So We’re Now Willing To Admit WMDs Were Found In Iraq Because Wikileaks Says So? | Right Wing News

Home | About Us | Writers | Contact Us

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Advertisement

Permalinks

So We’re Now Willing To Admit WMDs Were Found In Iraq Because Wikileaks Says So?

Written By : John Hawkins

If the CIA had done its job and killed Julian Assange, there probably wouldn’t have been a huge new WikiLeaks document dump that may get even more Iraqis murdered for the terrible crime of helping the United States.

Still, the info is out there and one surprising development has been how many liberals are now willing to admit that Gulf War era WMDs were found in Iraq. For years, many liberals not only denied that WMDs had been found in Iraq, they mocked people who said otherwise.

Yet now that WikiLeaks has released the information, they finally believe it and are producing articles like this,

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

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.

…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.”

…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, “By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Really? Don’t you mean that liberals had given up on it? Actually, no one who has been reading Right Wing News should be unaware that we found Gulf War era WMDS.

For example,

..and of course, that we did find warheads designed to carry chemical warfare agents and artillery shells filled with mustard gas & sarin (even though they were small in number and weren’t recently made). — July 11, 2005

The “surprising” thing here isn’t that the number of Americans who believe Saddam had WMD’s has risen from 36% to 50%, it’s that the number isn’t 100% since 500 WMDs have been found. Certainly you could argue that the WMDs might be of limited use because of their age or that they weren’t part of the ongoing program, but after finding WMD stockpiles in Iraq, it’s impossible to successfully argue that Saddam didn’t possess them. — July 25, 2006

As has also been much discussed, many people on the Left and Right were wrong about Saddam having a WMD program although hundreds of Gulf War era WMDs were found. — July 17, 2009

It’s great to see so many liberals now catching up to where conservatives have been for years on the news front. Now maybe if the scumbags at WikiLeaks release “secret” information that shows that socialism doesn’t work, we might make even more progress.

0

Don_cos

I bet the resident trolls liberals still argue that nothing was found. Regardless of what you may think of them, you gotta admit that they are persistent.
Lee

I was there when some WMD were found, and I told my eyewitness account to liberals I knew. It didn’t matter, because “Bush lied.” I’m not sure if I pity them or hold them in contempt, but I don’t have any respect for them.

rjschwarz

The “Bush Lied” is where i get angry at Bush. He never countered that. He never tried. His statement was that French and British sources claimed Saddam tried to buy Nigerian yellowcake. French and British sources still say that, it doesn’t matter if he actually tried to buy it or not the statement is absolutely true. He should have taken questions and then when asked responded “are you saying the French and British intelligence didn’t say that? I think it was written in your paper back in 2002 (or whenever it was initially reported).

Kingfisher

I agree.

Bush didn’t seem to like playing the Washington political game but, unfortunately, that game must be played if you want to work there.

Bush has nobody to blame but himself on this one.
Kingfisher

I agree.

Bush didn’t seem to like playing the Washington political game but, unfortunately, that game must be played if you want to work there.

Bush has nobody to blame but himself on this one.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Yeah President Bush really dropped the ball there. Instead of pointing out what had been found and what had been accomplished, he caved and kept quiet and even made an idiotic statement that leftists take to mean “there were no WMD.”

Russ

it also gave him no case whatsoever to knock of Iran; though not like he really planned on one anyway………

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I think the original plan was to stage into Iran at least to some degree, but once the opposition went nuts he lost the political capital to do it and couldn’t.

Lee

I was there when some WMD were found, and I told my eyewitness account to liberals I knew. It didn’t matter, because “Bush lied.” I’m not sure if I pity them or hold them in contempt, but I don’t have any respect for them.
ifonlymccainhadwon

Can someone explain to me why the Bush Administration covered this up? I remember Rick Santorum revealing this and W saying these weren’t what we were looking for…..

Lee

It wasn’t covered up as much as it was downplayed. There were (and still are) serious questions about why what was found was less than expected. Were the larger quantities never there, were they still hidden, or were they relocated (e.g., to Syria)? Lots of unknowns, and with the media screeching, downplaying the situation is understandable.

Also, there was blinding hatred of Bush. That hatred is still alive, only now conservatives are branded as racist, homophobe, or just plain stupid.

Anonymous

There were (and still are) serious questions about why what was found was less than expected. Were the larger quantities never there, were they still hidden, or were they relocated (e.g., to Syria)?

Bingo! Saddam never proved he got rid of anything. In fact, he stood in the way of every attempt to verify anything. Large quantites of weapons were moved, by russian forces, just prior to the invasion. We saw them doing this. Unfortunately we were risking a world war in publicly calling them out on this. Things got very complicated at the very beginning.
Anonymous

There were (and still are) serious questions about why what was found was less than expected. Were the larger quantities never there, were they still hidden, or were they relocated (e.g., to Syria)?

Bingo! Saddam never proved he got rid of anything. In fact, he stood in the way of every attempt to verify anything. Large quantites of weapons were moved, by russian forces, just prior to the invasion. We saw them doing this. Unfortunately we were risking a world war in publicly calling them out on this. Things got very complicated at the very beginning.

