‘I think the jury is still out on WMD’

June 8, 2006

I can appreciate that many [tag]Republicans[/tag] are slightly embarrassed that [tag]Iraq[/tag] didn’t have [tag]weapons of mass destruction[/tag], but that’s no reason for lawmakers to go into denial.

Last night, Rep. [tag]Curt Weldon[/tag] (R-Pa.) faced off in a debate against [tag]Joseph Sestak[/tag] (D), a former deputy chief of naval operations and the first director of Deep Blue, the Navy’s anti-terrorism group. Naturally, the war in Iraq was a major topic, and the two debated the principal reason used to launch the invasion.

While Sestak said Iraq was “not a clear nor a present danger” because no weapons of mass destruction have been found, Weldon said he knows of four sites in Basra and Nasiriyah that have yet to be searched for biological or chemical weapons.

“I think the jury is still out on [tag]WMD[/tag],” said [tag]Weldon[/tag].

It’s been three years, Charles Duelfer said Iraq did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, but Weldon wants his constituents to hold out hope that he was right all along.

Did I mention that Weldon is the vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee?

AAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

  • Did Sestak rip him a new one for that, or was he simply too non-plused?

    Bush himself admitted there were no WMD.

  • “Did I mention that Weldon is the vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee?” – CB

    Did you mention that Weldon is an idiot?

    Why in God’s name would Boy George II have stopped the Iraq Survey Group before it checked every possible site and every improbable site they had any evidence about?

    The only answer is that they knew by then there was no WMD, but wanted to be able to lie out of the side of their mouths that the stuff might still be hidden in Iraq (or Syria, or somewhere).

    Of coure, every time they found “something”, they got the interpretation wrong (hydrogen factories for weather ballons were “mobile chemical weapons labs”).

    Republican’ts: Can’t find evidence of WMD, but Can’t give up their claims.

  • dander, you beat me to my question: when confronted with an obviously insane response, what did sestak do? act like it was sane and move on, or point out what anyone who is paying any attention already knows?

  • “four sites ….that have yet to be searched”.

    There are only two options here: either that’s the baldest, boldest lie told yet – or it’s the most damning evidence of gross Republican incompetence yet.

    I’m sure even the Republican Center for Cognitive Dissonance can’t spin that one, so I’m sure the statement will appear nowhere in mainstream media.

  • What Sestak should have replied, if he didn’t:

    “Ladies and gentlemen, it does our security no favors when the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee cannot face reality because he can’t admit he was wrong. Real security comes from facing facts, not living in fantasy. As deputy in the Navy’s anti-terrorism group, I didn’t always like the facts I had to deal with, either, but I faced them, and made responsible decisions to make the world a safer place. Mr. Weldon cannot protect you from threats he can’t see — and he can cost your sons and daughters their lives fighting threats he only imagines. Your vote has real power; you should use it to vote for someone who operates in the real world.”

  • Next question: WHY haven’t they been searched? We dug Saddam out of a hole in the middle of BFE, yet we can’t search four known sites for WMDs? What are we waiting for, property tax assestment? Environmental impact statement?

  • Zeitgeist–why not forward your little statement there to Sestak’s people and suggest they put that on their website and possibly a mailing to the constituency.

    I bet Rodriguez still thinks there are WMD there, at four or more known sites.

  • From politicspa.com

    Fact Check on Sestak’s Position on Iraq
    Position constantly shifting, candidate often at odds with himself

    MEDIA, PA – At a press conference today, Congressional candidate Joe Sestak explained his policy position on Iraq, a good idea given the various conflicting information he has put out in regards to the war.

    As Washington Post writer William Arkin notes, “a closer look at his platform makes it clear that while Sestak opposes the timing of the Iraq war, he is a warrior who has his own military solutions for the Middle East. That’s hardly the alternative platform, in my opinion, that the Democrats or
    the country needs.”

    On April 21, 2006, Sestak told the New York Observer that” One of the
    primary reasons I entered this election is that I believe invading Iraq was
    not the right decision.” He also told the Daily Times that “it was not a
    clear and present danger.” Yet according to Sestak’s website, he believes
    the United States should have finished our military mission in Afghanistan
    then “turned to Iraq within a large Arab-led regional coalition.” As
    William Arkin notes for the Washington Post, “So, let me get this right —
    Sestak says Saddam was not a threat and yet he argues that we should have gone to war against him with some kind of Arab-led coalition anyway?”

    In a March 31, 2006 article, the Times Herald reported that Sestak “asserts he was against Operation Iraqi Freedom from the start.” Yet the Washington Post reports, Sestak “was one of the Navy planners involved in the earliest stages of putting together Operation Iraqi Freedom, a war he now opposes.” The Washington Post writer went on to comment, “Thanks for speaking out when it mattered, Joe.”

