Skip to comments.Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
Posted on 05/16/2013 2:42:39 PM PDT by TBP
In 2003, American soldiers stepped into a bunker in Iraq that was filled with drums, each of which was labeled with a chemical warning in Arabic, along with the international chemical-warning symbol. In May 2004, American soldiers in Iraq, as publicly reported by multiple news agencies, including NBC, were attacked using an improvised explosive device that contained the nerve agent sarin. Artillery shells containing a mustard agent were also found in Iraq in 2004. These are easily discoverable facts, not fantasy.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention both define the sarin nerve agent as an organophosphate, a family of chemicals that happens to include Malathion, a chemical commonly used to control garden and lawn pests. In 2003 and 2004, it was noted throughout the news community that equipment used to produce insecticide was widely found in Iraq; in fact, I have photographs of some of that very equipment. I also have a photograph taken in July 2003 of soldiers sitting on an Al Samoud II missile, which was not there by order of the United Nations.
These munitions meet the technical definition of weapons of mass destruction, according to the commander of the National Ground Intelligence Center. These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes they do constitute weapons of mass destruction, Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee in June 2006.
I dont care who clings to the lie that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but I find that using the lie that there werent any as an excuse to validate contemporary political lying regarding Benghazi, Libya, by the Obama left to be morally disgraceful.
(Excerpt) Read more at p.washingtontimes.com ...
The Clinton administration spent a lot of time documenting the anthrax Iraq had which was labelled a weapon of mass destruction.
My son, who was in Iraq from summer 2006 to Nov. 2007, with his AO being south of Baghdad, commented about the WMD’s that his brigade had found.
We know as fact, since the Boston Marathon bombing, that Iraq and Saddam had WMD’s, as much as we know they had access to all kinds of pots and pans.
Our satellite intel picked up Russian trucks going to Iraqi weapons silos, loading up, and driving to Syria.
My daughter was in Iraq and said the same. I was working at a newspaper at the time. You think our editor would stop the flow of AP stories claiming there was no such thing even when shown printouts of all the stuff we KNEW (under Clinton) they had?
Hell no! There is more than one reason I ‘used to’ be a reporter.
I remember all of this when it first broke, and then was stunned when the press kept chanting “there are NO WMD’s in Iraq.” If I remember correctly, Bush wasn’t interested in correcting the record at that time, and let the repeated lie stand -— I can’t imagine why?!?
That was the first meme, Bush let the weapons escape (after Rockefeller tipped of Assad), the second meme was that Bush lied.
Also never forget that the dems pushed for a second IWR so they could "look good"
This author NOT on the list of JOURNOLISTS.
Will wonders never cease ?
A lot of loads went to into Lebanon and the Bekka Valley, most likely to terrorists. Probably pretty unstable by now. Maybe not.
So someone even worse than Assad can take power -- Al Qaeda.
The Ba’ath Parties in Iraq and Syria were both Soviet clients, fully equipped for large scale chemical warfare, with large stockpiles of chemical weapons.
It was pretty common in Iraq for roadside IEDs to include chemical agents, just because the kids could not tell an artillery shell carrying nerve agent from one with High Explosive. Typically, the blast from the other components of the IED would disperse or burn the chemical agent to be combat ineffective. They had mountains of chemical artillery shells, and mountains of imported uranium yellowcake to be secured and disposed of after Sadaam’s fall.
The highest concentration of Anthrax in the wild is on the former battlefields of the Iran/Iraq War - probably just a coincidence.
The only way to construe that there were no WMDs in Iraq is to only count assembled nuclear weapons as WMDs.
That lying liar Bush LIED! And people DIED!!!
There CAN’T be WMDs!!! Bush was LYING to get rich on OIL!!!
...sorry folks, I might dress as a libtard for Halloween and was just practicing...
Gotta go wash my mouth out now...
They did finally auction off the Yellowcake around 2008 to a Canadian mining company.
“That was the first meme, Bush let the weapons escape (after Rockefeller tipped of Assad), the second meme was that Bush lied.”
As I recall, the demoncraps forced President Bush to screw around with the UN security council for weeks on end, all the while the WMD’s were being shipped out of Iraq.
Yes, but the ‘Rats use “1984” as a playbook — and will never allow the truth to become history.