Guest

“We saw them doing this.” OK I will play, where did they move them to? Were they still viable munitions? Who has them now? If we knew they had been moved, then why did we continue to search for them once the occupation had taken place? And the last question, is curveball your source?

http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“OK I will play, where did they move them to?”

The Israelis told us they were being moved through Syria to lebanon, and buried inthe Beka’a Valley. CIA satellite photos showed truck convoys moving across the Syrian border at times matching the Israeli intel. Lt. General Clapper (USAF Ret), now Obama’s DNI, confirmed the existence of the CIA photos.

“Were they still viable munitions?”

Absolutely immaterial.

“Who has them now?”

Well if we knew that, we’d call for their heads. Once the trucks moved across the Syrian border, they dispersed and blended in with other truck convoys.
Anonymous

Or use a couple well placed air strikes to remove the weapons.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“Or use a couple well placed air strikes to remove the weapons.”

What, and piss off the environmentalists by scattering WMDs that they don’t believe exist around the landscape?
/sarc

Gkingthomas

For all we know, Soros could’ve been paying/playing Saddam to stand up against inspectors just to taunt W. into war, so that he could build BDS and install obamarx!… Mark, is that your dog?

Anonymous

There were (and still are) serious questions about why what was found was less than expected. Were the larger quantities never there, were they still hidden, or were they relocated (e.g., to Syria)?

Bingo! Saddam never proved he got rid of anything. In fact, he stood in the way of every attempt to verify anything. Large quantites of weapons were moved, by russian forces, just prior to the invasion. We saw them doing this. Unfortunately we were risking a world war in publicly calling them out on this. Things got very complicated at the very beginning.
Anonymous

There were (and still are) serious questions about why what was found was less than expected. Were the larger quantities never there, were they still hidden, or were they relocated (e.g., to Syria)?

Bingo! Saddam never proved he got rid of anything. In fact, he stood in the way of every attempt to verify anything. Large quantites of weapons were moved, by russian forces, just prior to the invasion. We saw them doing this. Unfortunately we were risking a world war in publicly calling them out on this. Things got very complicated at the very beginning.
Guest

Bush hatred was earned and developed, it wasn’t innate as demonstrated by his approval numbers:

Highest approval:

10/8-9/01
92 approve
6 disapprove
1 unsure
.

Lowest approval:

10/8-11/08
23 approve
73 disapprove
4 unsure

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

That’s your opinion, but the left was showing their hatred of Bush in 2000, before he even took office, it was manifest throughout his term(s). His approval dropped as the economy tanked and the war dragged on, but the left never liked him.

Guest

The left never liked him? 92% job approval rating. That means the left to which you are referring is 8%. Pretty broad brush using 8% as inclusive of all of those who consider themselves left of center. What kind of cowards flag approval ratings? Propaganda is fearful, facts can’t be brought to light.

Russ

Most of that I think is the repercussions of the 2000 election, to which I finally have a solution:

Go back in time to the late ’90s, and choose two far better candidates than either Bush or Gore, and there wouldn’t be even a 10th of the issues that we wound up getting, and there WOULD’VE been a definitive winner likely by 9 PM. See? Problem solved!

Anonymous

I believe the reason Bush downplayed the WMDs is because digging into the truth of where they went would be more disturbing than living with the meme that they never existed in the first place.

Basically it’s the Iraqi Museum Artifacts situation only with WMDs. Some of those stockpiles almost certainly ended up in Syria, where one day they’ll be used against Israel. We also know Al Qaeda and Iran operated in Iraq and worked with members of Saddam’s regime, so there’s a good chance Iraqi WMDs ended up in either or both of their hands as well.

If you’re Bush or the USA in general, taking the heat for “BUSH LIED!!11!” may be a better option than explaining why Iraqi WMDs popped off in Tel Aviv or a NYC subway someday. After all, if they never existed in the first place, nobody can blame the war as an opportunity for them to have been proliferated.
rjschwarz

First, the media moved the goalpost so that most people thing functional nuclear missiles when they read the term WMD. Chemical artillery shells just don’t cut it.

Second Bush downplayed the reports because the case could be made that by removing Saddam he did more to put Al Queda into close contact with those chemical weapons than Saddam did.
Guest

No one that I recall said Sadaam never had WMD’s, we knew he did, we could see the pictures of Rumsfeld shaking his hand and we are well aware of the US’s contribution to his arsenal and his utilization of his weapons against the Iranians and Kurds. What was in question, was whether Sadaam had a current program of proliferation, and that he was an imminent threat to the safety of the US citizenry. This is still to be proven. Keep digging.

Kingfisher

No one that I recall said Sadaam never had WMD’s, we knew he did,

ROFLMAO!

That’s some funny crap right there!

Maybe you didn’t say it but your sockpuppets certainly did. Now you’re playing damage control.

What was in question, was whether Sadaam had a current program of proliferation, and that he was an imminent threat to the safety of the US citizenry. This is still to be proven. Keep digging.

Then why did Hussein intentionally violate UN sanctions? Once again, you’re willing to put American lives at risk simply to “feel good.”

