Santorum’s spin on Iraqi WMD; or, what happens when desperation takes over

Guest Post by Michael J.W. Stickings

As Steve noted yesterday, Rick Santorum, arguably the Senate’s most offensive member, still lags well behind his Democratic rival in Pennsylvania, Bob Casey. A recent poll puts the margin at 18 points. And Santorum’s job approval rating stands at an anemic 38 percent.

Santorum must be desperate. Desperate to do something, anything, to narrow the margin. His very political career hangs in the balance. If he loses in November, he’s through, likely for good. If he wins, his Clinton-like comeback will be celebrated in Republican circles and — who knows? — a Veep spot could be in the offing (or, eventually, perhaps even the top spot).

How do I know he’s desperate? Consider the latest bit of evidence, his latest episode of rabble-rousing spin. Yesterday afternoon, Senator Santorum announced this: “We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons.” Huge news, no? After all this, after all the fumbling and bumbling, the White House shilling and the indiscriminate killing, it may all have been worth it after all. For if Saddam really did possess WMD, if he really was such a threat not just to the Middle East but to America’s national security itself, well, perhaps the exoneration of Bush can commence (with demands for mea culpas from Democrats, of course), perhaps the tide truly has turned, perhaps the GOP upsurge will begin and Republicans will re-embrace the Iraq War in earnest and sweep through the November elections, Democrats be eternally damned.

Or not.

Fox News, as expected, lapped up the story with characteristic glee, “fair” and “balanced” only with respect to its unabashed partisanship and shameful disregard for journalism. It’s uncritical lede: “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.”

Needless to say, the right-wing blogosphere has joined in. That sound you hear coming from that spin-struck echo chamber is a collective seizure of jubilation. (Captain) Ed Morrissey, for example, is calmer than most, but a tone of told-you-so righteousness peeks out from behind his post’s thin veneer of wait-and-see optimism. And he’s not alone. Glenn Reynolds thinks the WMD issue could now rebound on “war opponents”. At Outside the Beltway, Chris Lawrence thinks that this discovery “further undermine[s] claims from the anti-war fringe that Iraq had declared and destroyed its stocks of non-conventional weaponry”. (Uh, the “fringe”?) And so on and so on. Go check out Memeorandum for more of the same.

So what to make of this? Well, here’s Powerline’s John Hinderaker, who deviates from all this enthusiasm and throws in some healthy perspective: ”

This is certainly significant, but what they’re talking about is old munitions left over from, presumably, before the first Gulf War. This doesn’t appear to constitute evidence that Saddam’s regime had continued to manufacture chemical weapons in more recent years. What it does demonstrate is that the picture with respect to Iraq’s WMDs is much more nuanced than the usual “he didn’t have any” mantra.

Fair enough. Saddam had some, once upon a time, and he may have sought to acquire them once again, but he didn’t have them before the second Gulf War, the Iraq War, and he certainly didn’t have them in the way that the war’s chief proponents — Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, the neocons, etc. — said he did. (Remember all those “mushroom cloud” comments?)

But this is really nothing more than Santorumnal (my neologism for today) grandstanding. And I can’t put my response to this nonsense any better than the Maha of The Mahablog, Barbara O’Brien:

I keep reading, and find that this is not a new discovery, but an account of some stuff found in Iraq since May 2004. And it wasn’t exactly “500 chemical weapons,” as Fox News reported, but 500 chemical weapons shells. These shells contained old, degraded mustard OR sarin “nerve agents” dating from before the Gulf War, but for some reason nobody was interested enough to analyze the stuff to find out for sure what it was. The declassified document detailing the “discovery” — released by our old pal John Negroponte, note — is artfully vague about how much toxin was actually contained in the shells and what condition the toxin was in. Or even exactly what it was.

Apparently Rick Santorum, whose Senate career is in its final throes, got his hands on a classified document from the National Ground Intelligence Center. He pulled key points out of the document and had them declassified, and then made a big whoop-dee-doo announcement that he had in his hand proof that there were WMDs in Iraq…

As Barbara implies, Santorum is the new McCarthy. When all else fails — and it’s all failing for the junior senator from Pennsylvania — pull a stunt like this. How stupid does he think we are? How stupid does he think the voters of his great state are? Pretty stupid, one must presume.

But such is what happens when desperation takes over. I expect little else from Santorum, not to mention from Fox News and the right-wing blogosphere, but it’s all quite distasteful nonetheless.

Distasteful? It’s pathetic. And it won’t work.

Well, of course Saddam didn’t have WMDs when the US invaded.

He had Yellow Freight ship them to Syria.

Duh………

  • Welcome back Stickling. The Republicants must be confused. Those kinds of misleading amateur theatrics actually seemed to work for awhile after 9/11 but now people are seeing them for the stupid Rep tricks they are. Santrectum is like the loudest dumbest kid in the class.

  • I’m not all that interested in battlefield chemical shells, but rather in the awesome intercontintental Howitzer that Iraq undoubtedly has, that would’ve enabled Saddam to lob a few hundred shells onto Kansas.

