Where the WMDs Went

FrontPage Magazine ^ | Nov. 16, 2005 | Jamie Glazov

[George W. Bush]

Because if we say we found it then we would be asked who provided it to the Iraqis and that could cause a very big problem in international relations.For instance, if we said we found chemical biological or nuclear weapons and it was proven another country provided them or helped in the manufacture it could lead to name calling, finger pointing and possible world war.

But we do acknowledge giving them the anthrax strains in the Eighties. We also funded their war effort via the BCCI scandal and ran diplomatic interference for Saddam as we wanted to contain Iran. And France's Osarik reactor is no secret (and the public relief everyone expressed that Israel, of all people, bombed it). And certainly Russia supplied a lot of forbidden gear like the nightvision and other stuff bought right before the war to kill our troops as well as their former generals going to Iraq to help organize Saddam's defense. And Pakistan's top scientist giving nuke secrets to a bunch of Muslim countries is no secret. And Europe sold a *lot* of stuff. Even Britain. And those are just off the top of my head.

Well, you can see I don't think our actions and statements on WMD are motivated by concerns over international scandal. There was plenty of scandal already and no one jumped off a cliff.

[usmcobra]

The cockpit

The Dig

The Plane.

[Holicheese]

"inspections during the eighties into tea parties"

Who do you know that went to Africa to investigate yellow cake and spent his whole time drinking sweet tea?
Hmmmmm, sounds very familiar.

[marty60]

All those trucks heading to Syria BEFORE the War and AFTER Rockefeller gave heads up......were not loaded with Saddamn's furniture.

[dogcaller]

The President must have a reason for not speaking of this...God willing it is part of an overall plan to defeat our enemies, foreign and domestic.

[conservativecorner]

One other item from yesterday. Here is your first post to me. I have highlighted the section that deals with items found. I and others have provided proof of the existence of WMD in Iraq, yet you refuse to acknowledge these facts. I can't have a discussion with someone who continually moves the goal posts. Have a nice life.

"If this is the vaunted WMD proof, I think it's time to give up."

"Why do right-wing news sources continue to claim WMD when the Bush administration has disavowed such claims? How exactly do website operators get so much intel?"

"Just produce a thimble of sarin, a vial of anthrax, a marble of weapons-grade uranium, then we'll have something to talk about."

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

need to find the pictures of US troops digging up the latest MIG-25's and other military hardware buried in the desert. It was posted on my e-mail from a freind in San Antonio.

I've got some, snowman1, How can I get them to you? Hey, Maybe I'm your friend in San Antonio!

[eastforker]

But had any of the wmd's been used on our troops that would be another story.This little excursion into Iraq and Afghanistan is only a wakeup call to our enemies. We sure do not need to unite them against us by pointing fingers at them, not publicly anyway. As I said a few days ago the whole mideast, europe and southern asia could go from simmer to jiffy pop real quick if not handled properly. From now on I think France and Germany will think twice before helping a muslim country with technology for WMD's.

[driftless]

Aren't you being just slightly disingenouous? I mean if Hussein didn't have stockpiles of wmds, why were all those weapons inspectors there in the first place? I find it difficult to believe that (1) Hussein had no large stores of wmds and was not close to developing nukes and (2) people who believe he wasn't interested in doing those things. Even people like Hans Blix have noted Hussein's past wmd weapons programs. They just thought that containing him through further inspections was preferable to war.

Another question to ask yourself is do you believe someone like Tierney is telling the truth or just trying to placate us Free Republic warmongers? I would think that any nonpartisan student of Hussein over his horrible tenure in Iraq would agree that (1) he had and used wmds and (2) that being the case, he would develop and use them again if had the chance. Remember we're talking about a man who tried to have a president of the U.S. assassinated. Why is it so hard for many people to connect the dots and assume the worst about Hussein? I felt that Hussein would eventually have to be taken out fourteen years ago when I was still a Dem. I still haven't changed my mind.

[kindred]

[Sorry, but that is our rules and sometime we get hurt by them.]