In other words, Bush didn’t do enough to prevent 9/11 and yet, he should have known that Hussein wasn’t a threat. Only a fat slob like you who plays armchair quarterback, sits in his mommy’s basement with free Internet access and lives off of welfare would have so little concern but security isn’t a black/white issue.

Guest

I am not sure what part of my post violated whatever posting rules are in place this week, but you quoted a bulk of my post in your reply. I used the words “never had.” It is public knowledge Sadaam had WMD supplied by the US government, and they were used in attacking the Kurds and the Iranians. We also know that this took place prior to the first Gulf War. What was and is still in question; whether he continued to update an arsenal of weapons that had a shelf life. The statements that were made prior to our occupation of Iraq are in question. Are we to believe that UN sanctions are what you are supporting now? and to your comment “fat slob like you who plays armchair quarterback, sits in his mommy’s basement with free Internet access and lives off of welfare” I say, don’t confuse me with StanW and bthewool. My position was developed prior to the occupation when we said we were going to put boots on the ground in Iraq “because he has chemical and biological weapons” and he is a threat to the US. That showed me that at best we had some pretty poor war planning, or that we were being fed a bunch of B.S.

Kingfisher

I used the words “never had.” It is public knowledge Sadaam had WMD supplied by the US government,

Then tell that to M@rtha, your fellow troll because it is claiming that WMD’s never existed.

I’ll get back to the rest of your b*llsh*t later.

Dumbass.

Guest

Glad to see you are signing your post. At least you acknowledge the fact. I am not sure why M@rtha is unaware of the actions that took place during the Reagan Administration and their Proxy wars. I would venture to guess he may be unaware of the Iran Contra affair as well. But that would be a question better addressed to M@rtha.
StanW

Well, well, well… Evidence that you are, in fact, a long time poster on this board. Who else but an old-timer woudl know to spell Martha with the ‘@’ because of the filter John had on his old version.

So, once again, GUEST, what name did you used to post under?
Martha

Erm dumb@ss – Kingfisher did it first. Get off your knees – off your knees, boy.
StanW

Awwww, ain’t it cute, trolls taking up for each other.
Martha

Just enjoying pointing out your stupidy, stan. Each and every time.
StanW

No, you were butting in where you are not wanted.

Take a hint, and then take a hike!
Martha

stan, if I was partial to butting in where I’m not wanted, do you think I’d be at RWN?
StanW

At least you can admit that you are butting in and that you are not wanted here.

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. or in your case, PROBLEMS!
Martha

stan – I have no problems.
StanW

Other than being an irritant, a jerk, a coward, a spammer, and a pathalogical LIAR…

Sure!
Martha

Other than being an irritant (which is a problem for you, not me) none of the rest are true.
StanW

You being an irritant is a problem for ANYONE that his the misfortune of encountering you.

And all the rest are decidedly true, especially you spamming my e-mail. Oh, and being a coward for not sending me yours.
Martha

But no problem for me. That’s what is important.
StanW

No, they are not problems for you, Martha. They are character traits, and your best ones, at that.
Guest

Before you hurt yourself patting your own back. I was replying to a post that had spelled martha in that manner. I did it in case there were two; a martha, and a m@rtha. But then again, if you derive enjoyment from my spelling of a name, who am I to take that from you. Those basement walls must take their tolls.
StanW

Pathetic, GUEST.

You did it because that’s how we had to spell Martha a while back when Hawkins put in that impotent filter to keep IT out.

You are a long-time posters who does not have the balls to admit who they are and hides behind the GUEST name.

Be-Gone!

Anonymous

I am not sure what part of my post violated whatever posting rules are in place this week,

The same simple rule that is in place every week: don’t troll.

Most rational people, were they to have as many posts removed as you have, would have by now taken th hint and realised that they are not welcome here. What does the fact that you have not say about you, child?

TR

Martha

Too bad you don’t follow your own advice. Don’t tell:don’t troll.

The more posts removed, the more truth is being exposed. Badge of honor, trenchmouth.
StanW

And you know where you can pin that badge, spammer?
Martha

On your cowering backside?
StanW

Nothing to cower from, Martha. Especially not from a spamming wus like you.

Time to run away!
Martha

Where are ya running this time, stan?
StanW

Run? FROM YOU? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Your idea of debate is to spam my e-amil when you were to much of a coward to provide yours.

The door is right over there, pumpkin. Go out before you are THROWN out… AGAIN!
Martha

Lemme see – you turn into a pumpkin and I become Prince Charming. Sounds about right.
Anonymous

Oh shut up, sodomite.

TR
Martha

Trench the troll, go plug your hole (with stan). heheh
Martha

Trench the troll, go plug your hole (with stan). heheh

StanW

There were numerous reasons for invading Iraq. WMD was one of them, and not even the primary reason. you are confusing the clear words and actions of the Bush admininistration with the confusing and backwards rhetoric of the Clinton Administration. It was Clinton and his ilk that KNEW Saddam had WMD and made regime change in Iraq national policy because of their WMD.
Good Ol Boy

“It is public knowledge Sadaam had WMD supplied by the US government”

No, that is the oft-repeated liberal meme. In reality, the Iraquis bought pesticides and were supplied with viral samples for the manufacture of vacines… both of which were intentionally weaponized by the Baathist government.