  • As for “Santorumnal,” the senator already possesses a neologistic eponym courtesy of syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage, “Santorum: the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the product of anal sex.” It’s appropriate in this instance too

  • I think the obvious point about this lie is the assertion that we found this stuff in 2003 or 2004. If so, why wasn’t it announced at the time? Oh yah, it was. It was announced that they found a bunch of old mustard gas bombs that were inoperable.

    So now Ricky (man on dog) Santorum is going to SELECTIVELY DECLASSIFY information about the find to make it seem like there was a danger from Saddam and WMD.

    It is truely sad that right-wing bloggers are buying this.

  • Santorum is a stupid jerk, but this is a setup if I ever saw one. All the warmongers have to do is “find” a WMD, and they “win” the war debate. IMO, it doesn’t matter if they DO find anything, the US had no mandate to destroy Iraq even if they had WMD.

    We should not allow the right to frame the debate around this false question. It doesn’t matter what Iraq had. Iraq had WMD after the first Gulf War, and Bush Sr. (correctly) decided against plunging into the quagmire. Add to that the known fact that Saddam had no reason to give a WMD to Al quaeda and it’s obvious that this whole frame could be a setup built on a foundation of BS.

    Let’s not rule out the possibility of them “finding” WMDs in, say, October.

  • Perhaps Cheney was right about the insurgency being in its “death throes.” he just got mixed up a wee bit—it was the “In-Santorum-gency” that was—and still is—in its death throes. With all the hub-bub about terrorism, why do those who seek to terrorize Americans with their fear-mongering continue to govern?

  • The whole concept of “WMD” is bogus and buying into the warmongers’ frame. The term serves no purpose but to muddy discussions by lumping together old canisters of mustard gas with nuclear weapons and treating them as if they somehow pose equivalent threats. Regardless of the amount of mustard gas Saddam had, it wouldn’t make him any more dangerous than all the other regimes that have chemical weapons, and it in no way would justify the level of fear and panicked calls to invade immediately sparked by the seamless transition from “WMDs” to “nuclear weapons capable of hitting us within 45 minutes”.

  • Dammit, “Talk of the Nation” just announced that they were going to be talking about “the weapons of mass destruction that *were* found in Iraq”. It’s not surprising that today’s NPR is biting, but it’s a good indication that all the other media outlets will be as well.

  • Does not Santorum remind anyone of Senator John Islen of the Manchurian Candidate?

    “There are 200 known communists in the Pentagon!”
    “There are 121 communists in the Pentagon!”
    “There are 86 known communists in the Pentagon!”

    After getting some inspiration from a ketchup bottle
    “There are 57 communists in the Pentagon! That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.”

    Richard Condon would have loved this era of American Politics

  • They all seem to be biting, KCinDC. But that’s because they let the GOP define the terms for them. This may be the single greatest reason why the Republicans have been so successful elecorally over the past couple of decades. There has been a concerted effort both to tar the media with the liberal label and to use it against them as leverage for more positive, pro-conservative reporting. I’m generalizing, but the media are so scared of being called “liberal” that they bend over backwards to report Republican spin as fact. This is why every story about Republican corruption includes some Democrat just to “balance” things out. Or why every story of failed Republican policies in Iraq includes the whole “Democrats don’t have a plan either” counterpoint.

  • I think your description of the media’s behavior is accurate, but I’ve recently become less sure of the explanation that they’re motivated by fear of being called liberal. Lately liberals have gotten pretty good at complaining to the media about their conservative bias, but I see no signs that they’re getting scared by that.

    If complaints from the right make them modify their behavior, while complaints from the left are written off as uncivil rantings by unhinged, angry liberals, then there’s something more going on than simple response to complaints.

  • Artillery shells filled with chemical or nerve agents are NOT WMD!!! Their use is strictly tactical, affect relatively small areas and are generally only effective against troop concentrations or for area denial.

    Fear mongering asshats, the lot of them. The media among them for not calling these MFs for what they are (or worse, conspiring with them).

  • The GOP just needed someone to muddy the waters and chose someone they knew will probably lose anyway, so it will be HIS credibility that’s an issue and won’t blowback on all of them. He’s falling on his sword for them and will probably be the next to get the Medal of Freedom…

  • There’s been an update on this story, through, my God, of all places, Faux News. Reported from Raw Story as follows: “In an appearance later in the evening on Fox News, Santorum was told that an unnamed Defense Department official speaking for the Administration objected to his conclusions.

    “Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims,” reports Think Progress. 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.'”

    “I’d like to know who that is,” Santorum responded. “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.”

  • Off topic but yesterday, I commented here in another post that I found Rush and Marta Limbaugh’s Sunrise Foundation’s 2003 990 filed with the IRS online at Guidestar and the Foundation Center’s 990 Finder. I linked to my post at the TPM Cafe but since I last updated it, I haven’t been able to access the TPM Cafe.

