Video: Santorum, Hoekstra, McInerney talk WMD on H&C

posted at 11:21 pm on June 21, 2006 by Allahpundit

Hannity’s lighting fires, Colmes is putting them out. And See-Dubya‘s lighting them up again.

Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney speculates that Bush kept this on the downlow lest revelations about the provenance of the chemical shells embarrass some of our colleagues on the UN Security Council. But why? Are Russia’s and/or China’s votes so valuable that the administration would suppress evidence of WMD and let the “BUSH LIED” meme proliferate instead? If Bush went public with the evidence, the Russians or Chinese might retaliate by balking on Iran sanctions — but of course, they might end up balking on Iran anyway. On the other hand, a WMD scandal could have a salutary effect by restoring America’s credibility on the issue and putting international pressure on Russia/China to atone for arming Saddam by cracking down hard now on the Iranians. Or am I missing something?

Enough blather — here’s the vid. Hannity really milks it, even by his standards.


Update: Where were you during the Blackout of ’06?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I saw the show, and I already knew that no matter what we find in Iraq the liberals will continue with the same old rhetoric. They even refuse to believe that Cigarman was ready to commit troops before Bush was elected. Sheesh!

Here is how it works. If there are no terrorist attacks in the U.S. then it is because there is no threat. If America does get hit again then it is because Bush didn’t do his job. The only other place you can see such blind hatred is with members of Al Qaeda.

The fact of the matter is that liberals demand to get their power back, and they will destroy anyone or anything to get it. America’s loss is a liberal win, and an American win is not to be tolerated. You cannot deal honorably with todays democrat. Most of them have no honor left.

DannoJyd on June 22, 2006 at 12:11 AM

Russia, China, and France, three out of five of the UN Security Council, as the video notes. I’m guessing the reasons for not going public earlier are more complicated than it appears.

Another theory to consider: It just took a long time for the World Trade Center demolition team to get these “WMDs” mocked up just right. Tricky business, these conspiracies.

insomni on June 22, 2006 at 12:12 AM

Allah:On the other hand, a WMD scandal could have a salutary effect by restoring America’s credibility on the issue and putting international pressure on Russia/China to atone for arming Saddam by cracking down hard now on the Iranians. Or am I missing something?

No you have not. How can we explain that within the entire administration, not a single person come out to defend the US of A? Remember Jordan intercepted a whole truck load of warfare chemicals, even after they claimed that these chemicals were from Iraq but we did not do anything with it?

I cannot help but to believe that the State Department do dictate our foreign policy and the State Department is not run by Bush nor by Condi. The State Department is a country by itself.

If you think Bush runs the State Department then how can you explain the fact that the State Department has negotiated a SS deal with Mexico without informing the entire GOP in the House?

State Department is not conducting a foreign policy in the best interest of this country.

easy87us on June 22, 2006 at 12:19 AM

If McInerney is right, and I think he is, we have even bigger problems on our hands. I hate the fact that Russia is so active in opposing us when we had such high hopes for them just a few short years ago…

canvas on June 22, 2006 at 12:21 AM

I find it hard to believe that the President would carry water for the likes of the UN (throat clearing noises) Security Council, so as not to embarrass China and Russia. My guess is that the Administration is far more concerned with the CIA, and what a joke they became during the Clinton years. Can anyone spell Jamie Gorelick? President Bush has bent over backwards to spare the Clinton Administration the ridicule (which has come at such a huge price) they so richy deserve.

calnevari on June 22, 2006 at 12:42 AM

500 Shells isn’t a huge quantity, but it shore ain’t nuthin’. I know the Libs will still argue that they aren’t really WMDs (like Combs basically did) but they are. Plus, we need to remember there were many reasons cited for going into Iraq, not just WMDs.

gmoonster on June 22, 2006 at 1:18 AM

This is the party which believes the CO2 emitted from bakeries and wineries must be curtailed but 500 shells filled with mustard gas and sarin?

No threat to anyone…old munitions.

Essex on June 22, 2006 at 1:26 AM

weapons violations have been found from the second day in country in Iraq, but “not enough” for the lefties, nor will 500 chemical shells be considered “stockpile” enough to satisfy them now. when will you understand the only WMD the left will recognizee is the one that goes off in manhattan, and THAT, of course, will be GW’s fault. Hannity does no one any service by describing dates or viability or quality of the weapons. the ONLY way to answer is with the short soundbites so beloved by the left (ie bush lied) and that is NO WMDs? only democratic party math can find that 500 = none, and ride that pony into the ground, “you said NONE, what do you call THESE?”
there will never be enough WMDs found in Iraq to get the libs to quit screeching.