StanW

If Liberals like you cared in the least about America or Americans, you would be asking “Where are the WMD”. Instead, you go with the “Bush Lied” argument.

Try again, troll!

Martha

Why would liberals ask “Where are the WMD” when we already know. They are in the smokescreen of deflection.

StanW

Really, you know where all the WMD are that Saddam had, that the Clinton administration KNEW they had?

Then tell us, where did they go?

Martha

*poof* – into airy nothing.
StanW

Right, all that money in weaposn, and they just vanished.

Martha

Hoho. This is the take the rightwing is trying to take to dismiss this mother lode from Wiki leaks? Put forward the pretense that these negligible amounts were a danger to the USA.

Gather around and heed. There were no WMD. U R beating a dead horse – and the horse wasn’t killed by chemicals. It has died from old age.
Martha

Hoho. This is the take the rightwing is trying to take to dismiss this mother lode from Wiki leaks? Put forward the pretense that these negligible amounts were a danger to the USA.

Gather around and heed. There were no WMD. U R beating a dead horse – and the horse wasn’t killed by chemicals. It has died from old age.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Shut up child.
StanW

More lies from Martha. No surprise here.

Kingfisher

So We’re Now Willing To Admit WMDs Were Found In Iraq Because Wikileaks Says So?

Does Wikileaks provide details that explains why Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 as part of ‘Operation Desert Fox?’

Yeah, we know, Clinton claimed that it was about WMD’s but this is Clinton so…..

Rove and his eeviilll time machine is obviously the real culprit! :-P
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

“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.”

The reason for invading Iraq was that Saddam was making WMD’s. Finding chemical weapons and labs in 2006 doesn’t prove that Saddam had WMD’s, it just proves that AQI had remnants that we failed to clean up effectively after the Gulf War. Using that line of reasoning would have you being busted for the meth lab that is in the house you sold 5 years earlier, because you had left some sudafed behind.

Kingfisher

Using that line of reasoning would have you being busted for the meth lab that is in the house you sold 5 years earlier, because you had left some sudafed behind.

If you killed thousands of your own citizens then law enforcement would have a valid reason to review this case in your example.

But who cares about human life? All you care about is berating Bush so innocent human life is expendable.

Martha

. . . so innocent human life is expendable.

Bush certainly thought so.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

I didn’t mention Bush anywhere in my post. I simply said that this doesn’t prove that there were WMD’s there when we chose to invade, only that at some point, facilities had existed.Guess we better invade ourselves, we had WMD facilities at some point, and somone, in the future, could obtain control of them, and produce WMDs!

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

So you can prove these ar all new labs since 2003, despite what the military has as evidence to the contrary?
Good Ol Boy

Do you consider the US a dangerous rogue state? Are there UN sanctions against us? Have we invaded any of our neighboring countries without provocation lately? Has the US ever used any of its chemical weapons arsenal on its own citizens?

You should read the UNSCOM and find me where the UN inspectors declared that all of Saddam’s bio/chemical weapons manufacturing capablities and stockpiles had been destroyed.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm
Anonymous

I didn’t mention Bush anywhere in my post. I simply said that this doesn’t prove that there were WMD’s there when we chose to invade, only that at some point, facilities had existed.

And that those facilities were not destroyed by Saddam Hussein.

Under the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire Saddam was required to turn over all his WMDs and completely dismantle all his WMD programs. The existence of these WMDs proves he refused to do so. On that basis alone, the Iraq War was justified.

StanW

The reasons for invading Iraq were numerous, with WMD being only ONE of those reasons, and not the primary reason.

Your lies are dismissed, Danny!

Martha

There was ONE reason for the invasion of Iraq. And that failed, too.

Kingfisher

So you’re claiming that our military has failed.

Feel free to join the opposition in battle, M@rtha as your show of support. I’m sure our Marines can use the target practice.

Martha

Failed and is failing. Where ya been?
Kingfisher

Reality. Obviously, you’ve lapped up too many Al-Qaeda recruitment videos.

I’m sure you’re upset that there weren’t enough deaths of our troops.
Martha

There’s lotz o’ American troops left.

StanW

When you are done spamming my e-mail address, try to educate yourself on this subject. And neither Kos, DU, HuffPo, or the voices in your head are credible on this issue.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Sure thing, Dippy.

1) Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
2) Iraq’s 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.”
3) Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”
4) Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.
5) Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 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.
6) Members of al-Qaeda were “known to be in Iraq.”
7) Iraq’s “continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,” including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
8) The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
9) The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
10) 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

Pay attention to number 2 and number 4!!

And I’ll ask you to prove that AQI didn’t just reopen Saddam’s old labs like the military says. Or were you there AQI built their ‘new’ labs?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Danny-Browning/1666222445 Danny Browning

1) Valid.
2) No proof exists. As you say, AQI could have reopened Saddam’s old labs. How do you know those labs were still operating when we invaded? For all you know, they could have been shut down in 1991.
3) Still occurring. Only the other side is repressing now.
4) No capability shown, no willingness shown.
5) Hmm, actions of 10 years prior. Dubya holds a grudge.
6) They’re known to be in Saudi. But we don’t go in there.
7) Yep, bunch of our allies there too.
8) We didn’t find them in Iraq.
9) Terrorists still around, including in our own country and our allies. Yet we invaded Iraq.
10) Other ways to remove the regime.