    Even Sestak’s timetable for when troops should withdraw is constantly
    shifting. In an April 18th interview on Air America, Sestak advocated
    withdrawing U.S. troops “within one year.” Yet one month later in an
    interview on the “My DD” blog, Sestak stated withdraw should occur “let’s
    say at least by the end of 2007, next year.”

    Perhaps William Arkin in the Post summed it up best when he noted, “Sestak, in other words, is just another Washington technocrat who believes nothing.”

  • “Sestak, in other words, is just another Washington technocrat who believes nothing.”

    Which may, in this case, still be better than being a dangerously high-placed Congressman who believes in fantasy, or believes in the wrong thing, or in disproven things.

  • americapd,

    You have all of the making of a troll. You provide no link to the article that you “liberally” quote. The website that you cite for the source, I’ve had bookmarked for years.

    Link: http://www.politicspa.com/

    I search the website and found no article for your quote. Maybe, I did a lousy search. If you can, provide a link to your quoted article.

  • Yeah isn’t Weldon that turd that rebuke his opponent for sending his son to a out of state hospital for treatment that could help him better then the in-state hospitals? I think he is. I hope somebody brings that up again. It was quite appalling.

  • The best point out of this commentary is that the correct response is:

    “So why haven’t you searched those four locations? Either you’re incompetent for thinking there were WMD when there weren’t, or your incompetent for leaving them in the hands of terrorists. Which one is it, Curt? Which one?”

    Any way to get a transcript/recording to see what was said?

  • Don’t you get it slip kid? It does not matter if Wedlon believes that there are undiscovered WMD’s in Iraq. What matters is that Sestak flip-flopped. It is very important to repeat this as often as possible. Eventually you will get a rhythym and it will start to sink in.

    If you start treating the war on terror like a multi-faceted, complex of ever-changing evidence and evolving situations the next thing you know black and white will no longer be a large enough palate with which to paint our world.

    Let’s go over what we know is the truth (please repeat after me):
    1) Iraq was behind 9/11
    2) Sadam had WMD and was threatening everyone
    3) A dead Muslim is a good Muslim
    4) Oil is the life blood of America and Exxon must turn record profits
    5) “They” are out to destroy “us”
    6) Bin Laden is inconsequential
    7) Ann Colter is one smart cookie who looks nothing like a transexual
    8) Rush is right.

    Now post that next to your bed and recite it every night before you go to bed and every morning when you wake up. Soon you will be as blissful and worry-free as americapd, knowing that George Walker Bush is the decider and he decided your freedom is good.

    LET’S ROLL!

  • “I think the jury is still out on WMD,” said Weldon, before bending over and re-inserting his head up his ass. Ann Coulter praised him for his dexterity and followed suit. Party discipline.

  • MNProgressive,

    americapd is apparently the cowardly troll.

    — slip

  • Regarding americapd, I did find a lot of the quotes attributed to the WaPo.
    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/02/war_vs_more_war_for_congress.html

    From the quotes, I didn’t really get a Bushian flip-flopper feeling, but let’s see:

    “Yet according to Sestak’s website, he believes
    the United States should have finished our military mission in Afghanistan
    then “turned to Iraq within a large Arab-led regional coalition.” As
    William Arkin notes for the Washington Post, “So, let me get this right –
    Sestak says Saddam was not a threat and yet he argues that we should have gone to war against him with some kind of Arab-led coalition anyway?”

    WAIT A SECOND – the actual quote from the blog is this:
    “If the United States had finished its objective in Afghanistan first, Sestak says, “we could have later brought, if needed, an undivided U.S. force to Iraq within a large Arab-led regional coalition.” I believe “IF NEEDED” is critical here…something that Arkin fails to acknowlege.

    “In a March 31, 2006 article, the Times Herald reported that Sestak “asserts he was against Operation Iraqi Freedom from the start.” Yet the Washington Post reports, Sestak “was one of the Navy planners involved in the earliest stages of putting together Operation Iraqi Freedom, a war he now opposes.”

    I guess he could have retired, but I don’t believe following orders here really relates to the fact he did not agree with the invasion. Colin Powell wasn’t for the invasion on the terms it happend either and he stood out there in front of the world a gave a fucked up speech to the UN.

    Sestak’s position seems pretty clear: we didn’t know for sure about Iraq when we invaded and didn’t have enough Arab support. IF after Afghanistan we had the information that invading Iraq was necessary, we could build a coalition with substantial Arab support, a la Desert Storm, such that we would not feed a hatred toward America that fuels Al Qaeda. The naming of dates for withdrawl is foolish, sure, but it is not like he was pro-withdrawl one day, then against it the next.

    • Comments are closed.