So you feel like you got your money’s worth in Iraq? You feel like we got a good deal for the USA? I sure as hell don’t.
Those photos are still online, they were scrubbed a time or two though.....
I have a picture of stacks and stacks of yellow cake which were also found in Iraq.
I’d post the picture, but I don’t know how.
Funny you should post that....I did a cursory search to see if I could fine them and, well, you know...
FRmail me the URL and I’ll post it.
There’s not a URL - it’s in my private photo collection.
So, ‘xactly what cost did you pay?
Many of us who were there saw, watched and handled some really neat stuff that wasn’t really there.
As far as the war’s overall value? In my exspereince and to my knowledge, both first ahnd and through open source data, is that about 3 US brigades worth of foreign fighters won’t be bothering our shores. They are being entertained by their reward of virgins.....
As to the cost in blood and treasure, sure, no war that is not in your own backyard is ever worth it. But on the other hand, Iraqis now have the opportunity to figure it out on their own, how they do that is up to them. They now produce over 3 million bbls of crude per day, selling much for revenues and supplying their own internal needs. We but some of that oil too.
I hope they do well in memory of our fallen.... If not, that’s on them.
Copy it to an email: Las Vegas Ron@freerepublic.com
I don’t know why the link came out that way but just send it to Las Vegas Ron at FR dot com
Everybody knew Saddam had chemical weapons. He had already used them on the Kurds and Iranians. We didn’t go to war because Saddam had chemical weapons. This is no vindication for Bush. He blundered terribly in invading Iraq. Bush’s best service to the country was later ignoring the same voices who urged a war against Iran.
Why would the US have such a policy? Most likely in the hopes that if the administration took heat "for there not being any," terrorists would be convinced not to continue to search for any weapons or any equipment used in their manufacture that we may have been unable to recover, which is a good deal easier than trying to find every bit of a program that had been dispersed all over the place and often was buried or submerged in flooded structures below the water table. weapons stashes that were described by the Bush admin as like trying to find the contents of a two car garage dispersed in a space the size of California. [Just trying to find them in a space the size of al Tuwaitha would be a daunting task.] That Iraq had dispersed its programs internally and abroad was known years before Bush was elected. That Iraq had massive underground research facilities that they flooded is a fact, not fiction.
It is my belief much was recovered, and the "no WMD's thing ensures that what wasn't, if any, remains unsearched for, at least by hostiles. At the time of the ISG the US and the Russians were destroying their own stockpiles and it is worth noting that both the US and the Russian destruction programs fell behind schedule in that period for unexplained reasons.
That this denial was a determined policy explains the Democrat's smug assertions and in fact their antics helped solidify the myth to ensure the no-wmds scheme would be accepted as fact by those terrorists interested in finding such stuff. They would not have been so secure if the US policy was to keep looking, because there would be no way of knowing if something may turn up and be paraded around as evidence. They would ALSO not be so secure and smug if they didn't have Bush's word on the policy because if they were in the same position as Bush THEY WOULD HAVE PLANTED WMD to cover their rears... as we can see by their current behavior on Benghazi.
The Russians played along with the scheme and got most of their stuff back out of Iraq and also put out the stories that the US would fake finds to justify the war, and when the Bush admin didn't, it was then easier to believe there really wasn't anything if the Bush admin wouldn't ever TRY to fake it. Even when occasional reports said some things were found, press-established "facts" were so strong enough that people could accept the idea that Iraq may just have bought one chem shell, or that it was old, or that the initial positive tests were always wrong, etc.
One of the scientists used to play up the "no weapons program" story by the press was Obeidi, who the press tends to forget had a prototype centrifuge buried [against UN protocols & US cease fire agreement of course] in his rose garden. The only reason to keep such a prototype hid, instead of present it to the UN to get off the hook, would be if Iraq intended to reconstitute its program once sanctions were lifted, which is what the administration said all along was their justification. If Saddam just wanted to keep Iran bluffed as many claim presenting it to the UN would have at least scared Iran whereas keeping it buried kept Iran from knowing about it. The press cited Obeidi as saying Iraq had no nuke programs. Well, Iraq had the prototype in his yard for what they needed for a program they WOULD have if left off the hook.