Wow, 1 out of 10. Good work on that one!

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

More like 10 out of 10, your opinion of the other 9 do nothing to invalidate them as reasons for the war.

2) Weapons were found,
3) Saddam was repressing Iraqi’s,
4) ask the Kurds if Saddam was able to use WMDs on his enemies,
5) An act of war that was never acted on,
6) Still doesn’t invalidate the war in Iraq
7) Still doesn’t invalidate the war in Iraq
8) Lie, we killed Syrians and Iranians during the war
9) Doesn’t invalidate the the war in Iraq
10) Like what, legally?
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“How do you know those labs were still operating when we invaded? For all you know, they could have been shut down in 1991.”
Ahh, well, Saddam’s son-in-law Hussein Kamel defected to the West in 1995, taking with him proof of Saddam’s bio and chem warfare labs still in operation. In fact, it was the first serious evidence anyone had heard of the bio labs. As of 1999, Saddam still had not turned over that material, nor provided any proof that it had been destroyed. Perhaps you believe in magic, that Saddam just waved his hands and *poof!* all the nasty WMDs vanished without a trace.

Martha

*poof* – it’s easy to make things which do not exist disappear.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“*poof* – it’s easy to make things which do not exist disappear.”

So nearly every Democratic politician, the UN, the CIA, and every intelligence service on Earth was just wrong about all those WMDs Saddam admitted he had? Not to mention the Kurds, who apparently committed mass suicide in the most horrific way imaginable? It all just… never existed? Much like your brain, I suppose.
StanW

So you are in the “Saddam Never had WMD” camp? that’s good to know about you, Martha!
Mahatma

“Saddam Never had WMD”

Well, duh, stanley.
StanW

Answering as Martha and Vega? Why don’t you pick a name and stick with it!
Mahatma

,Hey stanley, bobblehead: We’re all different people
Martha

*poof* – it’s easy to make things which do not exist disappear.
Martha

*poof* – it’s easy to make things which do not exist disappear.

http://zirbert.blogspot.com Zirbert

“5) Hmm, actions of 10 years prior. Dubya holds a grudge.”

Exactly what is the statute of limitations for attempting to assassinate a U.S. president? <10 years seems pretty darn low to me.

-Zirbert
http://zirbert.blogspot.com

Anonymous

The reason for invading Iraq was that Saddam was making WMD’s.

First of all, the allegation that Saddam was continuing his WMD programs was only one of a long list of reasons why we invaded Iraq. Others included support for international terrorism, repeated violations of the Gulf War cease-fire agreement, Saddam’s oppression of his own people, and his refusal to account for his entire arsenal of WMDs. See here for a full list:

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Second, the allegation that Saddam had not stopped his WMD programs was made in 1998. It was not something President Bush conjured out of thin air. At most you could accuse the US of possessing faulty intelligence, and I say “the US” not “the President” because Bush wasn’t the only one who saw that intelligence. Every member of Congress saw it as well and a majority of them decided that military intervention was necessary.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“The reason for invading Iraq was that Saddam was making WMD’s.”

Not really. One of the twenty or so reasons listed in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq ws that Saddam STILL HAD WMDs that he was supposed to turn over to the UN for destruction. See for yourself.
http://www.c-span.org/Content/PDF/hjres114.pdf

D-Vega

First of all, killing the Wikileaks founder would not only not stop the leaks from continuing, but would be a horrible thing for us to do. Wikileaks is an organization with multiple locations around the world. Assange is only a figurehead.

Secondly, the WMD that is part of the list, the “Powell inventory” are the WMDs that were not found. And Powell and former President Bush fully admitted that they weren’t found.

So no, the WMD that were the MAIN rationale for invading Iraq were not found.

StanW

WMD were not the “MAIN” rationale for invading Iraq, Vega.

D-Vega

Yes, it was Stan.

Ask yourself the honest question, if we knew then what we know now (just regarding WMD) would we still have invaded Iraq then?

Of course not.

StanW

Read the replys below, Vega, before you beclown yourself even more.

WMD were ONE of the reasons, but not the first and not the main reason.

Try telling the truth for once, COWARD!

D-Vega

Try not to be a child, Stan.

I know the resolution and authorization. We’ve discussed it many times. But the fact is that the reason why we invaded Iraq is because after 9/11 we could not risk any WMD that Sadam had to fall into the wrong hands. All of the other things listed on the resolution all happened waaaay before 2002. The only reason why Sadam would be an imminent threat is because of the WMD.

You can spin it all you like, but that was the most important reason as to why we had to invade.
StanW

NO! IT! WAS! NOT!

Do you think if you claim WMD over and over it will become the truth?

Saddam was supporting terrorism, he kicked out the weapons inspectors, he violated over a dozen UN Resolutions (all of which allowed for the use of force if violated). And he had and used WMD back during the Clinton administration, when everyone KNEW he had them. So your imment threat garbage is a lie as well.

