Santorum, Hoekstra back for more

June 26, 2006

Last week, Sen. Rick [tag]Santorum[/tag] (R-Pa.) and Rep. Peter [tag]Hoekstra[/tag] (R-Mich.) caused quite a stir when they held a press conference to announce, “We have found [tag]weapons of mass destruction[/tag] in [tag]Iraq[/tag].” The were a few flaws in the claim. OK, more than a few.

As Michael J.W. Stickings explained in a guest post last week, Santorum and Hoekstra were talking about hundreds of [tag]chemical-weapon[/tag] [tag]shells[/tag] that pre-dated the first Gulf War in 1991. Their “discovery” was meaningless — the shells had already been identified as insignificant and the Santorum/Hoekstra claims were quickly dismissed by U.S. intelligence officials and the Pentagon.

Now, in a reality-based world, this would likely be a career killer for Santorum, the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference Committee, and Hoekstra, the chairman of the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence. These guys should have gotten their facts straight, but instead humiliated themselves by taking their bogus claims public.

The honorable thing to do is to slink away quietly and wait for people to forget how embarrassingly wrong you were. Of course, this isn’t a reality-based world, and instead of feeling embarrassed, Santorum and Hoekstra feel emboldened. In fact, they’re so proud of themselves, they published an [tag]op-ed[/tag] on their “revelations” today in the Wall Street Journal. (the piece is available to non-subscribers)

On Wednesday, at our request, the director of national intelligence declassified six “key points” from a National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) report on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. The summary was only a small snapshot of the entire report, but even so, it brings new information to the American people. “Since 2003,” the summary states, “Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent,” which remains “hazardous and potentially lethal.” So there are WMDs in Iraq, and they could kill Americans there or all over the world.

This latest information should not be new. It should have been brought to public attention by officials in the intelligence community. Instead, it had to be pried out of them.

It’s like a bad joke, only Santorum and Hoekstra don’t realize they’re the punch line. Indeed, their op-ed spends an additional 1,000 words accusing intelligence officials of trying to hide “the truth” about WMD from Congress and the public. Keep in mind, these two aren’t just a couple of far-right talk-show hosts blathering on Fox News; they’re two top Republican policy makers on Capitol Hill.

It’s been nearly three years since Charles Duelfer said Iraq did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, but Santorum and Hoekstra strangely hold out hope to the contrary. Denial is not just a river in Egypt….

Well, those rounds are a threat, if you unscrew the fuse, dump out the sarin, and force someone to role around in it.

The trick, of course, is to get Americans to do that.

  • Look, I realize that I’ve written about this issue in a previous thread, but I can’t believe that we aren’t taking more seriously this discovery of admittedly-ancient chemical weapons shells.

    Especially since we recently discovered Saddam’s intercontinental Howitzer, which would have enabled him to fire those shells, normally considered battlefield munitions, halfway around the globe and onto the American Heartland.

  • I truly can’t decide if THEY’RE incredibly stupid, or if they think that WE’RE incredibly stupid.

  • semper fubar, trust me. I live in Pennsylvania. There’s no way that Santorum is anything but “incredibly stupid.”

  • I agree with Wonderin. I had really hoped for a more substantive post on this issue when you returned, CB. I wasn’t very impressed with Michael’s commentary on this last week, which was mostly dogmatic table-pounding. I certainly don’t want to take Santorum’s word for anything, but if we actually have discovered that Hussein retained a store of 500 chemical weapons shells, then I think it’s time to reconsider the “there were no WMD” and “Bush lied” talking points.

    I don’t know what to think about this issue, but I would like to see these allegations addressed with more substance and less over-the-top rhetoric.

  • James Dillon – why should we have a serious discussion about a non-serious assertion that has already been debunked by US intelligence officials?

  • On Wednesday, at our request, the director of national intelligence declassified six “key points” from a National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) report on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq.

    Typical Republicans – selectively declassify classified information for political gain. Yeah – they’re really serious about the war on terror.

  • The CIA has also been covering up evidence of the child’s wading pool in my back yard that is ‘hazardous and potentially lethal.’ It could kill Americans here or all over the world. (Well, if we could move it without spilling out all the water, and then get them to stick their faces in it. No, really. It could. Be Afraid.)

    Why haven’t we been told the truth about this?????

  • Alright, I agree, its not fair to say “Bush Lied”.
    What should be said is;
    Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell and all those other draft dodgers in the Administration lied every time they opened their goddamn mouths about Iraq.

    There were never any weapons, the UN inspectors were monitoring the situation [another thing Bush constantly lies about] and the invasion was about Oil and Israel, or, if you prefer, Imperialism.

  • “if we actually have discovered that Hussein retained a store of 500 chemical weapons shells…”
    “I would like to see these allegations addressed with more substance and less over-the-top rhetoric.” — James Dillon

    I recommend reading the document that Santorum cites. It’s actually a pretty quick read.

    The article explains that the two weapons in question were degraded mustard gas and degraded sarin nerve agent. Wikipedia tells us that Sarin nerve agent degrades after a few weeks. And, this tells us that mustard takes about ten years to degrade.

