15 thoughts on “WMD in Iraq?


  1. A friend just sent me this, outraged. Same person was adamant there were no WMDs when Bush was in office, that it was all a lie.


  2. In 2003 I started a blog, which I will not name here, and later another blog, which will also go unmentioned, and I wrote extensively about the Iraq war and chemical weapons caches being discovered as they were routinely uncovered and often under reported. This was in the lead up to the 2004 election, so the Democrats were shrieking about how Bush had lied and people had died. Amazingly, many of the Newspapers that ran daily hit pieces saying NO WMDS had been found in Iraq were the same newspapers that ran the AP stories about 3 mustard gas munitions being uncovered in a cache of 20 weapons, or how a sarin munition was found in an IED.

    I tried to compile as many stories as possible, and I had dozens of articles, maybe hundreds linked to my sites. What was interesting was how the left responded to the truth – that Saddam DID have chemical weapons – and an ongoing program, which is still largely denied by the left on the basis that they did not have large factories pumping out thousands of new munitions per day. While actively lying about “No WMDs being found,” when confronted with the facts, the left always moved the goal post. The left would (and still does) say “These were ‘old’ WMDs, they were ‘probably’ not stored properly, they were likely degraded and not as lethal as new ones… and we were all told there were huge stockpiles and ongoing programs.” Nevermind the fact that Hans Blix and Saddam has told the world that all of the “old” WMDs had been destroyed. The truth is that they still had chemical weapons which were still lethal, and we uncovered these weapons all over Iraq.

    We found thousands of WMDs. We found 2 tons of yellow cake uranium – we violated international law transporting the uranium out of Iraq. We found dozens of mobile chemical weapon making facilities, we found equipment needed to enrich uranium, there were reportedly many scientists on Saddam’s payroll, although some of our intel on that was fuzzy (some of the sources embellished the truth and lied about the extent of the programs) and these were simply the thing that were still left after Saddam had months to try to get rid of everything. In the lead up to the war, satellites showed Russian military transporting enormous amounts of material into Syria on massive truck convoys. The Syrians, by the way, used chemical weapons to fight ISIS – remember the red line incident. We don’t know what was transported out but we do know that the convoys left mere days before the invasion. It does stand to reason that the Russians did not want a black eye over their unlawful dealing of chemical weapons materials to Iraq. If you remember, France was a very vocal detractor on the US invasion of Iraq. The invasion uncovered documents that shows the French government was violating international sanctions in order to get cheap oil from Iraq. Their dissent to the invasion was put in a new light after that fact was revealed.

    It is pretty amazing that the NYTs showed this level of honesty in reporting on this incident – years too late. I did NOT know that soldiers wanting to get back to base for R&R were purposefully not reporting WMD finds on the basis that it extended their missions by as many as 24 hours in dangerous areas, making them sitting ducks, simply so the official count could get another notch, and that these soldiers instead simply blew them up – which is what would have happened anyway if they had reported it. I found that aspect of the story fascinating.

    What I found to be frustrating was that Bush never answered his critics, telling the people what was found. Even conservative media eventually bought into the story line that there were no WMDs – at least they stopped putting on guests who would argue they were there and were found. History will vindicate Bush, but in the mean time the propagandists on the left continue to mislead the public at large about very basic facts.


    • Heh. I personally witnessed such finds while I was in Iraq in 2005-2006. In Ninewah province (the greater Mosul area), I witnessed three such ‘finds’ being made by members of 3rd Group, Special Forces. These finds were quietly destroyed without much to-do.


    • THIS.
      I, too, was an unofficial point person for a large group of friends, most of whom parroted the Bush Lied, People Died line, despite reporting such as you describe. Now they’re outraged?