You are entitled to your opinion, Vega. But the truth is not your to manipulate.
D-Vega

Yeah, it was.

I am not blaming you, or Bush, or anyone. But that is the fact of the matter.

That’s why there are more than 10 references to those weapons in the resolution.

That’s why there was the political will to accomplish it.

It was all about the weapons, considering what happened on 9/11.

Again, I am not blaming anyone. It is what it is.
D-Vega

Yeah, it was.

I am not blaming you, or Bush, or anyone. But that is the fact of the matter.

That’s why there are more than 10 references to those weapons in the resolution.

That’s why there was the political will to accomplish it.

It was all about the weapons, considering what happened on 9/11.

Again, I am not blaming anyone. It is what it is.
StanW

Vega, you are lying. It doesn;t get any more simple than that.

The wording in the resolution is plan and simple. Saddams possession and continued production of WMD was a reason, but not the reason. If we were to take WMD out of the mix completely, we were STILL 100% justified in invading Iraq and deposing Saddam.

You and your abject stupidity are done here. You may run away now!
D-Vega

I didn’t say we weren’t justified, even w/o the WMD.

You are responding defensively.

If we were to take WMD out of the mix entirely, we still could have been JUSTIFIED, but it would not have HAPPENED.

Do you understand the difference?

The WMD issue made the decision immediate, because the danger was thought to be imminent.

All of those other items were in place for years. What brought Iraq to the forefront was the weapons.
StanW

The WMD were in place for years, too, Vega. Or were all the senior members of the Clinton Administration lying about them too.

I am not responding defensively, I am simply pointing out your lies. You said that WMD were the MAIN reson we invaded. That is not true. You knw it isn’t true, but you must defend your lie now that you have said it. It is pathetic and shows what a shallow and vapid excuse for a person you are.

Do yourself a favor and run away.
D-Vega

“”The WMD were in place for years, too, Vega. Or were all the senior members of the Clinton Administration lying about them too.”"

Of course they were. But 9/11 changed the priority we placed on it, Stan.

We didn’t suddenly become more caring about the Kurds in 2002. Sadam didn’t violate the UN rules any further in 2002.

The one thing that changed was that we were attacked on our own soil in that past year. Sadam was known to have nasty weapons. And if we were ever to remove him and his people from Iraq, the time was then.

Your mention of Clinton exposes your partisanship. I didn’t blame or accuse anyone of anything on this thread. But you are full of accusations.

I am looking at this objectively. Are the Iraqis better off? Yes. Did we benefit from the invasion? Time will tell.

“”You said that WMD were the MAIN reson we invaded”"

Yes, I said that. Because it’s true. The MAIN reason why we invaded was because of the WMD outlined by Colin Powell to the UN.

Anyone who was paying attention at the time could see that. History will classify it as that. No matter what spin is put on it.
StanW

Vega, this is beyond pathetic. Powell outlined multiple reasons why we shoudl invade. WMD were among them, but they were not the first reasons he gave and they were not the most important reasons he gave.

it is amazing that even after all this time, you are still nothing more than a pathetic partisan hack. I can only exaplin to you that 2+2=4 so many times.

You are beyond help and no longer worth any further effort to educate.
D-Vega

“”Vega, this is beyond pathetic. Powell outlined multiple reasons why we shoudl invade. WMD were among them, but they were not the first reasons he gave and they were not the most important reasons he gave.”"

You should look at that again, Stan. First and foremost, that presentation was about the weapons.

Powell’s first words:
“Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, distinguished colleagues, I would like to begin by expressing my thanks for the special effort that each of you made to be here today. This is important day for us all as we review the situation with respect to Iraq and its disarmament obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.”"

Again, you are reflexively reacting, instead of looking at something obejectively.

“”"it is amazing that even after all this time, you are still nothing more than a pathetic partisan hack. I can only exaplin to you that 2+2=4 so many times.”"”

I did not once mention anything partisan in this thread.

“”You are beyond help and no longer worth any further effort to educate.”"

Then you should look elsewhere.
StanW

First and Formost, the address was about Saddam violating UN Resolutions. Resolution 1441 just happened to be last last one issued that Saddam violated. He violated over a dozen others involving other offenses.

Powell was making the case to the UN that they shoudl enforce THEIR OWN RESOLUTIONS!

YOU want this to be about WMD, Vega. And you will continue to assert that it is, even when it is not.
D-Vega

The presentation was about weapons, Stan.

No tantrum from you can change that. Just face the facts.
StanW

Slapping down your lies and your hysteria is hardly a tantrum, Vega. It was about UN Resolutions and the fact that they had not been enforced. WMD was NOT the main reason. You know it, I know it, and so does everyone else.

But keep asserting that WMD was the main reason we went into Iraq, Vega. there may be some people here that think you have some credibility.
D-Vega

You didn’t slap down anything, Stan.

The presentation to the UN was about WEAPONS. Even Powell says he regrets it.

“”"It was Powell who told the United Nations and the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat. He told Walters that he feels “terrible” about the claims he made in that now-infamous address — assertions that later proved to be false.

