I have always believed there were WMD in Iraq. For me, that's a bit of a no-brainer. And during the Bush administration, I heard small bits of news that some WMD were found, but they never seemed to make a big deal out of it.
Well, if it turns out that we actually had lots of hard evidence that Iraq had WMD -- why on Earth didn't the Bush administration go to the NYT and cram that evidence down their throat????
One of the big things still remained...the duel use items.
Some building on several bases were absolutely off limits to all personnel, because those entering without protective gear got very, very sick very quickly.
And that was all that was ever said about them...
Probably because this was highly classified military info, a matter of national security, and the Bush administration cared more about this country than about its own reputation.
Bush himself has repeatedly said that history will tell the true tale.
Tony Blair spends a lot of time in his book, in a couple of especially fascinating chapters, detailing the evidence and the uphill political climate that developed. His conclusion, which he supports with ample, neutral evidence, was that Saddam Hussein was even MORE dangerous than they thought before going into Iraq.
Had Bush and Blair, and our nations’ respective military forces, not hung tough, Saddam would likely be alive and armed — or very nearly armed — with WMD today.
I do hope WikiLeaks screams this info loud enough so it can't be ignored!
Why not? Because the public perception was of a first class nuclear weapons facility ready to turn whole countries to glass. While a true threat on a serious scale, the image of old gas bombs and aging raw nuclear material from third world mines just would get laughed out of town. Better to just ignore the press and do what must be done.