    These are old weapons from the 90s. We still have degraded mustard lying around in America (find out about the Edgewood are controversy of 1998). You can find degraded mustard gas shells all over Europe from various wars. These shells should be dealt with carefully, but they are hardly indicative of a massive weapons build-up.

    These degraded shells are useless to any army at this point, because they are just too old. They don’t disprove the existence of Saddam’s extensive weapons program, but they don’t prove it existed, either.

    This doesn’t really need to be a partisan debate. Basically, this is a report that is not relevant and it’s gotten blown out of proportion unnecessarily.

  • The issue really isn’t whether or not these 500 shells meant critics of this administration owe Bush an apology.

    For me, the issue is comparing this discovery with what the White House presented to the world as evidence of Iraq’s WMD programs.

    Remember the mobile bio-labs? The several hundred tons of chemical and biological agents Saddam supposed had?

    Powell’s UN presentation: “Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.”
    Where is this “100 to 500 tons”? Was it part of the mass shipment to Syria?

    Gonna give another site, rege,
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html for Powell’s full presentation.

    THIS is the justification BushCo gave for going to war, not 500 mud-caked artillery rounds from the 1980s, with about as much danger as a gallon of Clorox.

  • but if we actually have discovered that Hussein retained a store of 500 chemical weapons shells, then I think it’s time to reconsider the “there were no WMD” and “Bush lied” talking points.

    review the famous Bush October 7, 2002 speech where he made the case against Saddam’s WMDs to the American public. He specifically said things like

    – “The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons”

    – “the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror” and

    – “surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world”

    – “Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles — far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations — in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States.”

    – “The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” — his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”, etc., etc.

    The point is that Bush portrayed Saddam is actively engaging in current (as of 2002) WMD production programs – and that simply isn’t the case and no evidence of such current production was ever found. The Duelfur Report specifically found that there was no production at all after 1991. These cannisters that were found were all pre-1991 production, left over from an almost 20 year old war. We’re still finding all sorts of ordninance and materiel in Europe left over from WWI and WWII (construction of the media center in Berlin for the World Cup this year was briefly held up last month because they discovered some leftover forgotten about armaments). One would expect in country such as Iraq that has suffered a decent amount of warfare in the past 30 years to find all sorts of left over stuff – but that does’t at all make the case that Bush was talking about and tthat he based his war on – in 2002, contrary to Bush’s assertions, Saddam wasn’t producing the stuff – and nothing in these 500 shells changes that. I’m surprised that you’re making the argument.

  • I don’t know what to think about this issue, but I would like to see these allegations addressed with more substance and less over-the-top rhetoric.

    Sometimes my sense-of-humor meter is off and I can’t tell if someone’s being sarcastic, but I think James is being sincere. If so, I’m not sure why there’s lingering confusion on this issue, but let’s look at the “substance.”

    * Santorum and Hoekstra are pointing to 15-year-old shells that couldn’t do any damage to anyone.

    * Even Bush administration officials, who’d benefit from a WMD discovery, are saying that Santorum and Hoekstra are completely wrong.

    * Other Republican lawmakers aren’t showing any interest in rallying to their defense, because they too know Santorum and Hoekstra are wrong.

    * The president’s hand-picked WMD investigator, who combed through Iraq, has said Santorum and Hoekstra are wrong and that Saddam had no WMD — and no plans to get WMD anytime soon.

    James suggests we “reconsider the ‘there were no WMD'” talking point. I’d be happy to — if there’s any credible evidence to suggest we should.

  • WMD??? They found only a couple of boxes of baking soda in Saddam’s refrigerator and a couple of gallons of clorox bleach in Saddam’s laundry room…Once they locate the cans of bug spray in one of Saddam’s residents this whole WMD thing will be solved and the justification for the war and the thousands of dead will be proven once and for all the right thing to do to keep America safe….

  • The weapons that Santorum and Hoekstra were referring to are pre-1991 chemical warfare items. Whether these are WMDs is debatable. But what is not debatable is that these are non-functional.

    Moreover, when the adminstration claimed that Iraq had WMDs, it was specifically discussing things like mobile weapons labs, and varieties of biowarfare, none of which have been found.

    A reasonable man would draw the conclusion that (thus far) there have been no WMDs that post-date the First Gulf War and that anybody who takes it as an article of faith that there were such WMDs is either stupid or lying.

    With Santorum and Hoekstra, well, they can be both.

  • Liberals_do_it_better,

    Found it, along with several jars of pickled herrings and sauerkraut.

    Don’t think those are WMDs? Go to Oktoberfest sometime……

  • Maddy,

    Thanks, that’s very helpful, and interesting. I don’t know anything about the chemistry of sarin gas, but what are we to make of the statements in the Negroponte report that “[w]hile agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal”?

    Andy,

    Fair enough, my initial post was obviously an overstatement in that regard. There’s no question that Bush has lied and exaggerated many times in selling and subsequently defending the war.