      • I was working from memory. To my recollection an article was published condemning the Bush administration for violating international law when they transported 2 tons of yellow cake Uranium out of Iraq. That was the spin on that particular article. Never-you-mind that there was a stockpile with two tons of yellow-cake uranium, the point of the article was that Bush has no respect for international law. It was one of those oops moments for the left, when they accidentally reported the truth but at least had the presence of mind to make it somehow Bush’s fault. The NYT’s article published today is still largely an anti-Bush, Anti-Pentagon article about how these poor soldiers who have been affected by the WMDs they came into contact with are being withheld proper treatment, a practice that began under the Bush administration, (and an issue which Obama likely learned of just like we did, when he read it in the paper, and for which he is not at all, as commander-in-chief, responsible for. The buck stops somewhere else. But don’t worry, I am sure he is outraged, and will hold the people responsible for this unacceptable situation accountable)

        If there was actually 500 or 1000 tons of Uranium in Iraq, that is substantially more than I recall writing about back when I actively investigated and researched the issue. Those figures are actually surprising, you could make a lot of Nukes with that much Uranium.


  3. It always disturbed me that press reported “no” WMDs in Iraq. We certainly found them. Hundreds and hundreds of them. The Duelfer report was clear on that – and the press reported on it stating that there were NONE. And we have found many since that report.

    And now they are worried that ISIS will get Iraq’s WMD. I am going to report that there are “no” ethics at the NYT.


  4. I hate to break it to everybody but the search for WMD’s never ever focused on chemical weapons which are as common as salt in the middle east. Everyone stopped building them because all they could do was kill civilians and that would lead to escalation

    Chemical weapons are ineffective, they have little range – are as dangerous to those firing them as to those on the receiving end.

    WMD searches were for nukes. It was rumored that Iraq was sold a platoon of nuke scuds and that would really cause a problem.

    Yeah it got lost in the MSM and the democrat party – but if it was found that an extremely poor arab country like Iraq got nukes then how could we stop Saudi, Qatar, Kuwait, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Libya from acquiring them – its the only reason Israel is above room temperature is their 157 nukes. One for each major Arab City

    So I saw the articles they were printed bunkers and bunkers of chemical warhead storage and many were destroyed or deactivated by coalition forces in the first gulf war


    • Democrats are going to lie, democrats are going to try to steal elections, democrats are going to break the law and then accuse the accusers when caught.

      Like Bill, Brett, Matt….


  5. This is the perfect example of how the left tries to spin and lie about the WMDs: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/us-troops-were-injured-by-old-wmds-in-iraq.html (as an added bonus, Walker’s tweet is quoted in the article.

    From the article: “But conservatives quickly pounced on one point that isn’t even true: U.S. troops found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so President George W. Bush was right to invade.” Without regard to whether Bush was right to invade Iraq, there were chemical weapons in Iraq. That is true, but look at how they try to spin that truth away: “By 2003 the shells and rockets were so old and damaged that they could not be used as designed. The Times report makes it abundantly clear that these were not the WMDs the Bush administration was referring to in the lead-up to the war.” Ah yes, we were only concerned with “new” WMDs. The old ones were not a threat. Oh, and by the way, there were also new WMDs in Iraq, but those ones were being made by the insurgents with the chemicals and equipment that Saddam had laying about. Don’t mention that to a lefty, though, because they will then argue that we made Iraq less safe because of the invasion… because that is what they argues when new WMDs were uncovered in Iraq.

    I wonder if the idiot that wrote that article, Margaret Hartman, personally inspected the chemical weapons to check their born on dates and confirm when they were made. Of course these shells were all dated 1993 or prior, I am sure. Of course they were labeled with born on dates, they also had expiration dates clearly labeled so that Hans Blix and Saddam know there was no reason to destroy them since they were clearly no longer dangerous /sarc. I am amazed with her insight that all of these weapons were so degraded that they couldn’t even work (except for when they did, against our soldiers, but quite about that).


  6. Reblogged this on Truth Before Dishonor and commented:
    When the New Jerk Slimes says there were WMD in Iraq, people like Perry Hood of Lewes Delaware and the Socialist Book Putter Backer in New Zealand will just plug their ears and shout “LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA, I can’t hear you!!!eleventy!!!”

Leave a Reply