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

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

Comment pages: 1 2

The majority of these “leaks” are info that we already knew.

darwin-t on October 24, 2010 at 1:35 PM

I remember Bubba being interviewed when the war was launched. He said that he believed Iraq still had WMDs, and that everyone believed it. That was played once, but “mission accomplished” seemed to be on a never ending playback loop.

Main stream media my keister.

Laura in Maryland on October 24, 2010 at 1:36 PM

Saddam was a survivor who was playing the long game. It never was a matter of if he had a sitting stockpile of WMDS. The real threat was it wouldnt take much for him to rebuild his arsenal.

This was all people needed to know. Saddam had nerve Gas and had used other WMDs before. The left simply stated “Well he doesnt have them now” as if that was a complete solution.

He could always build more.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/nyt-041303.gif

William Amos on October 24, 2010 at 1:37 PM

the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq

This itself is a meme. The Authorization that Bush had Congress sign off on had at least a dozen “rationales” for going into Iraq-but the Left and media have ignored all of the other ones save one. The one they still trumpet is Bush going in as revenge for Saddam trying to kill his Daddy.

Del Dolemonte on October 24, 2010 at 1:41 PM

The majority of these “leaks” are info that we already knew.

darwin-t on October 24, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Yes, indeed they are. Back when I was spending a lot of time refuting anti-war freaks’ contentions about the Iraq war, if confronted with this type of information, they had a standard response:

“Well, if they’ve found these WMD then why isn’t Bush talking about it?”

The antis will never change their “illegal war” mantra, even if nukes were found, at this late stage of the game, or if massive piles of WMD were uncovered in Syria that could be directly linked to Saddam. They only care about one thing, clinging to their U.S. = bad beliefs.

JannyMae on October 24, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Context

Shy Guy on October 24, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Del Dolemonte on October 24, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Yes, they also ignore the Iraq Liberation Act which Clinton signed in October of 1998. They act as if Bush just swooped in and looked for an “excuse” to attack Iraq in revenge for his daddy and to “steal all the oil!”

JannyMae on October 24, 2010 at 1:47 PM

and of course nobody cares about this anymore.

tx2654 on October 24, 2010 at 1:48 PM

So does this mean that wikileaks good now, or still bad?

In the end, there were no good options.

Taking Sad-um out was fine. Staying (indefinitely) to build their glorious new Islamic state was, and is, stupid beyond belief.

Rae on October 24, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Main Lame stream media kiss my keister.

Laura in Maryland on October 24, 2010 at 1:36 PM

FIFY

ladyingray on October 24, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Awesome, though I will always wonder why the Bush Admin did’t go public with all they had found and silence the critics. 2nd thought on being pissed at the wiki guy?

The Expert Knows
http://theexpertsblog.blogspot.com

HotAirExpert on October 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Of course Sodome,oops,I mean Saddam had WMD!

Here is the Liberal Montage of Democrats saying
Irag had WMD!!
================

WMD in IRAQ–what the democrats believed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUeIrUsApuE
——————————————–

A list of Democrats,and dates,and their quotes
saying Iraq had WMD!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

canopfor on October 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM

The problem was that Bush only saw the WOT as removing the Taliban and Saddam.

Islamic nations saw it as a chance to do Jihad. If the war had only been to remove Saddam and the taliban we would have won long ago. The Islamic nations are the ones who took it and ran with it to make it a clash of cultures.

William Amos on October 24, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Jinx, Canopfor. :)

Shy Guy on October 24, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Doesn’t matter, just move the goal posts. The weapons were ineffective, not in large quantity, not nuclear…….

BOOOOOOSH lied…the science is settled.

Skandia Recluse on October 24, 2010 at 1:54 PM

Doesn’t matter, just move the goal posts. The weapons were ineffective, not in large quantity, not nuclear…….

Yeah I loved that lefty argument. Saddam with a million man army with modern equiptment cant hurt the US. Right after 19 men with box cutters killed 3,000 Americans

William Amos on October 24, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Hussein and Iraq had violated the truce and refused to comply even after 17 UN resolutions demanding compliance.
========================================================

That was thee reason,and,adding insult to injury,
the food for oil snafu was a stick in zee eye as
well!!

canopfor on October 24, 2010 at 2:01 PM

We knew this all before, it just took Obama as President and “a leak site” to make the media report it to the public.

The Duefler report laid out multiple sites where hundreds of thousands of decaliters or b.anthracis was stored in the same facility as artillery rounds which could deploy the agent. Tens of thousands of decaliters of b.thurengensis similarly stored in close proximity of artillery shells.

al Qaa Qaa was where 200 tons of yellowcake was supposed to be under U.N. seal. When the Rangers secured al Qaa Qaa only 188 tons of yellowcake was in the facility. Later, Army engineers accounted for the missing 12 tons when they found 1.2 tons of enriched Uranium in another part of the site. THAT ENRICHMENT IS THE WMD SMOKING GUN, it never should have happened.

Chemical agents have been found buried in the desert, on captured army bases, in government ministries and used on our own troops.

The trifecta of NBC was found within months of the invasion. For all the talk of “connect the dots” it was the media who kept pushing the dots off the table.

Jason Coleman on October 24, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Irags Weapons of Mass Destruction
The Assessment of the British Government
======================================

http://www.c-span.org/Content/PDF/Britdossier.pdf

canopfor on October 24, 2010 at 2:06 PM

If you cannot trust a leader who makes a cease fire agreement for his Nation then when can you trust him? He evaded what he said he would do under the cease fire agreement time and time again… he was willing to stake the safety of his entire Nation on bluffing the west. Clinton didn’t have the stomach to call that bluff. Saddam was out-waiting us, hoping to tire us out and he did a great job with the western leftists who were more than ready to forgive a genocidal leader.