    CB,
    I was in fact being sincere. I would note that I suggested reconsidering the “no WMD” talking point only if there is reason to do so. Your points above seem, perfectly valid, I just would have liked to see them stressed more in the initial post. It has seemed to me so far that the bloggers’ response to this issue has been overly dismissive without really addressing the issues raised. I understand that Santorum is a valid target of derision, but it would be nice to explain in detail why he’s wrong about this, and then laugh at him.

  • As a resident of Pa. I’ve observed Santorum for the past 12 loooong years and concluded some time ago that he’s as dumb as a box of rocks. Really dumbfuck rocks. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that he’s sticking to his story since the only support he has left here are only interested in reading the Bible and affixing “Support the Troops” magnets to their cars and flying the flag outside their trailers.

  • It has seemed to me so far that the bloggers’ response to this issue has been overly dismissive without really addressing the issues raised.

    Fair enough, James. There’s a constant struggle I consider in posts about just how much to assume the reader knows about a subject before reading an item here. If I give too much background, my posts become boring. Too little, and it’s incomplete.

    On this particular news item, I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the merit of the Santorum/Hoekstra claims had been discredited last week. Perhaps a more thorough take-down was in order.

  • According to the Washington Post (Wednesday, October 6, 2004) …

    The officials said that the 1,000-page report by Charles A. Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, concluded that Hussein had the desire but not the means to produce unconventional weapons that could threaten his neighbors or the West.

    First David Kay, then the Duelfer Report, said no WMDs or ongoing WMD programs were discovered. Old shells from the Iran-Iraq War are bumpkiss.

  • One might also ask an interesting timing question. These were pre-Gulf War I shells. There was no question of the existence of such things in that time period; we knew Iraq had them, and indeed had used them against both Iran and its own dissidents. We knew they existed in 1991 because they had been used in the 1980s (when the photo was taken of Rummy with his arm around Saddam). So if Saddam having them was so significant that it necessitates war, why didn’t we topple his regime and ferret them all out in Gulf War I?

    Or, when despite our encouragement to Shiite rebels, we let Saddam use the chemical munitions against them again in Southern Iraq after Gulf War I, why didn’t we start another war against Saddam and his America-threatening WMDs?

    Even if you set aside the deterioration of the mustard and sarin, and even if you set aside all of the other lies about causes for this war, these 500 old short-range munitions that we knew about all along hardly explains the justification for this war in 2003, as opposed to warring with Iraq earlier. (yes I know – this is pre-9/11 thinking.)

  • When asked about Santorum’s ‘Discovery’, Senator Kit Bond said plainly that the 500 saran and mustard gas artillery shells were NOT the WMD the Senate was briefed about as justification for the Iraqi war.

    I have acquaintances who work at the NGIC. I bet they are hanging their heads in shame to have their organization associated to this load of bullshit Ricky “Man-on-Dog” Santorum is dumping on America. And I’m sure the NGIC’s patron, Senator John Warner, is not to pleased to have its work demeaned in this way.

  • Even if you set aside the deterioration of the mustard and sarin, and even if you set aside all of the other lies about causes for this war, these 500 old short-range munitions that we knew about all along hardly explains the justification for this war in 2003, as opposed to warring with Iraq earlier. (yes I know – this is pre-9/11 thinking.)

    Excellent point, Zeitgeist. That’s worth keeping in mind because the Democrats and left wing generally have allowed the administration to shift the debate to the question of whether there actually were WMDs, whether the intelligence was reliable, etc. These are interesting issues and certainly relevant to the question of whether the administration knowingly deceived the public, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that, even if Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction, that in itself still doesn’t justify the invasion. Or at least, we should force the Republicans to argue that point instead of tacitly granting it to them.

  • This is a perfect example of what David Brooks was obviously not reading in his diatribe against the rage of the left-wing blogosphere. A lot of disgust, yes, but where’s the rage? What there is, is a lot of thoughtful analysis, and some decent debate, that, despite the joking and sarcasm and frustration, went forward in a pretty civilized manner, and from the looks of it, turned out to be pretty persuasive to someone who has clearly been attuned to the right’s talking points.

    Zeitgeist point is probably the most important takeaway from all this. It’s amusing that we are arguing three years later about the existence of the phantom WMDs, when three years ago we should have seen the logic that although we could verify that Saddam HAD WMDs, he wasnt considered a threat that had to be taken out. And this, my friends, is the real reason the MSM is so fearful. They are beholden to the money, which the republican /obbyist machine controls, and whose control relies upon the manipulation of truth, and thus the terms of the debate.

  • zeitgeist,

    So if Saddam having them was so significant that it necessitates war, why didn’t we topple his regime and ferret them all out in Gulf War I?

    Because grownups were in charge in the HW administration. I disagreed with them on virtually every policy issue, however, they knew that occupying Iraq was a bad idea. Regrettably, Rove and Cheney made sure that their voices were not heard in the W administration.

  • Not even the hard core right wing shill bloggers will touch this one with a ten foot pole anymore.

    Santorum is desperate.

    • Comments are closed.