Wikileaks documents show WMDs found in Iraq

posted at 1:30 pm on October 24, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

In this case, the surprise isn’t the data but the source.  Wikileaks’ new release from purloined files of the Department of Defense may help remind people that, contrary to popular opinion and media memes, the US did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and in significant quantities.  While the invasion of Iraq didn’t find huge stockpiles of new WMDs, it did uncover stockpiles that the UN had demanded destroyed as a condition of the 1991 truce that Saddam Hussein abrogated for twelve years (via Instapundit):

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.

In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base. …

Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

Some of these discoveries have been known for years.  To the extent that the media covered these at all, these finds were generally treated as long-forgotten leftovers that somehow never got addressed by the Iraqi military in twelve years of UN inspections.  That, however, disregards completely the kind of totalitarian state that Hussein had imposed on Iraq, up to the minute that circumstances forced him into his spider hole in 2003.  Had Saddam Hussein wanted those weapons destroyed, no lower-ranking military officer would have dared defy him by keeping them hidden.  It would have taken dozens of officers to conspire to move and hide those weapons, as well as a like number of enlisted men, any and all of whom could have been a spy for the Hussein clique.

That would have had to have happened a number of times, not just once, organically arising in the ranks.  And why create a vast conspiracy of defiance to save the weapons that Saddam Hussein liked the most while Hussein himself complied with the UN?  Why not a conspiracy to just remove Hussein and his sons and let the military run the country instead?  Obviously, Hussein wanted to keep enough WMDs to use as terror weapons, not against the US, but against Iran in the event of an invasion from the east.

This isn’t exactly vindication of one of the arguments the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq, which was that Hussein had already begun stockpiling new WMDs and was working on nuclear weapons, but it is another vindication of the primary reason for restarting the war: Hussein and Iraq had violated the truce and refused to comply even after 17 UN resolutions demanding compliance.  Hussein never had any intention of abiding by the truce, for whatever motivations one wants to assign to him.  After the invasion, the US proved (through an armed-version of Wikileaks in Iraq’s diplomatic files) that the UN had allowed Hussein to grab billions in personal wealth by perverting the embargo in the Oil-for-Food Program, which would have given Hussein the means to fuel another WMD program as soon as the West withdrew from Iraq, and to restart Hussein’s dreams of pan-Arab dominance through military adventurism.  In the end, there were no good options.

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Could you please supply some “proof” that it was “known that there were WMD’s left over from the first gulf war”?

Names, dates, quotes, article’s anything that will pass the laugh test.

DSchoen on October 24, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Duefler report –

Hundreds of thousands of decalitres of bacillus anthracis and thurengienisis. Bacilli produced between Gulf 1 and Duefler’s report.

Thousands of rounds of artillery shells capable of delivering said agents.

Much ado has been made of the fact that the shells and bacilli “weren’t weaponized”.

In the case of the shells, all you had to do is fill them with activated bacilli.

As for the bacilli, you can easily activate it by putting 1/2 gallon in a translucent 1 gal. container and sitting it in the sun for a few hours. Pour bacilli into shell, seal and it’s ready to go.

Not as effective as our bio-shells, but effective enough to ruin the decade of a town of 10K if you lob one into the town square.


Saddam enriched 12 tons of yellowcake into 1.2 tons of enriched U during the period between Gulf 1 and 2. We recovered the enriched U at al Qaa Qaa.

Jason Coleman on October 24, 2010 at 11:56 PM

Uh, maybe you don’t tell the american people you know for sure these WMDs exist and maybe listen to the head UN inspector that was highly skeptical that the stockpiles existed

You mean the head inspector for the same UN that had placed sanctions on Iraq for….possession of weapons of mass destruction, lol?

But you’re right, let’s ignore history, Saddam himself, and every other nation on the planet that also believed he had them…because one guy was skeptical. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Let me guess….you’re one of those retards who believes Bush should have ignored the intelligence on Iraq wmds, but believes Bush could have stopped 9/11 if he hadn’t ignored the intelligence on OBL.

You have zero evidence….ZERO evidence….that anyone lied about Iraq possessing wmds. When you get it, let us know, because you’ll be the first. You’ll be famous. Until then, buh bye, ship of fools.

xblade on October 25, 2010 at 2:23 AM

91Veteran on October 24, 2010 at 7:01 PM
Jason Coleman on October 24, 2010 at 11:56 PM

Could you please supply some “proof” that it was “known that there were WMD’s left over from the first gulf war”?

Opps! My bad. I intended to ask “Could you please supply some “proof” that it was “known that there were NO WMD’s left over from the first gulf war”?

It was intended for Tom who seems to think it was “known” that WMD’s had been accounted for and destroyed after Gulf war !.

You can list as many other reasons as you like… won’t change the fact that THE reason the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 was their non-existent stockpiles of chemical weapons and their non-existent chemical and nuclear programs. Period.
Tom_Shipley on October 24, 2010 at 5:25 PM

DSchoen on October 25, 2010 at 3:54 AM

Liberals do not believe what is supported by the truth, but what they delude it to be. The ends justify the means even when it requires lies and deceptions to distort reality. Bush was the “devil” and all the WMDS stacked to the moon cannot change that delusion. When their concept of reality is based on feelings and emotion instead of actual facts it confirms the danger of the mainstream media in not reporting the truth when it is so obvious.

volsense on October 25, 2010 at 8:50 AM

In the end, there were no good options.

Well, who likes or wants to go to war?

Send_Me on October 25, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Well, I do admit I’m surprised by one thing: I saw and have a copy of the PDF of the members of Congress acknowledging the discovery of WMD. However, I didn’t know they were finding more of them so recently.

Virus-X on October 25, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Well, who likes or wants to go to war?

Send_Me on October 25, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Besides the ever-present G.I. Joe types, not very many.

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 12:34 PM

This is turning into epic fail on two levels:

1. That NONE of the news media channels are even reporting on it at all.

2. That it neither vindicates nor absolves our invasion of Iraq, despite the hordes of yapping chihuahuas attempting to claim it as proof positive for their pet cause.

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Dark Tard returns with just a bunch of babble and nothing of substance. You can call me anything but just don’t call me surprised.

CW on December 20, 2011 at 11:22 AM