Wikileaks: Hussein had WMD programs
Although WMDs in Iraq were not the entirety of the reasons we went into that country in the first place, but the Left has whined since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that they were lied to about the weapons of mass destruction which Hussein amassed in his decades of running the country. The Left ignored the 500 tons of uranium the US moved to Canada, but now it turns out their vaunted Wikileaks documents also support the Bush Administration’s claim;
Wired magazine’s Danger Room reports. “But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.”
That is, there definitively were weapons of mass destruction and elements of a WMD program in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq when U.S.-led coalition troops entered the country to depose Hussein.
Predictably, the liberal media did their best to either ignore the story–like the New York Times and Washington Post did–or spin it. It’s not an easy choice to make, since ignoring the story makes you look out of the loop and hurts your reputation as an informative publication, yet spinning the story means actively attempting to confuse and mislead your readers. CBS News chose the latter.
The Danger Room continues;
But the more salient issue may be how insurgents and Islamic extremists (possibly with the help of Iran) attempted to use these lethal and exotic arms. As Spencer noted earlier, a January 2006 war log claims that “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons were smuggled in from Iran.
That same month, then “chemical weapons specialists” were apprehended in Balad. These “foreigners” were there specifically “to support the chemical weapons operations.”
But, I’m sure someone will now instruct me on the irrelevance of these documents and the weapons because there was no large stockpile with big signs and neon lights showing the media the way. The presence of chemical labs demonstrate intent – the whole reason.
Thanks to ROS for the link.
Category: Terror War
after hearing some of the things die hards said about the war (obviously it wasn’t oil cuz gas is $4.00) and Bush Lied, it seems strangely anticlimactic to see in print pretty much what we’d been saying all along. Trying to explain the terror that caused my brigade in 2004 upon discovering Sarin Gas mortar rounds, seemed to fall on deaf ears. Sadly the fact that Iran defiantly got involved and actively tried to kill American Soldiers will only be a footnote in history.
Ain’t politics grand?
But I believe that the issue was that were these items new or were they leftover from the 80s and early 90s. Because I am sure that if the Iraqi people disposed of these items the same way the they did conventional arms then seeing items like this should not be uncommon. I do remember seeing on BBC that there were people coming into contact with yellow cake disks. Some would empty the containers holding for hello cakes to us the crumbs for water storage. I thought I saw a story were a girl was wearing the yellow cake disks like beads in jewelry.
I know that this would be nice to have real proof, but I want to be sure and rule out other possible explanations that if and when real proof is found we can make a good case by having answers to questions before they are asked.
I mean there are still UXOs covering Iraq near Iran from the war in the 80s. If these items are still there then it is not surprising to see items left over from the Gulf War.
I know back in 2007 that there were a couple instances where a blister agent was used against American Forces. It came out in an intel report and from that day on we were required to carry our MOPP gear along with us on convoy escort duty.
It disgusts me to no end that we had to get the TRUTH from Wikileaks on this, and not from our President who, as a Democrat, could have used his platform to get up in front of the American people and straighten this out. Instead, he was content to let the liberals in this country continue to believe that what we were told was a lie (about WMDs). Now they’re left with an undeniable fact: Obama won’t even tell THEM the truth.
Chemical weapons are considered WMD, unless it will disparage GWB. Saddam was executed for gassing the Kurds. WMD… check. Genocide… Check. He did not have any nukes, at that time. He was putting money towards a program and getting the scientific base ready. His motivation for lying about the status of his nukes was to keep Iran at bay. Think about that. He gambled the image of a WMD program and was willing to risk what he thought would be 3 or 4 days of US airstrikes if it meant keeping Iran in check. He was more afraid of Iran than he was of us.
CBS did an interview with the FBI interrogator who got Saddam to talk.
http://tinyurl.com/3lmwdf8
Smarter man than me once said George W. Bush would be vindicated by history.
The real story is the empassioned intensity displayed by the so-called reporters and editors in not reporting any or all of this. When folks say the lamestream media behaved treacherously, this story is evidence.
The questions then turns to: who, among the elected Democratic leaders, knew of this, when did they know, and what was their motivation to suppress the evidence?
That’d be one heck of a TEA Party ad to roll out in the next 6 months.
Doc…
Right you are…and I cannot wait to see what the (to quote Uncle Jimbo) wankers over at huffpo might be saying, since they clearly loved Manning!
I have written several blogs about this and to what end other than I know what I know.
Where’s our own little Joey? I fully expected him to be here, again decrying the “pack of lies”. Maybe, since it’s his own side publishing facts re: WMD, he’s lost his voice?
Nah, this was brought to his attention before, he just glossed over it, as I’m sure he will this time, too. Besides, I’m sure he’s out somewhere in Colorado getting “chicked”.