colorfulbeachpersona on June 22, 2006 at 1:59 AM

and why now? because someone FORCED the truth out of an intelligence community stuffed with career bureaucrats that have been hamstringing, back stabbing, sabotaging and commiting treason in order to make the Bush administration look bad and they hope, fail. Why the delay in relasing all the documents found in Iraq? why does it take a lawsuit to get them made available?.
The enemy isnt in baghdad, its right here

colorfulbeachpersona on June 22, 2006 at 2:06 AM

President Bush has bent over backwards to spare the Clinton Administration the ridicule (which has come at such a huge price) they so richy deserve.

calnevari

I agree with that. Bush has continually refused let even his opponents be shamed, like Kerry when all of the servicemen that served with him came forward to denounce him. Bush said that Kerry served this country and that he should not be considered anything but a hero… though I disagree with that.

However, the point is that there has to be a reason why they didn’t let this information out sooner. The UN Secruity council reason is a good theory… it fits. George has never been one to try and stop people from saying horrible things about him and seems to “take one for the team” quite often.

Personally, I’d like to know what the reason is but whatever it is, it has no bearing on the fact that WMDs WERE found! I’ve believed they were there from day one, I’ve always believed that Saddam hurriedly rushed them out to Syria when he knew the US was coming, and he had time to do it… and General Sada’s book “Saddam’s Secret” confirms that. It only makes sense that Saddam would be most concerned with hiding the newest, most dangerous WMDs, leaving these old ones behind.

And whether or not they can still be fired from a missile is irrelevant. If Saddam had turned the gases over to terrorist groups, you have to know they would absolutely have been able to use them because the gasses themselves have not become inert.

rahjr2k on June 22, 2006 at 3:48 AM

Funny, there is a parallel between WMD’s recently found and Dimocratic facts.

They are both old and degraded.

I apologize for the oxymoron: Dimocrat and facts

Wil on June 22, 2006 at 7:12 AM

Danno, you hit the ball right outtada park.

“It’s going, it’s GOING … IT’S GOOOOONE!”

Tony737 on June 22, 2006 at 8:28 AM

If the US found “Big Boy” buried under the sand it wouldn’t be enough because the Enola Gay was not buried along side! And if it were, they would cry; “But where’s the gasoline!”

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on June 22, 2006 at 9:02 AM

This is the party which believes the CO2 emitted from bakeries and wineries must be curtailed but 500 shells filled with mustard gas and sarin?

Now THAT is funny. Because its true.

If the US found “Big Boy” buried under the sand it wouldn’t be enough because the Enola Gay was not buried along side! And if it were, they would cry; “But where’s the gasoline!”

Hey, Pirate – I swear when I made the same basic analogy in another thread, I hadn’t read your post first! (great minds and all that …)

Professor Blather on June 22, 2006 at 9:46 AM

blather and dread,
glad to know you weren’t kicked off. :)

The most frightening part about this is that, if it’s true that Russia, China and France helped Iraq move weapons (and i believe it is), and we rolled over to help those countries save face by not exposing that fact, then we truly have few friends in the world. I can count Great Britain and Australia.

How can we be assured that they will support us with this Iran and NK issue? (which is HUGE).
Remember that movie War Games? they played Globalthermonuclear war. the computer didn’t know that it was only a game. I think the world is playing a very dangerous game right now and frankly, it scares me to death.
Someone will fire the first shot and then it’s over, folks.

pullingmyhairout on June 22, 2006 at 10:05 AM

Alan Colmes makes me so angry that many times I have almost destroyed my TV.

I cannot believe that no matter what the debate, Colmes takes the position of a traitor.He always say something like;”we all support the military but…”

I wish they would throw him off the program. There is no reason to have an American hating traitor on any News program.

ScottyDog on June 22, 2006 at 10:54 AM

Scotty…that’s why Colmes is on the program. It’s his job to oppose Hannity, stand with the “other side” and TRY to present the liberal left’s viewpoint. I feel sorry for him because he gets put down in almost every instance; but then, that’s what he gets paid to do!

Essex, I like your analogy too. Add to that second-hand smoke and cows tooting. ANYTHING will be more dangerous to us than whatever will be found in Iraq.

jatfla on June 22, 2006 at 11:32 AM

There is a reason to keep guys like Colmes around. At least by all appearances, Hannity enjoys working with him, but even more than that, we can never forget what it means to be a moonbat.

It’s like Rush Limbaugh always says: He will never quit until everyone agrees with him, *but* he thinks there should be at least one liberal on every college campus to serve as an example. I tend to agree.

Pay close attention to the format of shows like Hannity and Colmes. The moonbats usually get grilled by Sean, while Alan gets to interview the conservatives. It’s a technique that’s been used since CNN’s Crossfire.

