News > Politics > Santorum Stretches Truth to Justify Iraq War

commentary
FRIDAY JUNE 23 2006 3:00 PM

Santorum Stretches Truth to Justify Iraq War

Submitted by legionnaire

Edited by legionnaire

Tags: Santorum, Iraq, weapons of mass destruction

It's truly ironic that Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry allowed himself to be branded a "flip-flopper" in the media during the 2004 election cycle because of his supposed penchant for changing opinions, when it was his opponent, George W. Bush, who has flip-flopped the most on important issues like why he chose to invade and occupy Iraq. First it was terrorism. Then it was the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Then it was a moral obligation to help out the Iraqi people. Then it was tying Iraq to 9/11. The justifications have cycled through various versions of these explanations, but throughout virtually all of them had been the underlying threat of Iraq's imminent gaining of weapons of mass destruction, either to be used directly against Western interests or (in a scenario that made no sense to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the politics involved) Hussein giving these weapons to a group like al-Qaeda to then go and use against the West. Well, it's been a few years now, and as the entire world has widely acknowledged, no weapons have been found. The entire world that is, with the exception of Republican Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) who told reporters this week that WMDs had been found in Iraq.

At issue is a classified overview of chemical munitions found in Iraq since 2003 that was completed in April by the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center. One of the report's key findings was that since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, coalition forces have recovered about 500 shells, canisters or other munitions that contain degraded mustard gas or sarin nerve agent.

That finding was seized on by Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a strong supporter of the war who is trailing his Democratic opponent in his reelection bid. The two said that the study indicated that Saddam Hussein, as president of Iraq, possessed weapons of mass destruction.

"Iraq was not a WMD-free zone," Santorum told reporters earlier this week. "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons." He added that he had been chasing the intelligence report "for 2 1/2 months."

Worrisome findings, to be sure. Here's the problem: these were the same WMDs that had existed in Iraq before the first gulf war, and have been decaying ever since.

Yesterday, however, Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the intelligence panel, said the study contained "nothing new" and questioned the timing of its release, coming as it did in the midst of congressional debates on the war in Iraq.

That assertion was backed up by representatives of three intelligence agencies who told reporters that the study differed little from a 2004 report of a team of American weapons inspectors led by Charles A. Duelfer that concluded that Hussein was not in possession of significant stocks of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons at the time of the U.S.-led invasion.

The intelligence officials also said that the munitions referred to in the report were produced before the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and that they had degraded and could not be used as designed. "There is no evidence today of any post-1991 WMD munitions," said the official, who agreed to speak with reporters only if his identity and his agency were not disclosed.

It has not been made public yet whether Santorum's retroactive justification for war included "alarming increases in the number and movements of Kaiser Wilhelm's mounted cavalry."

So once again, we're faced with the dismal prospect of having to decide which camp the GOP leadership falls into. Are they just so incredibly stupid that they don't understand that Iraq having a tiny amount of disused munitions from a program that stopped in the 1980's is not the same as having an active WMD prorgam that poses a legitimate threat to US interests? Or are they just so dishonest that they'll make public, baldfaced, easily disproven lies and just hope that they can shrug them off when called out on them by blaming the "liberal media" or "obstructionist Democrats?" Maybe both?

PAGE:

1 | 2

Comments

jake_lex

Lexington, KY

February 2003

JUN 23, 2006 03:11 PM

I'm sure the fact that Mr. Man-on-Dog has fallen 18 points behind in his re-election campaign had nothing to do with that statement being released either.

Nokturn

United Kingdom

April 2006

JUN 23, 2006 05:24 PM

Was it not always obvious that 'WMD' stood for 'Widespread Misdirection Device'?
Just as 'UFO' used to stand for 'Unfounded Focus Opportunity'.
These three letter abreviations are never meant to indicate real things, merely means by which governments make people look the other way while they... you know, do something they shouldn't.

AluminumOvercast

Pittsburgh, PA

May 2006

JUN 23, 2006 06:47 PM

SURPRISE! Santorum is an asshole. Why is this news?

hoogle

Poughkeepsie, NY

April 2005

JUN 23, 2006 07:37 PM

adef187 said:
SURPRISE! Santorum is an asshole. Why is this news?

Well, I can have fun with assholes. But not Santorum. I just want to beat the shit out of that guy.

abracadabra

Seattle, WA

April 2004

JUN 23, 2006 07:42 PM

in other news "Santorum" is synonymous with ....