Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

The Washington Times ^ | May 14, 2013 | JEFFREY DISSELL

[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 don’t 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 weren’t any as an excuse to validate contemporary political lying regarding Benghazi, Libya, by the Obama left to be morally disgraceful.

[Gene Eric]

The political condition for justifying Iraq ultimately, but wrongly amounted to locating an arsenal of WMD suitable for TV.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Here ya go:

[TBP]

We didn’t go to war because Saddam had chemical weapons.

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.

[TBP]

You mean the yellowcake they didn’t have?

[LTC.Ret]

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.

[TBP]

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.