And in the interest of full disclosure, personally speaking, I don’t like Colmes either.

gryphon202 on June 22, 2006 at 11:37 AM

Alan Colm adds no value to the show. He is like a dry prune. If he is there to make Hannity looks good, then Hannity is not that good.

easy87us on June 22, 2006 at 11:57 AM

I think the A-bombs were Fat Man and Little Boy. One plane was the Enola Gay and the other was Boxcar. Fat Boy is Ted Kennedy.

Shmo on June 22, 2006 at 12:29 PM

There is no reason to have an American hating traitor on any News program.

Oh boy, in that case we’ll have to get rid of Chris Matthews, Keith Olberbite, Tim Rustert, Katie Couric, Stphesomethinoranother, Brian Williams, etc……

Capitalist Infidel on June 22, 2006 at 2:21 PM

Pre-1991 chemical weapons not a threat?

Tell it to the widows of French farmers killed unearthing WW1 gas shells in their fields. Still happens after nearly 90 years.

Don’t wait for an apology from Kerry and Kennedy. Being a liberal means never having to say you’re sorry.

irishsquid on June 22, 2006 at 4:19 PM

The problem I have with FNC is they are “fair and balanced.” Hannity and Colmes is the perfect example. Why not just have Hannity on? Colmes gives me “Intermittent Explosive Disorder” listening to him spout of DNC talking point after talking point.

Every other news channel and the 3 major networks give us all of the propagandabalance we need.

Sweaty Deacon on June 22, 2006 at 5:06 PM

I said in a different post that we just spent millions destroying degrading mustard gas shells during the Clinton years that had been manufactured probably during the 60′s.
So why are these WMD’s less volatle or perhaps they are SAFE now??

gary on June 22, 2006 at 5:26 PM

To the libs: You were wrong, they were there all along. :-)

Mojave Mark on June 22, 2006 at 11:08 PM

gmoonster quote

500 Shells isn’t a huge quantity, but it shore ain’t nuthin’.

I take exception to that ‘isn’t a huge quantity’. What determines the quantity. The number of devices? The number of people the decives can kill? Makes no difference if the number is one or one million, they are still Weapons of Mass Destruction. If those 500 weapons were deployed they would be capible of killing into the milliions of people and

it shore ain’t nuthin’

Wade on June 23, 2006 at 12:11 PM

Jane Harman, California congresswoman, said that since these WMD’s were from 1991 and before they are probably no more lethal than what is underneath your kitchen sink.

“Jane, you ignorant slut”.

doingwhatican on June 23, 2006 at 6:15 PM

If Bush went public with the evidence, the Russians or Chinese might retaliate by balking on Iran sanctions — but of course, they might end up balking on Iran anyway. On the other hand, a WMD scandal could have a salutary effect by restoring America’s credibility on the issue and putting international pressure on Russia/China to atone for arming Saddam by cracking down hard now on the Iranians. Or am I missing something?

Allah, I’ve been puzzled by the administration’s behavior since the day it was obvious they were holding back on purpose. My only theory is that they want to be the first to actually find/seize the weapons – in Syria if need be – and the last to accuse anyone (even if justified) of having done so without the proof in hand. Perhaps making the accusation public will trigger Syria & enablers to move them yet again, this time in a much harder-to-discover manner?

(Admittedly thin but just an idea…)

RD on June 23, 2006 at 11:01 PM

On the H&C topic: Colmes, though usually hard to take, isn’t all bad all the time… on rare occasions I admit I’ve been both “Hannitized” and “Colme-sized”.

(“‘Colme-sized’? What ‘size’ is that exactly? Judging by his lackluster performance on the tube…”)

RD on June 23, 2006 at 11:25 PM

The attitude difference between this and the latest Bank surveylance leak is truly amazing…

In one, we have unnamed sources outing a perfectly legal intelligence mission, and getting a LOT of airplay…

In the other, we have good source giving information about a critical piece of prewar intelligence, and prooving many to have lied, but it gets very little airplay.

I would also point out that it seems that our intelligence apparatus would rather leak imporant information that they shouldn’t, than release imporatant information that should be told…

Romeo13 on June 24, 2006 at 1:02 PM

I’ve been puzzled by the administration’s behavior since the day it was obvious they were holding back on purpose.

I think they mostly have been ignoring the WMD thing because WMD’s weren’t the primary reason they went into Iraq, they never said they were, and to respond to the Moonbats only gives their arguments credibility.

Jane Harman, California congresswoman, said that since these WMD’s were from 1991 and before they are probably no more lethal than what is underneath your kitchen sink.

I think maybe ATF ought to take a look under her sink. Damn.

B Moe on June 24, 2006 at 6:02 PM