That was the primary reason of restarting the conflict: he would not keep to his agreement made during a truce.

He was not to be trusted by anyone, anywhere for any reason whatsoever.

ajacksonian on October 24, 2010 at 2:12 PM

To many, there is no rationale justifying the intervention in Iraq. Even IF Saddam had a functioning nuke mere moments from launch. Even IF Saddam had a fully functional chem/bio capability, and was caught red handed shipping it to a US port. Even IF Saddam was on video turning over anti-war group’s kindergarten aged children for Uday’s sexual escapades. None of it would be enough. They would have defended him tooth and nail, up to and including the point where they’d been asked if they wanted to be fed into his plastic shredders head or feet first, proclaiming his decency for giving them a choice.

Wind Rider on October 24, 2010 at 2:13 PM

The bulk of them were sent to Syria:

U.S. Official: Iraqis Told Me WMDs Sent to Syria

Iraq’s WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says

slickwillie2001 on October 24, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Context

Jinx, Canopfor. :)

Shy Guy on October 24, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Shy Guy on October 24, 2010 at 1:45 PM
============================

Shy Guy:

I tip my hat,ya got it first!!–:)

canopfor on October 24, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Sorry, this is Off Message. There were no WMDs and the MSM will never say otherwise. Oh Look! Lindsay Lohan is too broke to continue at Betty Ford! See? All gone.

SurferDoc on October 24, 2010 at 2:19 PM

The MSM Iraqi War Narrative was and is clueless. Saddam Hussein would have re-started his WMD programs as soon as sanctions ended and the world again turned its attention away from him.

Basilsbest on October 24, 2010 at 2:31 PM

We still do not know what happened to all the stuff Saddam had. Years ago, I heard a weapons inspector say that for years to come the most dangerous occupation in Iraq would be back hoe operator..because there was no telling what was buried under the sand.

Terrye on October 24, 2010 at 2:35 PM

A. the weapons “inspectors” before we invade were just plain old dumb f___s. I know this for a fact and that they had absolutely no technical expertise.

B. It does not take a huge complex to manufacture chem/bio agents.

C. Iraq’s bio/chem agent manufacturing was built in a modular fashion. A couple of months is all that they needed to ship them across the border to Syria or to load the modules onto Anatov 124′s for shipment to Russia or anywhere else they desired.

Kermit on October 24, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Lets not forget the 20 tons of yellowcake that was shipped to Canada that our troops found in the desert. What is surprising is that you can still find this on Google when you search for it. Only one article buried in Wash paper a few months after it wa shipped.

retiredeagle on October 24, 2010 at 2:48 PM

More Wikileaks info worth re-posting here:

More connections re Iran’s fingerprints:
Iran devised the new suicide vest worn by AlQaeda in Iraq.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/8083016/Wikileaks-how-Iran-devised-new-suicide-vest-for-al-Qaeda-to-use-in-Iraq.html

onlineanalyst on October 24, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Why does everyone overlook the fact that Saddam Hussein stated he wanted the United States to believe he was manufacturing WMD. He’s admitted to sending out false signals to make us believe something, we believed it and then we invaded due to his misinformation.

I fail to see a problem.

ButterflyDragon on October 24, 2010 at 3:18 PM

So… far fewer deaths than reported and WMD’s that were denied?

I think this implicates the media and their rabid, unhinged, say-anything-lie-or-not to smear Bush quite nicely, don’t you?

UnderstandingisPower on October 24, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Vindication is nigh…is soooooo many ways.

SouthernGent on October 24, 2010 at 3:30 PM

In the words of Rumsfeld, all of Iraq was a WMD…A nation armed to the teeth with a billionaire tyrant at the helm…Saddam caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands in wars against Iran, Kuwait, and the Kurds…WMD were used against the Kurds in the form of chemical weapons…What more do we need to know…Notwithstanding the history which include tons of yellow cake uranium removed by coalition forces during Iraqi Freedom the meme that WMD were missing will never die for liberals…The upshot is that a world without Saddam Hussein is a safer place…

Nozzle on October 24, 2010 at 3:30 PM

THERE WERE NO WMDS!!1!

We’ve found some.

UM. . . THERE AREN’T ENOUGH!!!11!!1

Yeah, there’s quite a bit. Factories and specialists have been located, too.

B. . B. . .BUT HE NEVER USED THEM ON US!!!!11

*infinity*

RedNewEnglander on October 24, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Don’t forget the list of items that were, and still are unaccounted for

JannyMae on October 24, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Yes, well the MSM is better at keeping a lid on any info that hurts the lib cause/ helps the GOP cause than many government agencies are at keeping secrets.

reaganaut on October 24, 2010 at 4:06 PM

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.

So what are you trying to say here? This proves Hussein was hiding WMDs because his subordinates wouldn’t have defied his orders to destroy them? Well, sure… But what you ignore is that what was found is not all that impressive. It was old… and of questionable potency.

“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.”

But even late in the war, WMDs were still being unearthed. In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. “These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.”

So after we invade small quantities of old, rundown mustard gas is found. Great. But to use this fact to say this????