The press always left of the fact that Obeidi worked on Iraq's off-shore nuke program - in LIBYA. Libya's program was very real, if smaller. Libya's materials for the most part were brought back to the US for destruction at Oak Ridge, etc. Also, the press or Obama NEVER speaks of Qadeer Khan and the unnamed states in the list of states he made deals with; mustn't upset the Pakis. We are supposed to believe Qadeer Khan dealt with every muslim nation from Libya, Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, and so on but never with Iraq.
Go ahead, look it up- the US BCW weapons destruction program fell behind schedule at the time we invaded Iraq. So did Russia's.
There is no way to know what the ultimate effects of our operations in Iraq will be, but the change is profound.
The Nazi-inspired totalitarian Ba’ath Prty is gone. The party-line North Korean-like state media has been replaced by hundreds of newspapers and pervasive cell phones and satellite TV dishes. There are all kinds of groups shouting at each other in public and in the press - in Arabic. Not much of such debate could go in front of most Arabs before. Now folks in other countries can follow the arguments over the Internet.
I remember one TV show that was popular for a while in Iraq after the liberation. Some convicted terrorist would be strolled in front of the cameras in handcuffs to be confronted/berated/assaulted by the widows and orphans of his victims. Attitudes changed measurably on how cool it was to be a jihadi terrorist targeting civilians “sticking it to the man”.
Many don’t want to admit it, because their pride is offended by having their Army’s ass kicked twice by us, but they saw first hand a lot of principle in the American system and decency in our people.
We kicked the door open and gave them a chance and a glimpse of freedom. Its on them now.
That doesn't count. Only stockpiles of WMDs would be reported by the enemedia. NOT silos. ONLY stockpiles.
[and not just stockpiles... probably had to me lined-up just right, for example, 3-across-this-way, 10-across-that-way, and piled up to a certain height.]
1981? That's not evidence of what the Iraq were doing in 2003.
Also, the IAEA refused to let the U.S. remove 500 tons of Uranium we found.
It looks like that was eventually sent to Canada. The argument is that it wasn't "weapons grade." I don't know how to assess that.
If possible weapon-making material is there but isn't processed and there's no ongoing project of making weapons, then are there WMDs? Is preemptive war necessary or advisable, given what the costs would be?
The yellowcake is uranium ore. It is to weapons grade uranium as iron ore is to weapons grade steel - it needs to be precisely refined and specially treated. A big pile of yellowcake yields a little pile of highly enriched uranium.
As folks above have mentioned, at least one centrifuge (specially designed only to enrich uranium) was recovered buried in the rose garden of of a top guy in the Iraqi weapons program.
One of the biggest effects of the invasion of Iraq, was disrupting the nuclear proliferation ring of AQ Khan, father of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program. As a result, the Libyan program was dismantled and destroyed.
The gist of the AQ Khan ring was that a few countries would split up the programs and then share the results - one would focus on enriching uranium, another would work on design, another on missiles for delivery and so on. That is why you have Iranians in North Korea today, and North Koreans at Iranian enrichment sites like Fordo.
After Iraq had their Osiriak reactor destroyed, they continued to import and stockpile yellowcake. They had no industrial use for it, they were just trying to build up the materials ahead of time to enable a fast breakout, in case sanctions or embargoes were put on them when they started large scale enrichment
Most people won’t recognize the true threat until it knocks out the power supply to their American Idol final or X-Box and vaporizes a half million Americans.
The political condition for justifying Iraq ultimately, but wrongly amounted to locating an arsenal of WMD suitable for TV.
Well, in part. There were several reasons listed, of which WMDs were one. Not the main one, but one of the reasons.
I've always found it ironic that the UN-loving left got mad at Bush when he tried to enforce UN resolutions that the Iraqis were violating. (17 of them.)
But the main reason was that Iraq was supporting terrorists (including Al Qaeda) and that it was in violation of the 1991 ceasefire. All the other things were just extra reasons.
You mean the yellowcake they didn’t have?
Yes, I remember all that. I guess throwing the terrorists off the hunt might be a plausible explanation for the way Bush handled it. It sure seemed odd at the time to those of us who knew what was actually there either 1st or reliable 2nd hand.
Iran would have been a better choice than Iraq or Afghanistan, in a way. They were supporting our enemies in both countries. Take down the mullahocracy and you take down the nerve center.