He’s The Least Popular Senator For A Reason
Tweet
In SurveyUSA’s recent polling of all 100 senators, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania came in dead last with an approval rating of 36% and a disapproval of 56%. He currently trails challenger Bob Casey by 23%.
Why? There are a lot of reasons. But part of it is because he pulls stupid crap like this.
Today, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference and announced we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Santorum and Hoekstra are hyping a document that describes degraded, pre-1991 munitions that were already acknowledged by the White House s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed.
Fox News Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra s claims. 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.
31 Responses to “He’s The Least Popular Senator For A Reason”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I agree that these 500+ rounds of chemical munitions were not the WMD that were briefed before the war…but they were WMD that Saddam was supposed to have destroyed, and that he claimed to have destroyed, and that were not found by the inspectors during the 12 years between invasions.
This is just another piece of relevant evidence, along with:
- brand-new (that is, less than one year old and never used) chemical weapons protection suits and first-aid packs discovered in bunkers
- 16 cyclosarin shells confiscated by Polish troops after terrorists were caught attempting to sell them
- traces of yellowcake uranium ore and radiation signatures from enriched uranium found on pieces of “scrap metal” that Iraq shipped as far away as Holland
- Tons of chemical reagents labeled “pesticides”, discovered in concrete-reinforced bunkers, that are the basis for manufacturing nerve agents
- A huge convoy , monitored by satellite, that carried still-undisclosed cargo from the Al-Qaqaa munitions dump into Syria just days before we attacked
- The Duelfer report, which plainly stated that Saddam kept reagents, manufacturing facilities, and chemists ready so that chemical weapons production could be started immediately if UN sanctions were lifted. The report also plainly stated that Saddam would re-start nuclear research in an attempt to catch up with Iran. Plus we know that Saddam bribed the French and Russians with hundreds of millions of ‘oil for food’ dollars in an attempt to influence them to end UN sanctions.
All of this has been reported in the mainstream press. And Scratch, you are dead-on: there is absolutely no doubt that Saddam totally failed to comply with UN resolutions ordering him to destroy ALL chemical weapons, reagents used to make weapons, and nuclear manufacturing capabilities.
According to UN resolutions, failure to comply justified the resumption of military action against Saddam’s regime. It’s just as simple as that.
It has truly been entertaining watching the Left put its hands over its ears, jump up and down, and yell LA-LA-LA-LA-LA in the face of all this evidence. Really, though, I thought you guys would come up with something a little more creative than “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.” Pathetic.
And Oliver, here’s a Fox News qute you seem to have missed, via The Real Ugly American:
Maybe one day the Bush administration will have the courage to present shaky half truths and bad information as evidence of an “immediate threat.” Will that day ever come, Mike? May the peace of Malkin be with you, my brother.
See, tomy, the reason you never hear about the WMD’s is because the left-wing media, see, won’t give the Bush administration a platform. In fact, Saddam Hussein conspired with OBL and they had nukes that could hit Washington in 5 minutes, but they were smuggled to Syria on the back of donkeys in the dark of night with Jack Murtha leading the convoy.
It’s just that the liberal media is hiding it from you. Why do they hate America?
Funny how only people who believe in the magical WMD convoy are people who also believe Clinton murdered Vince Foster. You certainly never hear the administration touting this misleading, cherry-picked “evidence,” because incredible as it may seem, the Bush administration still has a shred more integrity than the Free Republic loons like Mike here. But by all means, write President Bush and have him give a speech based your watertight case. I’d love to see it.
Pedro…
In a perverse way, I don’t even mind, in the same way that I might offer a match to a smoker though I myself find it to be a disgusting habit. Or maybe it’s more like playing with that breed of sheep that you can startle and they immediately collapse to the ground. The ability to trigger that kind of response with a few simple words is good sport.
On a completely off-topic note, I just learned that you are a surgeon, so you may be interested to hear that I was reading Anderson Cooper’s “blog” earlier, and he describes reporting from Iraq and having to step in–as a trained neurosurgeon–to save the life of a soldier who had been shot in the head. What the? Then I saw it wasn’t Cooper writing…it was Sanjay Gupta. Things were weird for a minute before I figured it out.
“it is well known that Russia helped Saddam move most of his WMD stockpiles out of Iraq before the war.”
Tom’s right, there has never been any evidence that that took place. Your Ugly American is a hack. There was no “reporting”, just speculation by the general.
Don’t you think the admin would take any opportunity to nail france and russia, after they became threats to all humanity and freedom by not supporting our glorious war in Iraq?
scratch and mike.
Have you noticed that the replies you get in response to your well-crafted, evidence filled posts are nothing more than diversionary diatribes about the media and Bush?
It is almost as if the usual leftists here can’t actually address the factual evidence…almost as if reality can’t impinge upon their Fairytopia existence.
