons labs, he made up this silly idea of mobile labs. Biological weapons labs need a clean room. Where would you put that on a winnebago? And, would you really want your germ lab to hit a pothole? In reality? The trailers were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, just as the Iraqis had said.

7. Chief inspector David Kay has already admitted that "We were almost all wrong"! Kay staked his professional reputation on there being WMD in Iraq, and he actually chased it on the ground for months and months. If he could have found any shred to uphold his basic human dignity, he would have. He couldn't.

8. Not only has the Department of Defense admitted it, so has the CIA.

9. Chemical weapons are battlefield weapons, not weapons of mass destruction:

"National Public Radio (NPR)

SHOW: Talk of the Nation 1500-1600 PM

May 8, 2006 Monday

LENGTH: 5971 words

HEADLINE: A History of Chemical Weapons

ANCHORS: NEAL CONAN

BODY:

NEAL CONAN, host . . .

Mr. TUCKER: Yeah, I think it's important to distinguish between tactical weapons and strategic weapons. Chemical weapons were really designed for battlefield use. They--very large quantities are required to cover these--the size of a city. So they are not really contemplated as strategic weapons the way nuclear weapons would be used against entire cities. So perhaps there is some distinction there. Whether chemical weapons should be called weapons of mass destruction is somewhat debatable. They are really more tactical or battlefield weapons. . . '

Mr. JONATHAN TUCKER (Author, War of Nerves; Senior Fellow, Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute)"

10. Powell and Rice admitted as much in spring of 2001!:

Powell: "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..."

Links to Juan Cole's assertions are provided in the following link:

http://www.juancole.com/2006/06/for-outgoi...um-top-ten.html

To this day, NO WMD as in nuclear weapons have been found on Iraqi soil. The US did NOT invade Iraq b/c of any chemical weapons. If it was the policy of the US to invade countries that merely possessed chemical weapons, then we would have to invade A LOT more countries than Iraq.

This latest "news" promoted by Santorum and others is just a political ploy given the fact that Santorum is WAY down in the polls in his Senate race against Bob Casey!!!