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

Take away the imminent threat of WMDs and the U.S. does not invade Iraq… period. DOesn’t matter what truce accords they broke… doesn’t matter what other justifications there were… ask the average neo-con why invade Iraq in 2002 and I’m sure they could have given you a 1,000 reasons why…

THE MAIN REASON, the one thing that the Bush administration pushed above all else as a justification was the imminent threat of Iraq’s WMD program. It was the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud. It was drones with the capability of carrying chemical weapons to the US. It was mobile chemical weapons labs. It was the Bush administration saying things like:

There’s no doubt in my mind but that he has weapons, chemical and biological weapons, and has been working on nuclear weapons.

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

“Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.”

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

But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud

If the American people didn’t fear Iraq attacking us with WMDs thanks to endless lies and scare tactics like the ones above, 2003 invasion never would have happened. Period.

Now you claim that the MAIN reason for invasion is because they violated the truce? Such bullshit. It was always the threat of WMDs.

The claim that old, run-down mustard gas of questionable potency somehow justifies the decision to invade Iraq is one of the biggest delusional lines of BS I’ve read in a while

Tom_Shipley on October 24, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Taking Sad-um out was fine. Staying (indefinitely) to build their glorious new Islamic state was, and is, stupid beyond belief.
Rae on October 24, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Yet that’s exactly what the “Iraq Liberation Act” called for.
And the “Iraq Liberation Act” was a primary rational for the authorization to use force in Iraq.

DSchoen on October 24, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Tom_Shipley on October 24, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Let me guess, you’d sing Kumbaya around the campfire with Saddam?

ButterflyDragon on October 24, 2010 at 4:14 PM

The claim that old, run-down mustard gas of questionable potency somehow justifies the decision to invade Iraq is one of the biggest delusional lines of BS I’ve read in a while

Tom_Shipley on October 24, 2010 at 4:07 PM

.
I take it that the condition as described was when located.
What was the condition at the time of the invasion?

News2Use on October 24, 2010 at 4:36 PM

As with all left wing narratives when they are found to be frauds, the silence is deafening in clearing up the misconception. Luckily you evil basement bloggers are around to shed a little light.

Grunt on October 24, 2010 at 4:57 PM

If the American people didn’t fear Iraq attacking us with WMDs

Huh? People were afraid of us being attacked? That’s a pretty big stretch. Most smart people knew that there were several reasons for the invasion.

Come on now, I thought the lefties were the super smartypants of the country.

Pretty odd use of quotes there, which essentially disprove your argument. I guess once BDS kicks in, it really reduces one’s ability to think.

reaganaut on October 24, 2010 at 5:01 PM

Tom_Shipley on October 24, 2010 at 4:07 PM
Let me guess, you’d sing Kumbaya around the campfire with Saddam?
ButterflyDragon on October 24, 2010 at 4:14 PM

Actually he is right. The threat that was used was an ongoing and expanding weapons program. It was known that there were WMD’s left over from the first gulf war.

Nothing here vindicates the WMD, imminent threat stuff.

harry on October 24, 2010 at 5:05 PM

I wosh I could add to the above.

More than the WMD stuff (which proves little) the Lancet’s study being blown out of the water is much more of an issue.

harry on October 24, 2010 at 5:10 PM

I

f the American people didn’t fear Iraq attacking us with WMDs thanks to endless lies and scare tactics like the ones above, 2003 invasion never would have happened. Period.

Now you claim that the MAIN reason for invasion is because they violated the truce? Such bullshit. It was always the threat of WMDs.

The claim that old, run-down mustard gas of questionable potency somehow justifies the decision to invade Iraq is one of the biggest delusional lines of BS I’ve read in a while

Tom_Shipley on October 24, 2010 at 4:07 PM

So many idiots so little time.

The wikipedia version of the authorization to us force against Iraq. You idiots seriously need an education.

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]

* Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.”
* Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”
* Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.
* Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, ARE (present tense) known to be in Iraq.
* Iraq’s “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

CWforFreedom on October 24, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Harry and Shipley take your crap elsewhere. The DU and DailyKos love any reason to hate on America you unpatriotic treasonous twits.

CWforFreedom on October 24, 2010 at 5:13 PM

Bush never said Saddam was stockpiling new WMDs. Never. Not even once. He said Saddam had WMD programs and that his biggest concern was the possibility of Saddam providing WMD components to terrorists. He said these two things over and over again.

If you think Bush said Saddam had stockpiles of new WMDs, congratulations: your brain has been washed. The media flogged this theme relentlessly after the 2003 invasion, but it’s not what Bush said, nor is it was US intelligence believed.

Going into Iraq in March 2003, the military (along with US intelligence) believed only that Saddam had and could use the former-Soviet battlefield chemical weapons he had had for some time, and used in the Iran-Iraq War and against the Kurds in the 1990s. These are the WMD items found in Iraq during the occupation. It was possible that he had a crude bio-weapon he might have been able to use on a one-time basis, but that wasn’t considered likely. Everyone was clear on the certainty that Saddam did NOT have nuclear weapons or ICBMs.

He did, however, have development programs for all these things, a fact documented by the Iraq Study Group (Duelfer) report along with numerous finds by the occupation force.

J.E. Dyer on October 24, 2010 at 5:23 PM

CWforFreedom on October 24, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Let me say it again, slowly so you have a chance to understand it:

Without… the threat of… Iraq using… their active and growing… chemical, biological and nuclear program… against the American people… there would have been… no invasion… of Iraq.

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

There is a long list of reasons expressed by President George W. Bush for restarting the 1991 war with Iraq. Liberals like to latch onto the WMD reason and pound on it because of the perception of lack of evidence. All the other reasons were valid.

slickwillie2001 on October 24, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Bush never said Saddam was stockpiling new WMDs. Never. Not even once.
J.E. Dyer on October 24, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Here’s a little tip: Learning how to master the Google search will greatly reduce the instances where you look like a complete idiot when posting on politically-themed Web sites.

“Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.”
George W. Bush. Radio Address. Oct. 5th 2002

Tom_Shipley on October 24, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Actually he is right. The threat that was used was an ongoing and expanding weapons program. It was known that there were WMD’s left over from the first gulf war.

Nothing here vindicates the WMD, imminent threat stuff.

harry on October 24, 2010 at 5:05 PM

No. He is wrong. There were numerous reasons we invaded Iraq. The threat of WMD getting into the hands of terrorists is but only one of the reasons Congress passed the resolution.

ButterflyDragon on October 24, 2010 at 5:44 PM

harry on October 24, 2010 at 5:05 PM

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

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

I can’t help but laugh at you stating there were no chemical weapons in Iraq while on a thread about chemical weapons being found in Iraq.

LOL

That yellow cake was for what? Left over from the reactor that was destroyed nearly 20 years before? Yeah… right.

ButterflyDragon on October 24, 2010 at 5:47 PM

Tom_Shipley on October 24, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Get a clue. In October 2002, Bush was referring to the stockpile of weapons Saddam had had for some years. These were the weapons Saddam spent the 1990s playing a shell game with as the UN tried to verify what had happened to them. They were also the weapons we found in Iraq after the invasion.

Try again.

J.E. Dyer on October 24, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Tom_Shipley on October 24, 2010 at 4:07 PM

All of your above statements can be readily found throughout the 1990’s.

As we ALL know now from the 2004 UN weapons report and the 2004 David Kay report on Iraq’s WMD’s that Iraq destroyed most of it’s WMD’s stockpiles in 1994.

However that raises questions as to why were we still searching for WMD’s in Iraq up to 1998 when the inspectors were pulled out of Iraq due to death threats.

Now Tom were all those pol’s lying 1994 thru 2003 as to Iraq’s WMD’s or were they stating what was believed to be true?

The facts do not allow a possibility that up till Bush, what they were saying was true and on Jan 21 2001 “suddenly” Iraq, WMD’s, never heard of them.

That would be intellectually childish.

Need proof? Non-Strawman proof? Okay!

Tom_Shipley on October 24, 2010 at 5:36 PM

You really should follow your own advice, for the same reasons.
ROFLMAO!

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.”

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998

America is threatened by an “unholy axis”:

We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers……

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam

Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation’s wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.”

President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998

Did ya get that Tommy? The message is terrorists, international criminals + Saddam Hussein + NBC WMD’s!
How did ya miss that?

“People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live”
July 22, 2003

“Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton’s Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

Dang Tommy, sounds like she is saying Iraq (Saddam) has WMD’s AND is a threat to the USA, was she lying?

Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

“There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.”

Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
In a Los Angeles Times editorial: “A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose”
February 6, 2003; Page B17

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998

“We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145

“Dear Mr. President: … We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

Sincerely,

John Kerry, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D’Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
October 9, 1998

Starting to see a pattern here Tommy?

DSchoen on October 24, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Bush planted them there.

The Mega Independent on October 24, 2010 at 6:01 PM

harry on October 24, 2010 at 5:05 PM
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

? Really ? LOL.

The UK Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), in a Sep. 2002 report titled “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government,” stated:”Much information about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction is already in the public domain from UN reports and from Iraqi defectors. This points clearly to Iraq’s continuing possession, after 1991, of chemical and biological agents and weapons produced before the Gulf War.

Did you even think before you posted?

The issue is not wether there were legacy weapons but if there was a WMD program in place.

There wasn’t.

harry on October 24, 2010 at 6:15 PM

If you cannot trust a leader who makes a cease fire agreement for his Nation then when can you trust him? He evaded what he said he would do under the cease fire agreement time and time again… he was willing to stake the safety of his entire Nation on bluffing the west. Clinton didn’t have the stomach to call that bluff. Saddam was out-waiting us, hoping to tire us out and he did a great job with the western leftists who were more than ready to forgive a genocidal leader.

That was the primary reason of restarting the conflict: he would not keep to his agreement made during a truce.

He was not to be trusted by anyone, anywhere for any reason whatsoever.

ajacksonian on October 24, 2010 at 2:12 PM

The only people Saddam “trusted”, and a significant problem for the sanctions, the UN, etc., were all the countries scrambling to do business under the table with Saddam.

The UN’s credibility was going down the toilet with corruption, particularly with that fool they had previously as the SecGen.

I could care less if the UN folded their tents tomorrow, but when they had the power to create dangerous situations for the US, something needed to be done.

Bush should have made public every instance of corruption after the invasion, along with what was known about WMD’s.

91Veteran on October 24, 2010 at 6:39 PM

The real mistake was going into Iraq mentally armed with only hubris and the bigotry of lesser expectations for “the little brown people who are ignorant and not responsible for their thoughts, speech or actions”. This compounded by the mass confusion of everyone being overwhelmed with the total inability to distinguish their asses from their elbows on anything dealing with Muslims or Islam.

BL@KBIRD on October 24, 2010 at 6:43 PM

There wasn’t.

harry on October 24, 2010 at 6:15 PM

And it doesn’t freak’n matter. Guys like you are trying to rewrite history by pretending Bush knew this all along. We all thought that way. Turns out there really wasn’t a WMD threat but by then it was to late. What were we supposed to do? “Oops my bad, we’ll just leave now”. How would that have worked out?

lowandslow on October 24, 2010 at 6:45 PM

J.E. Dyer on October 24, 2010 at 5:49 PM

So you’re saying that the Bush administration never claimed Iraq was making or made more WMDs after the 1991 war?