I could handle counter-arguments regarding the allegations that scratch has described….but when Vince Foster and Clinton are suddenly injected into the discussion…well, it becomes clear that the lefties really don’t have a leg to stand on.. .doesn’t it?
It also goes a long way in explaining the preciptious drop in OW readership….that sitemeter at the bottom of the page is quite enlightening…
“The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.”
President Bush, October 2004. What a liberal traitor he is.
“well-crafted, evidence filled”
That’s one way to decribe it. I would describe it as a non-sourced free republic fantasy. When the administration says it — not some Malkin conspiracy theorist — then it might merit debunking. As it is, it gets as much of a serious response as a Tooth Fairy sighting.
On a more meta note, this rekindling of the WMD flames is a good sign. The GOP must really be losing their hard-core base to be resurrecting pre-’91 mustard gas shells. Desperation is what this is.
On a) Hey, if you think mustard gas is an “immediate threat” to the United States, more power to you. Of course, that would make you an idiot.
b) Your response is irrelevant; my claim is based on the weapons inspectors’ reports after our invasion, not Saddam’s own statements.
c) Explain how operating in a part of Iraq uncontrolled by Saddam constitutes a “tie” of any threatening significance. It’s precisely the pettiness of things like a few ancient mustard gas shells and an operator like Zarqawi (who frankly had few ties to bin Laden, if you’re going to be honest) working in the no-fly zone that lead me to assume d) was the “real” reasoning Bush had for this war. Because mustard gas and Zarqawi are nowhere near an “immediate threat,” as Rumsfeld ddescribed it.
d) I think it’s a pretty charitable interpretation. Normally when I argue with drive-by sniping trolls like you, who post whatever nasty bad-faith argument springs to your liberal-hating mind, I go for a reciprocal maximalist position. In this case, I’m being nice on George; I’m not saying he’s doing it because he’s a weakling in search of a legacy, or to prove something to daddy or for Halliburton, for example.
And e) obviously we disagree. But I bet you’ll admit the war’s lost soon enough; you’ll just blame liberals instead of the real culprit: Bush.
“According to UN resolutions, failure to comply justified the resumption of military action against Saddam s regime.”
I wouldn’t argue that it was an illegal war, btw; just that it was a stupid, pointless, strategic blunder that was bound to fail. Conservatives seem hung up on the legality question when the problem is that whatever “immediate threat” Rumsfeld conjured has utterly failed to pan out. Saddam had no weapons programs after ’98, and no prospects of starting one given containement. A new round of inspections was the best policy by cost/benefit, both in hindsight and at the time.
But what’s the point? Both critics and supporters agree that a) to the extent that Iraq was a threat, it was in the context of nukes and possibly bio, not chemical weapons (not really a WMD per se); b) Saddam had no prospect of getting nukes, regardless of intentions; c) Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda, at least no more than any other country in the region; d) Bush’s primary reason for war was the strategic goal of democratizing the Middle East, not WMDs; and d) this strategic goal has been a colossal failure. So finding some mustard gas shells from 1985 is a pretty sad attempt if you think that’s going to change anyone’s minds about this failed project or this failed presidency.
Move those Goalposts!
So said Kim Jong-Ill in 1994. So says Ahmadinejad today. You belive them?!?
How soon we forget Zarqawi. (Bonus on the stealth goalpost move!)
I’m not quite sure critics and supporters agree on this statement.
Coming on the heels of a new Iraq cabinet, a dead Zarqawi, and news of WMD, this statement is imminently laughable. And again, critics and supporters agree on this?!?
This from an MSNBC article:
“But defense officials said that the weapons were not considered likely to be dangerous because of their age. Pentagon officials told NBC News that the munitions are are the same kind of ordnance the U.S. military has been gathering up in Iraq for the past several years, and “not the WMD we were looking for when we went in this time.”
This is one of the largest political faux paus of our time.
JK
P.S. Eat me, Cyrus.
Leroy…
Let me know when Tony starts shooting at our planes on a regular basis, and I might support a move to take the scissors away.
Yea Cooper really WOULD be a wunderkind wouldn’t he?
Yea I have to give Sanjay credit for stepping in, you know how reporters are about “objectivity”.
Tomy you are weak and getting weaker. I don’t really care how you describe it. How about something PROVING that it is not some “Malkin conspiracy”? Your sense that it doesn’t require serious response is meaningless, and smacks of someone who can’t actually DEVISE a response.
a) just about anything (say boxcutters) is an immediate threat in this day and age. No, mustard gas isn’t the most lethal weapon in the world. But that doesn’t matter. I for one am not comfortable with our nation’s enemies being in possession of it. You? That’s where we disagree.
b) those same reports you mention didn’t cite the mustard gas reported on yesterday. What else wasn’t in those reports?
c) Now Zarqawi, the leader of AQ-Iraq, doesn’t have ties to AQ?!? Keep spinning.
d) I actually agree with the statement. My only point was not everyone agrees (including the owner of this here website). Otherwise, the chorus of “No Blood for Oil”, “Halliburton”, “No WMD” would be non-existent, not to mention the perpetual harping on every death, as if keeping a zero body count is the goal.