It sure seems to me that these rules are destroying the GOP and the dems are building a network of lies and deceit.
Perhaps the truth about the weapons of mass destruction will stregthen the GOP. It was a mistake when the right allowed RINO liberals into the conservative party and they are getting bit by these monsters.

[shield]

BTTT

[patriciamary]

I have always felt Iraq had WMD's ,what I do not under is why the administration keeps saying we were wrong ,there was no weapons .It does not make sense.

[From The Deer Stand]

Now if only we could get a Republican to read it....

Now if we could get the MSM to read it...

[McGruff]

All those trucks heading to Syria BEFORE the War and AFTER Rockefeller gave heads up

BINGO. Talk about telegraphing a punch.

How many months did Saddam have to hide or get rid of this stuff before we actually went in?

[George W. Bush]

Aren't you being just slightly disingenouous? I mean if Hussein didn't have stockpiles of wmds, why were all those weapons inspectors there in the first place? I find it difficult to believe that (1) Hussein had no large stores of wmds and was not close to developing nukes and (2) people who believe he wasn't interested in doing those things. Even people like Hans Blix have noted Hussein's past wmd weapons programs. They just thought that containing him through further inspections was preferable to war.

What's disingenuous is to present claims of WMD activity without any proof to back them up. I'm asking for evidence. A WMD find comparable to those we got when Libya surrendered their program to us. Or a large number of credible witnesses (scientists, technicians, transport people, government officials) who can put together a picture of how they acquired the WMD materials, how and where it was processed, how it was disposed of or evacuated.

Facts are pesky things but otherwise you end up with wishful thinking. I gave up on that a month after we invaded when every WMD claim turned out to be nothing.

Another question to ask yourself is do you believe someone like Tierney is telling the truth or just trying to placate us Free Republic warmongers?

I think that like Blix and others, he'll write a book to make some money. A book like that has to target an audience.

I would think that any nonpartisan student of Hussein over his horrible tenure in Iraq would agree that (1) he had and used wmds and (2) that being the case, he would develop and use them again if had the chance. Remember we're talking about a man who tried to have a president of the U.S. assassinated.

No one pretends Saddam is an angel. And the president Saddam tried to assassinate was, in fact, instumental in his access to U.S. tech in the Eighties, including the anthrax strains he received from our research programs. No effort was made to restrict his access even after it was clear he was intent on WMD programs.

Why is it so hard for many people to connect the dots and assume the worst about Hussein?

I do assume the worst. But I also know how messy WMD really is and how hard it is to hide the evidence, particularly from a country as sophisticated as we are.

Again, the Bush administration no longer claims WMD in Iraq. No one does. A great many fanciful explanations are offered for this but maybe the truth is that the threat was vastly overblown by our intel sources or the WMD programs were largely dismantled or simply too ineffective to succeed in producing WMD of adequate quantity or quality.

I would ask in return to your question: why is it so important for you to believe that which our administration does not claim about WMD in Iraq? It's a fair question.

[SMARTY]

"...the deep rot inside the intelligence community."

The intelligence community in the US has become politicized. For that reason, it no longer serves its purpose.

Furthermore, why all the back and forth over proof of WMD in Iraq? Rules 'infractions' are not on a par with the potential destruction of whole swaths of this country or the murder of tens of thousands of innocent, unarmed American civilians. Apples and oranges. I say 'no more lawyers in the WH!!!


Besides, a WMD is a commercial air liner with a full tank of gas. It qualifies for WMD... it's massive and destructive, right? Don't think so? Ask survivors of the 9/11 attacks.

[justa-hairyape]

The article also fails to account for the complete lack of individuals (technicians, transport drivers, etc.) who had to be involved in production and the evacuation of the WMD.

Do you not even know who we are talking about here ? Saddam Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad. Do you think he got that name because he liked to cut his own meat ?

[Rocket1968]

Bump

[RebelBanker]

bookmark

[USS Alaska]

Here are just two {of 23} reason for going into Iraq. These are from the Congressional Resolution:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

You can google "iraq war resolutions" and get all 23, but these hypocritical congress critters, not only lie, they swear to it. WMD is only one reason, not even the first reason given, BY THE CONGRESS.