Tom_Shipley on October 24, 2010 at 6:46 PM

Ed M. at his disingenuous best. Where did those chemical weapons come from? The U.S. sold them to Iraq. And just because something is a chemical weapon doesn’t make it a WMD. I seem to recall warnings about ‘mushroom clouds’ and cooked up intelligence about yellow cake. The public was cowed into believing that the invasion was about nukes — not the same chemical munitions we sold Iraq ten years earlier.

phatman on October 24, 2010 at 6:48 PM

And it doesn’t freak’n matter. Guys like you are trying to rewrite history by pretending Bush knew this all along. We all thought that way. Turns out there really wasn’t a WMD threat but by then it was to late. What were we supposed to do? “Oops my bad, we’ll just leave now”. How would that have worked out?
lowandslow on October 24, 2010 at 6:45 PM

What? No one is trying to rewrite anything. Facts are facts.

If facts upset you, I’m sorry. I haven’t once said Bush was aware of the WMD or not. At the moment the troops crossed isto Iraq the whole thing became a moot point anyhow

harry on October 24, 2010 at 6:50 PM

What were we supposed to do? “Oops my bad, we’ll just leave now”. How would that have worked out?

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 (and who to this day is vilified by those who supported the war).

But you’re right. You can’t just say ‘oops, my bad.’ That’s why so many people are pissed at Bush and why is approval rating tanked.

Tom_Shipley on October 24, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Nothing here vindicates the WMD, imminent threat stuff.

harry on October 24, 2010 at 5:05 PM

What does vindicate the imminent threat stuff are the tons of precursor chemical and biological growth agent the UN knew Saddam had, but did not account for.

Why is it libs always point to the UN when it suits them, yet ignores them when it doesn’t?

91Veteran on October 24, 2010 at 6:52 PM

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

Only non-existent in your little mind since you, like so many other liberals flat-out refuse to read or acknowledge any report by the UN prior to and after 2003.

91Veteran on October 24, 2010 at 6:56 PM

What does vindicate the imminent threat stuff are the tons of precursor chemical and biological growth agent the UN knew Saddam had, but did not account for.
Why is it libs always point to the UN when it suits them, yet ignores them when it doesn’t?
91Veteran on October 24, 2010 at 6:52 PM

Where do the documents state that Saddam had an active and on-going state sponsored program developing WMD’s?

harry on October 24, 2010 at 6:57 PM

harry on October 24, 2010 at 5:05 PM

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

Read my comment at this link. If you choose to believe he had nothing left over from the first Gulf war, get the book I mention in my comment from the UN. Each excerpt I mention is taken from that book, which was written based on reports from UNSCOM and what they found.

91Veteran on October 24, 2010 at 7:01 PM

Ask Rob Reiner, Rosie, Sheen, Spike, Maher, Moyers, clowns a plenty…….Bush was Satan, Barry is Jesus.

Only us hicks and hayseeds don’t understand it……DUR-UR!

PappyD61 on October 24, 2010 at 7:05 PM

For those too lazy (and dangerous in your appeasing ignorance) to go to the link or get the book:

Consider the following information reported to the UN, as listed in the UN’s own book on the subject titled,

The United Nations and the Iraq-Kuwait Conflict 1990-1996.

I bought this book from the UN’s web site in 1997. It is still offered for sale there as a part of their
“Blue Book series” although you would not recognize the incredible information contained in the book based on the description posted at their site.

You can easily get the book and check for yourself.

I believe most of the reports by the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM could be accessed at the UN web site separately.

Some word-for-word excerpts from the UN book:

7-18 July 1991 The third IAEA inspection uncovers large stocks of natural uranium and 15 kilograms of
highly enriched uranium, and reveals the existence of various uranium enrichment programs.

2-8 August 1991 UNSCOM conducts its first biological inspection of Iraqi facilities and uncovers a major
biological program. Seed stocks of three biological warfare agents are handed over to the team, and the
team removes three further potential warfare strains.

14 October 1991 Iraq officially admits research and studies are under way on nuclear weaponization.

18 November-1 December 1991 UNSCOM finds more than 100 items of chemical bomb making material hidden in a sugar factory in Mosul and undeclared material for
SCUD missiles.

27 January 5 February 1991 UNSCOM verifies delivery of chemical bomb-making equipment to Al Muthanna and concludes additional tests are needed prior to destruction of nerve agents.

21 February-24 March 1992 The first chemical destruction team destroys 463 nerve agent filled rockets, i.e. approximately 2.5 tons of agent.

19 March 1992 Iraq declares having more previously undeclared ballistic missiles, chemical weapons and
associated material, and says they unilaterally destroyed this material in the summer of 1991.

10 January 1993 Some 200 Iraqis force their way into ammunition bunkers located at the former naval base at Um Qasr and remove weapons and armaments slated for destruction.

1 July 1995 Iraq admits to having had a full-scale offensive biological weapons program.

4 August 1995 Iraq gives UNSCOM a written account of their biological weapons program but denies efforts to weaponize agents.

7 August 1995 Gen. Hussein Kamel Hassan, former director of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs defects from Iraq to Jordan.

17 August 1995 Iraq admits it produced biological weapons, a crash program to produce nuclear weapons and made greater progress in producing VX nerve agent.

25 October 1991 Report by Executive Chairman of UNSCOM

Iraq acknowledged possessing 46,000 filled chemical weapons stored at various sites throughout Iraq.