That’s great Farris. So by your logic, if Saddam had anything, anything at all (including, to use your example, boxcutters) he was a threat worthy of destruction. Well, shut my mouth and call me Limbaugh, but I hear Tony Blair has some sharp scissors and he’s *GASP* thinking of running with them! Prepare the invasion force!
As for C) haven’t they cited documents showing that OBL (Remember him?) hated the guy and didn’t want anything to do with him?
c) Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda, at least no more than any other country in the region;
How soon we forget Zarqawi. (Bonus on the stealth goalpost move!)
Farris, the ties between Zarqawi and Saddam are nil. Saddam had no use for religious fundies in his regime; they were a threat to his power. It seems like you’re saying that their mere existence in the same country constitutes “ties.” Based on that logic, I can tie Dick Cheney to Charles Manson.
And again: a dead Zarqawi is a symbolic victory, but hardly a crushing one. As I mentioned on a previous thread, the new head of AQ in Iraq–which, by the way, was a name Zarqawi adopted without “authorization”–is believed to be personally responsible for the beheadings and mutilation of two GIs in Iraq, which, if true, means that the new boss is the same as the old boss.
When are you going to figure out that you can’t destroy an ideology just by killing its adherents? You think that even if we’d caught or killed OBL and Zawahiri that it would mean we were in any less danger?
Pedro & Scratch.
You really have to feel sorry for these guys. After all, the last two weeks have been really bad for Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers.
We waxed Zarqawi, and forced the BDS crowd to admit that “they knew all along” that al-Qaeda had operatives working with Saddam before we attacked, proving that Saddam was working with Islamic terror organizations.
Now we have forced them to claim that “they knew all along” that we found 500 artillary shells containing banned chemical agents, proving that Saddam never destroyed his chemical weapons arsenal.
We just took out their two biggest “Bush lied-people died” talking points.
I can’t wait to hear what they come up with when we bag Osama.
Farris, it is painfully ironic that a defender of Bush’s Iraq policy would attack his critics on the basis of “moving the goalposts.” You may want to reconsider that.
“the new head of AQ in Iraq which, by the way, was a name Zarqawi adopted without authorization
Exactly. Zarqawi was personally despised by bin Laden for his anti Shiite views. Bin Laden tolerated his “attack the infidels” stance, but operationally, there was no real connection. It was a branding decision that turned out to be useful to bin Laden, Zarqawi, and George Bush, but it didn’t really mean much except to excite the jihadis and the Malkin right.
Hey Mike, when’s that scheduled for anyway? October 2006? Or October 2008?
You’re right Pedro, its so much easier to feel better if I just make up reasons to feel succesful.
Like “Mission Accomplished” or “We’ve found WMDs” or “We’ve saved marriage” or “We’ve controlled the border” or…
No,no Leroy, remember? Ollie was speculating that it was going to occur before the LAST election!
Just keep predicting, eventually you will be right and can cheer and scream “I’m number 1!” into the mirror…..
LOL
Hey Mike, you keep saying we “knew all along” as though it’s something that’s been said by liberals in this thread. What thread are you reading? Who do you think you’re zinging, exactly? Has anyone actually said that? Also, I still haven’t seen you address the fact that going to war to stop the “immediate threat” of Iraqi WMDs and finding only pre-’91 mustard gas isn’t a colossal waste. Here’s your chance!
Anyway, my talking point is not “Bush lied, people died” so much as “Bush made an unfixably bad strategic error, Americans are now dying for no good reason and Bush has no plan to change course” but it doesn’t fit on a sign too well, as you might imagine. Still, if you wouldn’t mind modifying your drive-by, ignorant, bad-faith, hateful troll slurs, I would appreciate it.
And when you finally do read the government’s official statement on these WMD “discoveries,” I pray that the serenity and peace of Malkin be with you as your hopes deflate, Mike.
Gee, Mike spouts a bunch of RW fantasies, and we’re deranged? Go on believing that al-Queda was working with Saddam. And had chemical weapons. Right. You’ve just got to have faith. Must listen to Hannity. Must listen to Hannity. Take your medicine. It’s good for you.
You really have to feel sorry for these guys. After all, the last two weeks have been really bad for Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers.
LOL, Save your alligator tears as you may need them in a few months.
BTW, just for the record, which was the greater threat?
1. Saddam’s “WMDs”
2. Saddam’s “ties” to Al Queda
3. Two gay persons getting married to the “sanctity of marriage”
The faith-based wingnuts have really come out for this one. Boy what a pant-load of gullible hacks.