When asked if he feels it has tarnished his reputation, he said, “Of course it will. It’s a blot. I’m the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now.”

He doesn’t blame former CIA Director George Tenet for the misleading information he says he pored over for days before delivering his speech; he faults the intelligence system.

“George Tenet did not sit there for five days with me misleading me. He believed what he was giving to me was accurate. … The intelligence system did not work well,” he said.

Nonetheless, Powell said, some lower-level personnel in the intelligence community failed him and the country. “There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn’t be relied upon, and they didn’t speak up. That devastated me,” he said.”"”
StanW

So tell me, Vega. When lies of yours like this get slapped down, AS THEY HAVE TODAY: do you really run away and cry yourself to sleep, or is that when you start posting as Mahatma?
Mahatma

I resent that stanley. BTW where has your butt buddy trenchie been. Banned again?
D-Vega

You didn’t slap down anything, Stan.

The presentation to the UN was about WEAPONS. Even Powell says he regrets it.

“”"It was Powell who told the United Nations and the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat. He told Walters that he feels “terrible” about the claims he made in that now-infamous address — assertions that later proved to be false.

When asked if he feels it has tarnished his reputation, he said, “Of course it will. It’s a blot. I’m the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now.”

He doesn’t blame former CIA Director George Tenet for the misleading information he says he pored over for days before delivering his speech; he faults the intelligence system.

“George Tenet did not sit there for five days with me misleading me. He believed what he was giving to me was accurate. … The intelligence system did not work well,” he said.

Nonetheless, Powell said, some lower-level personnel in the intelligence community failed him and the country. “There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn’t be relied upon, and they didn’t speak up. That devastated me,” he said.”"”
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“The MAIN reason why we invaded was …”

To remove Saddam Hussein from power. That’s why we went in, and that’s what was done.
StanW

Vega, you are lying. It doesn;t get any more simple than that.

The wording in the resolution is plan and simple. Saddams possession and continued production of WMD was a reason, but not the reason. If we were to take WMD out of the mix completely, we were STILL 100% justified in invading Iraq and deposing Saddam.

You and your abject stupidity are done here. You may run away now!
StanW

Vega, you are lying. It doesn;t get any more simple than that.

The wording in the resolution is plan and simple. Saddams possession and continued production of WMD was a reason, but not the reason. If we were to take WMD out of the mix completely, we were STILL 100% justified in invading Iraq and deposing Saddam.

You and your abject stupidity are done here. You may run away now!
Martha

Oddly, stan is actually telling the truth [remember that broken clock]. The USA invaded Iraq for OIL. WMD was the pathetic excuse.
StanW

And where did I say anything about oil, Martha?

Oh, I didn’t, so you are lying.

Yeah, that’s what we all thought!
D-Vega

Shit, at this point I wish it was because because of the oil. At least then they could repay us the hundreds of billions spent on liberating and rebuilding their country. Or at least give us a special discount.

It was indirectly about oil, because the US did not want a rogue state to be sitting on a sea of oil, in a location where they could disrupt the flow of oil from the middle east to the world.

But that wasn’t the main rationale. The main rationale was the WMD.
StanW

You said it again, Vega. And Look, IT STILL ISN’T TRUE!
D-Vega

Of course it is, Stan.

The weapons were the MAIN reason. And it was a pretty good reason. A better reason than any listed on the resolution.

I don’t know why you can’t honestly, objectively look at it and see it for what it was.
StanW

I do and I have. YOU want this to be about WMD so that you and your ilk can say “No WMD were found, Bush Lied!”
D-Vega

Oh, so that’s why you are so hysterically defending your lame argument.

I don’t think Bush lied, Stan. I think we were misinformed. Maybe Sadam sent them somewhere. Maybe they never existed and Sadam played a shell-game to keep his enemies scared. Maybe Iraq exiles knew what things to say to get us serious about Iraq. Who knows?

I know if Bush were evil he would have just planted them there. He is not evil. He went with what he had. Allof us share responsibility in that. Not just Bush.
StanW

And where did I say anything about oil, Martha?

Oh, I didn’t, so you are lying.

Yeah, that’s what we all thought!
Martha

Oddly, stan is actually telling the truth [remember that broken clock]. The USA invaded Iraq for OIL. WMD was the pathetic excuse.
Martha

Oddly, stan is actually telling the truth [remember that broken clock]. The USA invaded Iraq for OIL. WMD was the pathetic excuse.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

You need to get your facts from different sources WMDs was the reason the media harped on it was not the only or even the primary reason.
D-Vega

The media was harping on what they were being fed. Numerous peopel in the admin were on TV every week saying that very thing. Pundits were parroting it.

I didn’t say it was the ONLY reason, but it was the MAIN reason.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

You might want to go back and listen to what the Admin was saying again!
StanW

Vega woudl only do that if he were even remotely interested in the truth, Wolf.

Vega is only interested in being right about something. Once he takes a position, no matter how mind-numbingly stupid it is, he will defend it forever.