    The Sunrise Foundation made a series of grants to individuals “in need” with no explanation as to the nature of the need. In late 2003, Limbaugh’s addiction became public.

    I speculated that the grants were really payments to Rush’s dope dealers before or after the news came out about him.

    Foundations do not normally make relatively large grants directly to individuals because they do not want to do the personal financial investigation necessary to support the reason for the grant or have the grant defined as income to the donee.

    For example, the Sunrise Foundaton made a $17k grant to Juan Ecaza of West Palm Beach. $17k is a substantial amount of assistance.

    Laundering money through a charitable foundation and taking a tax deduction to pay your dope dealer is just plain wrong, imo.

  • Fox News designs its news stories backwards so that the relevant information is at the bottom of the article instead of the lead. The lede is reserved for Republicunts talking points.

  • Of course. Lovely response by santorum there. He’s getting angry because Fox News did some reporting for once. Wow.

  • Even if Santorum appeared live on camera with an actual, functioning Iraqi WMD with a range and payload that could actually damage American soil, I fail to see how that would help Santorum personally. It might help Bush some, but not Ricky himself.

    How embarassing it must be when he blows his little whistle and twirls his gleaming baton, only to find out that the band has already packed up and gone home.

  • America has become so divided and our positions so entrenched that we’re all too willing to believe any revelation that proves we’re right — or dismiss it if it hints we’re wrong. Sanitarium comes out with WMD in Iraq and the right goes nuts. Someone in Fitzgerald’s office farts and the left goes nuts. In the process, context is lost. I don’t mean to equate right and left here, but hatred and self-righteousness are destructive regardless of which side they come from. I just read this and don’t know what it has to do with anything.

  • Something more is going on? Um, yeah, KCinDC, it’s called media consolidation. The CEOs of the few megacorporations that own the MSM are in it for the money, of course, and if anyone thinks that the CEOs don’t influence their networks then I have a quote about Jack Welch (ex-CEO of GE/NBC) for you:

    “In private, Welch was proud to have personally cultivated Tim Russert from a “lefty” to a responsible representative of GE interests. Welch sincerely believed that all liberals were phonies. He took great pleasure in “buying their leftist souls”, watching in satisfaction as former Democrats like Russert and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews eagerly discarded the baggage of their former progressive beliefs in exchange for cold hard GE cash. Russert was now an especially obedient and model employee in whom the company could take pride.”

  • What really strikes me is how stupid this is. Why trot out the WMD line now? Even the White House itself has given up that particular line of explaination in fine Orwellian fashion – “No, no. It was never about the WMDs, it was always about ‘spreading democracy'”.

    With the help of the MSM, the public had pretty much forgotten about or moved on from the whole WMD issue. Why bring it up now? Particularly when your big announcement can be so easily debunked. All L’il Ricky has done is remind people that the original justification for invasion was a lie & made himself look like a grandstanding idiot in the process.

    Congrats, Sans-scrotum. You’ve accomplished what no democrat could.

  • President Lindsay, thank you for that quote. I’ve been saying that the media has been bought for ages now, but this is the first solid evidence I’ve seen to back it up.

    I wonder who is the more corrupt, the lefty who sold his soul or the motherless whore of a millionaire who bought it? Right now I’d say it’s pretty much of a toss-up.

  • Thanks for the link President Lindsay. It’s hard to know exactly where the crux of the challenge facing us is, but the acutely compromised foundations of our bought and paid for media is a pretty good place to start. Seeing the prostituted MSM as an obstacle to confront rather than an insurmountable juggernaut is going to be tough.

    The utility of the internet in sidestepping and confronting the MSM’s B.S. is indispensible at this point. But the same greedheads who have defiled American media are certainly aware of where the most effective criticism of their mindset and methods is coming from.

    How do we turn their destructive and self serving tactics back on themselves? That’s an hellaciously tall order but boy, there’s no doubt how screwed we are if the battle is lost. Then again, I may just be whistling past the graveyard. Hopeful. Clueless.

  • Be really careful about the “of course, if he DID then….” arguments.

    As far as I’m concerned, “WMD” is a pretty bullshit PR. We’re over there dropping bombs, Depleted Uranium shells, killing damned indiscriminately without “WMD”.

    The CORE of the thing is, as long as he was contained (i.e. knew he was going to get slapped down if he dared try to use WMD) I STILL think it was more important to go after bin laden.

    But I also knew there was something wrong when in 2002 I heard about our white paper about “where the WMD’s are” and when inspectors got back in and inspected, every single one of those sites were abandoned many years previously. The more I read, the more I knew that WHETHER or not he had them, we were serving up pure-D bullshit claiming “we know” he has them.

    EVEN if he had them. He never would have used them. In fact, the only point in having them would be to use them instead of being dragged from power…so how come he never used them when it was obviously the end for him?

    They can find all they want. We KNOW WMD (uranium) is being left unguarded in Russia, and the senators that want to get money to actually take care of that (being MUCH easier for terrorists to get ahold of) are being ignored.

  • Comments are closed.