Conclusive documentary evidence was found at two Iraqi facilities showing Iraq had a program for developing nuclear weapons.

In the course of inspection of Tammuz (Al Taqqadum)Air Base, 200 aerial bombs filled with mustard agentwere counted and recorded.

The team examined 30 chemical filled ballistic missile warheads declared by Iraq in the Dujayl area.
14 were binary type filled with isopropanol and cyclohexanol with only DF needing to be added to produce nerve agent prior to use. 56 plastic containers of DF were found. Iraq stated 16 warheads were filled with a mixture of GB and GF nerve agents.

At Al Bakr Air Base, 25 type 250 gauge aerial bombs and 135 type 500 aerial bombs filled with mustard agent were declared by Iraq.

At Al Taji, 6,000 empty aluminum containers intended for filling with nerve agent and inserted into 122-millimeter warheads were found.

At Al Fallujah Proving Ground, Iraq declared the storage of 6,394 mustard-filled 155-millimeter artillery shells. Analysis confirmed the presence of mustard agent.

Of the 14 warheads mentioned above as being filled with chemicals, just prior to their destruction, the
senior Iraqi official present said 4 were filled with the nerve agent Sarin.

Iraq has declared 6,120 sarin nerve agent filled 122-millimeter rocket warheads and their attendant motors.

Iraq provided seed stocks of biological warfare agents to the team consisting of Clostridium botulinum, Clostridium perfringens and Bacillus anthracis. Iraq also possessed the following micro-organisms-Brucellus abortus, Brucella melitensis, Francisella tularensis and various strains of Clostridium botulinum.

At one undisclosed site, 30 SCUD warheads filled with chemicals were found.

Second report of the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM 4 December 1991

Iraq’s recent record in the nuclear area is consistent with, if less dramatic than, its actions over the last six months that included the concealment of evidence of plutonium separation, of uranium enrichment, and of nuclear weapons development, of refusal to permit inspection teams to enter some sites and exit others, and confiscation of documents from inspectors in the course of an inspection.

At Al Tuz, Khamisiyah, and Muhammadiyat numbers of munitions were discovered, including but not limited to 122 mm rockets, which were considered to be in too
unsafe a condition to move and for which a drilling and draining (of nerve agent) would be very hazardous.

Report by the IAEA to the Security Council by Hans Blix

These consisted of 68 fuel assemblies of 36% enrichment with a U-235 content of 1.27 Kilograms. In addition, there was a set of fresh fuel plates for the Tamus-2 reactor (French MTR type) with an enrichment of 93% and a total U-235 content of 372 grams.

Since the declarations of 18 and 27 April, inspections have resulted in some 400 tons of additional material being declared by Iraq “natural uranium in many forms, ranging from yellowcake to processed chemicals” Much of the material had been concealed by dispersion or burial in desert areas.

The major discovery has been that of the Electromagnetic Isotope Separation (EMIS) program and its extent. A major concealment effort was made by Iraq to hide the existence of its program from inspectors, equipment being dispersed and in many cases buried in remote areas.

The removal from Iraq of the remaining 35 kilograms of U-235 contained in the irradiated fuel elements of the Tamuz-2 and IRT 5000 research reactors is one of the major tasks still pending.

Special Report of the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM 18 February 1992

In relation to the biological weapons, Iraq clearly violated its obligations to hand over to the
Commission all its biological weapons-related items when it destroyed buildings at Salman Pak immediately prior to the first Commission inspection there.
Explanations provided to date, including those given most recently to the special mission, have not been convincing.

Third Report of the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM 16
June 1992

A new development was the Iraqi admission of 19 March 1992 that it had omitted to declare 24,470 chemical munitions and these weapons had been unilaterally destroyed in direct contravention of resolution 687.

Fourth Report of the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM 17
December 1992

The agents which Iraq had available were mustard agent, the nerve agents GB and GF (and also about 70 tons of “spoiled” GA) and small research quantities of three other nerve agents. The total quantities
involved are approximately 250-300 tons.

Of the filled munitions, mortar bombs were filled with CS, the 155mm shells are filled with mustard and
the 122mm rockets are filled with nerve agents, either GB or a GB/GF mix. The aerial bombs are filled with either mustard agent or nerve agents. Some of the SCUD chemical warheads are filled with GB, the others designed to use the binary process.

The number and quantity of munitions and agent destroyed by the Special Commission as of 14 December 1992 were on the order of:

5,000 sarin-filled 122mm rockets
44,500 liters of GB/GF
120 liters of GB
5,000 liters of D4
1,100 liters of dichlorethane
16.5 tons of thiodiglycol
5.5 tons of mustard agent

Report of the Secretary-General 11 October 1995

The Commission has concluded that VX was produced on an industrial scale.

Significant in this context is Iraq’s admission in September 1995 of the production in 1990 of 65 tons of choline, a chemical used exclusively for production of VX. This amount would be sufficient for the production of approximately 90 tons of VX. Furthermore, Iraq had
over 200 tons each of the precursors phosphorus pentasulphide anddi-ispropylamine. These quantities would be sufficient to produce 400 tons of VX. At present, there is no conclusive evidence to support Iraq’s claims concerning the complete disposal of these two precursors and the choline.

Iraq has admitted the development of prototypes of binary sarin-filled artillery shells, 122mm rockets
and aerial bombs. However the new documentation shows production well beyond prototype levels. Iraq has also admitted three flight tests of long-range missiles with chemical warheads, including one, in April 1990, with sarin.

The Commission has been compelled to cast a wider net in the biological field because of Iraq’s incomplete
disclosure of the full extent of its past biological warfare activities.

In its March 1995 declaration, Iraq admitted to only a very small defensive biological research program.

On 20 August 1995, General Amer Rashid al-Ubeidi contacted UNSCOM and requested they visit a farm, which the General stated belonged to General Hussein Kamel Hassan. At the farm, in a locked chicken house numerous metal and wooden boxes, which were packed with documentation, together with microfiche, computer diskettes, videotapes, photographs and prohibited hardware were found.

The foot and mouth disease plant at Daura was converted to biological weapons production of botulinum toxin. The plant was used for production of botulinum toxin from November 1990 until 15 January 1991 by which time 5,400 liters of concentrated toxin had been produced. Production of perfringens for biological weapons began at Al Hakam in August 1990. A total of 340 liters of concentrated perfringens was produced.

Weaponization of biological warfare agents began on a large scale in December 1990 at Muthanna. R400 bombs were selected as the appropriate munition for aerial
delivery and 100 were filled with botulinum toxin, 50 with anthrax, and 16 with aflatoxin. In addition, 25 Al Hussein warheads were filled with botulinum toxin (13), anthrax (10), and aflatoxin (2). These weapons were then deployed at four locations in early January 1991 during the war.

In summary, Iraq has declared the production of at least 19,000 liters of concentrated botulinum toxin,
(nearly 10,000 liters were filled into munitions), 8,500 liters of concentrated anthrax (some 6,500
liters were filled into munitions) and 2,200 liters of concentrated aflatoxin (1,580 liters were filled into munitions).

In spite of the substantial new disclosures made by Iraq in August 1995, the Commission does not believe that Iraq has given a full and correct account of its
biological weapons program.

To summarize the book, it is an 844-page compilation of important documents, reports, or other information regarding the UN and its activities in Iraq since 1990, including summarizations of reports from what was found by the UN inspectors making up UNIKOM and UNSCOM.

91Veteran on October 24, 2010 at 7:05 PM

What? No one is trying to rewrite anything. Facts are facts.

If facts upset you, I’m sorry. I haven’t once said Bush was aware of the WMD or not. At the moment the troops crossed isto Iraq the whole thing became a moot point anyhow

harry on October 24, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Then what are you pissing and moaning about?

lowandslow on October 24, 2010 at 7:10 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 (and who to this day is vilified by those who supported the war).

Tom_Shipley on October 24, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Uh….would that be Scott Ritter? The same one who took $400K to “change” his position?

I had dinner with him one night when he was still in favor of the inspections. He was positive Saddam was hiding his program, but Clinton and that idiot Albright REFUSED to back up UNSCOM and unannounced inspections.

Truly interesting how far he has fallen.

91Veteran on October 24, 2010 at 7:12 PM

But you’re right. You can’t just say ‘oops, my bad.’ That’s why so many people are pissed at Bush and why is approval rating tanked.

Tom_Shipley on October 24, 2010 at 6:51 PM

So your concern about Iraq is Bush’s approval ratings? Yeah right.

lowandslow on October 24, 2010 at 7:13 PM

Then what are you pissing and moaning about?
lowandslow on October 24, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Because trying to make this out as the “Bush was right” moment is a loser.

harry on October 24, 2010 at 7:14 PM

Where do the documents state that Saddam had an active and on-going state sponsored program developing WMD’s?

harry on October 24, 2010 at 6:57 PM

As long as he continued to hide and refused to cooperate with the UN inspectors, particularly in accounting for his precursor chemicals and growth media, he had an active program.

91Veteran on October 24, 2010 at 7:14 PM

Because trying to make this out as the “Bush was right” moment is a loser.

harry on October 24, 2010 at 7:14 PM

It’s not about if he was right or not, it was about what he thought at the time. I wasn’t in the neo-conservative camp when Afghanistan and Iraq started but I could understand their reasoning and like it or not Bush made his argument convincing, after 9/11 it wasn’t that hard.
Besides Hussain was the one that wanted the world to believe he had WMD and working on more so why shouldn’t have people been inclined to believe the intelligence we had was solid?

lowandslow on October 24, 2010 at 7:24 PM

Tom_Shipley on October 24, 2010 at 5:25 PM

What is it like to live in a fact-free and wilfully-blind world?

landlines on October 24, 2010 at 7:36 PM

I wonder if Keith Olbergoebbels or Raymond Maddow will report on this Monday night. I won’t hold my breath.

adamsmith on October 24, 2010 at 7:57 PM

The issue is not wether there were legacy weapons but if there was a WMD program in place.

There wasn’t.

harry on October 24, 2010 at 6:15 PM

You are wrong. It was an issue if there were legacy WMD in Iraq. That was the whole damn reason for the UN weapon inspectors, remember?

I’m not sure if people are purposely being obtuse to have something to be contrary about and enjoy arguing, or if people refuse to look at facts in front of them because it might taint their notion of how the world is supposed to work.

ButterflyDragon on October 24, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Because trying to make this out as the “Bush was right” moment is a loser.

harry on October 24, 2010 at 7:14 PM

He was right. He did what he felt he needed to do to protect me, my family and millions of other Americans at an unprecedented time in our nation’s history.

For that I’ll be tremendously thankful to President George W. Bush until the day I die. I may not have agreed with his fiscal policies, but I NEVER questioned his love for our country or her citizens.

ButterflyDragon on October 24, 2010 at 8:04 PM

I just want the little shi! that leaked this stuff on trail.

Cindy Munford on October 24, 2010 at 8:14 PM

Said it before. Will say it again.

Iraq would possess a nuclear weapon today, October 2010, were it not for U.S. combat intervention in Iraq.

So, you anti-Bush peaceniks, put me down on the list of those who support the Iraq war regardless of the reasons for intervention. Those who do not believe this, get back to me when Iran acquires a nuke and explain to me how Iran got a nuke but Iraq couldn’t because it was “contained.”

BigAlSouth on October 24, 2010 at 8:24 PM

You are wrong. It was an issue if there were legacy WMD in Iraq. That was the whole damn reason for the UN weapon inspectors, remember?

And then were removed when the war began, even though they were saying that there was no active program.

The fact that legacy munitions were found, is not the issue. The UN inspectors jobs were to find those.

We will never know if they would have or not.

Also the weapons found if they predated 1995 would have deteriorated to the point of ineffectiveness in some cases.

harry on October 24, 2010 at 8:39 PM

The weapons apparently tested positive for Chemical WMDs,
it vindicates GW Bush….he told the truth and his bashers
were the liars….

History is already correcting itself and will sweep the GW Bush bashers into the dust bin of history of shame with the Nazi voters and the Stalin supporters.

dec5 on October 24, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Also the weapons found if they predated 1995 would have deteriorated to the point of ineffectiveness in some cases.

harry on October 24, 2010 at 8:39 PM

How would anyone have known that until going in?

In some cases? So you were willing to risk it then?

91Veteran on October 24, 2010 at 8:54 PM

harry on October 24, 2010 at 7:14 PM

Your boy could still be shoving people into industrial plastic shredders (head first if he was being merciful) if he just complied with the UN’s demands.

Inanemergencydial on October 24, 2010 at 9:27 PM

The weapons apparently tested positive for Chemical WMDs,
it vindicates GW Bush….he told the truth and his bashers
were the liars….
History is already correcting itself and will sweep the GW Bush bashers into the dust bin of history of shame with the Nazi voters and the Stalin supporters.
dec5 on October 24, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Really.

harry on October 24, 2010 at 9:50 PM

How would anyone have known that until going in?
In some cases? So you were willing to risk it then?
91Veteran on October 24, 2010 at 8:54 PM

Well you wouldn’t but most of the really nasty stuff out there has a very short shelf life.

harry on October 24, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Islamic nations saw it as a chance to do Jihad. If the war had only been to remove Saddam and the taliban we would have won long ago. The Islamic nations are the ones who took it and ran with it to make it a clash of cultures.

William Amos on October 24, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Like which one? Saudi Arabia? They asked us to come and help. Egypt? Maybe Iran, but not it’s people. Your so far off its not even funny. Islamic nations are not at war with Untied States. Some Radical (not fundamentalist) Muslims are at war with us.

Ed Laskie on October 24, 2010 at 9:56 PM

The issue is not wether there were legacy weapons but if there was a WMD program in place.
There wasn’t.
harry on October 24, 2010 at 6:15 PM

It would have been impossible to fight the war in Afghanistan and war on terror while having Hussain free to work against us and continue with his plans to have WMD. The world is a better place without him. No one wants him back. Do you?
HE was guilty of mas genocide against his own citizens, that reason enough.

Ed Laskie on October 24, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Really.

harry on October 24, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Yes. Really. Saddam had chemical and biological agents, refused to account for them, and if you read my comments above, you would notice it took UNSCOM inspectors from 1991 until 1995 to discover just how vast his programs were.

Also in 1995, General Kamel defected. When he defected, he gave information on where evidence of Saddam’s biological weapons program was. UNSCOM found it, and finally found how vast that program was. Prior to that defection, they found traces of it, but never hard evidence.

Saddam was able to hide evidence of his biological weapons program from inspectors for YEARS!

Regarding Duelfer, Clinton and his cronies lied about us veterans exposed to any chemical agents during the first Gulf war, including those blown up at Khamisiyah in 1991. They lied up until 1997 when Charles Duelfer himself exposed them for the liars they were.

In 1997, at a hearing in Chicago, Charles Duelfer was invited to attend and provide comment on what they found in their inspections after the war.

He showed a video tape of one site where they found 122mm rockets filled with Sarin. The shells were spread all over because of being blown up by troops during/after the war because nobody knew they were there.

Duelfer and UNSCOM had all this evidence since late 1991, which means the US had that evidence, yet Clinton and his thugs lied anyway. It was shortly after this hearing that the Pentagon and CIA finally admitted 400 soldiers were exposed. Within a few weeks, that number grew to over 20,000. Within a year, it grew to over 140,000.

It’s easy to hide things when you have a gullible left and lame media that will believe whatever they are fed….and refuse to make the effort at looking at the evidence in front of their face.

91Veteran on October 24, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Well you wouldn’t but most of the really nasty stuff out there has a very short shelf life.

harry on October 24, 2010 at 9:52 PM

I don’t disagree that some might have a short shelf life, but that certainly isn’t a prudent policy in dealing with someone like Saddam. It also leaves quite a bit of nasty stuff unaccounted for.

91Veteran on October 24, 2010 at 10:14 PM

You wanna put a stop to this stupid puke Julien Assange? Publish the names, addresses, and whereabouts of every one of his parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings, spouse (if he has one) and children and let the chips fall where they may.

How many cold blooded murders are on the hands of this goddamn imbecile?

bannedbyhuffpo on October 24, 2010 at 11:31 PM

Geez, the WMD searched for were not found. Everyone knows what they were looking for and nothing turned up. Slapping the WMD label on everything after-the-fact is just desperation.

Stop the spinning already. The books are closed.

Moesart on October 24, 2010 at 11:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2