Vega is arrogant and pompous. Nothing else is needed to explain how he posts!
Mahatma

Sounds like vega’s ability to defeat you with rational arguments have led you to name calling.
StanW

Knew you’d be back on Vega. Still too much of a coward to face me.
Mahatma

No you are afraid of the legend, the mighty mahatma.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

By legend you mean JOKE or laughing stock, right?
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“All of the other things listed on the resolution all happened waaaay before 2002.”

Yeah, like waaaaaay the hell back in 1998.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

As Stan says, the WMD wasn’t the main rationale, it was one of almost a dozen reasons. Second, Hussein was to have NO WMD, not some, not a big pile, not a certain kind but ZERO and we found more than zero as Cav points out over and over.

At this point even the “no WMD” lie has fallen apart and you’re clinging to semantics to avoid having to admit one more thing you were wrong about Iraq.

TreeFitty

I won’t be part of the “there weren’t WMD’s so Bush lied” crowd, but try to be at least a little fair and accurate in this. There’s nothing surprising or shocking about the report if you paid a shred of attention starting back with the gulf war and Saddam’s initial KNOWN use of chemical agents. You really gonna just ignore the fact that this stuff dates back to the 80′s and was completely expired and useless? We went into Iraq based on “imminent threats” and current systematic WMD production. This is the same crap you’d find lying around twenty years after battle on any war-ridden land that the Iraqi Al Qaeda then found and tried to use later.
I guess if it eases the typical Dubyah supporter’s conscience a little, fine, but explain away that false war this report does not…that’s pretty clear if you spend two seconds looking at the report yourself rather than taking this partisan hack’s word for it.

Anonymous

You just keep believing that “Saddam only had stuff that was over 20 years old so didn’t pose a threat” idiocy if you like. The fact that he was NOT proving he had dismantled his production capabilities means he was still producing stuff.
Opinions the contrary are wish-full thinking at their worst.
Proud Infidel

“…completely expired and useless.”
OK then, little moonbat, then I challenge you to open any of the old chemical warhead shells still possessed by the US Government and breathe deep. Or any HAZMAT with an expiration date for that matter.
Kingfisher

“TreeFitty?”

Any idiot with a name of “TreeFitty” should be ridiculed for lacking the intelligence to pick a decent pseudonym.

ROFL!
Kingfisher

This is the same crap you’d find lying around twenty years after battle on any war-ridden land that the Iraqi Al Qaeda then found and tried to use later.

This is the typical rantings of a fatass lazy slob whose “battle” skills are based upon a computer game fighting non-existent aliens.

Get off the computer and waddle outside. You need some fresh air.

Kingfisher

Once again, the left is back on their “I hate Bush!” march to realize that there were two, and only two, evil entities in this whole issue:

1) Hussein. Name one leftist who pointed the finger at Hussein. This guy gave Hitler a run for his money but, to the left, he wasn’t Bush so they didn’t consider him the bad buy, no matter how bad he really was.

Hussein killed thousands of his own people and lived like a king but….he was the government and liberals LOVE government. He would have been branded by the left if he was a corporate executive with a crime list 1/10 as long.

Once again, the left exonerates the bad guy and attacks the good guy (Bush).

2) The UN
The UN has always been the left’s anti-war poster child. Not only did it fail miserably but people actually died because of the UN’s stupidity. Read “oil-for-food” scandal for more information.

The UN set the requirements for Hussein’s surrender and, since then, bungled and looked the other way while Hussein was violating the very same requirements that he was supposed to follow.

The left always claims that war is never the answer but their very actions always ends up to war. They never push for peaceful resolution and people (like Bush) end up having to fight wars as a result. If the UN actually did it’s damn job war would not be necessary.

Hussein agreed to destroy his chemical plants as a requirement and subsequently violated that agreement. The UN and the left looked the other way. What fools! Then Bush comes in, looks at the intelligence data and makes a judgment call. Meanwhile, the left has been sitting on its collective fat ass all this time bitching and whining. Hussein never had any intention to follow his agreement because he knew that the UN is a toothless old fool.

Once again, the left’s little fantasy world falls apart as a result of its own stupidity. Unfortunately, some people are too f*cking stupid to learn.
Gkingthomas

Hey Julian, how about leaking obama’s birth cert, transcripts, passports,thesis,and the FBI files on his Communist Party mentors!
http://twitter.com/eRtwngr eRtwngr

Of course we knew there were WMD’s in Iraq. We furnished them for the war against Iran. And although the UN put those paper seals on the vaults where much of them were stored, at the outset of the war, those vaults were broken into and emptied. The problem wasn’t that there weren’t WMD’s but that the Bush people had so pumped up the idea of a massive program that the actuality of WMD’s never got across. That the liberal media distorted what happened shouldn’t really matter. Had all bush’s people (Powell) kept up the chorus, the people would have got it.
http://merchant.auctivacommerce.com/s16220/Detroit-Red-Wings-Winter-Classic-90-Mike-Modano-Jersey-White-NHL-Jersey-P1579201.aspx Mike Modano Jersey

fabulous writing, very resourceful. I like it very much. I come acoss the article by MSN search engine. I will read your site frequently and recommend it to my classmates. Please keep it fresh. Keep on the good work. – A ipad lover

Advertisement

Featured Video

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

Advertisement

User Info

Users Online

26 Users Online

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN