Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq Were Not Those Used to Justify Invasion

The New American ^ | 15 October 2014 | Warren Mass

[VitacoreVision]

U.S. troops and U.S.-trained Iraqi forces uncovered about 5,000 chemical weapons in Iraq between 2004 and 2011 and soldiers were injured by these weapons in six instances. However, the weapons had not been manufactured during an active, ongoing chemical weapons program, which the Bush administration cited as justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Details of the discovery of these weapons were published by the New York Times on October 14, in a lengthy, 9,000-word report written by former Marine Corps officer and veteran journalist C.J. Chivers.

Despite injuries to our troops, the U.S. government withheld information about the discovery of the weapons even from troops it sent into harm's way and from military doctors.

"'Nothing of significance' is what I was ordered to say," retired Army Major Jarrod Lampier told the Times. Lampier was on site when the largest chemical weapons dump, containing 2,400 warheads, was found.  

The Times report offered reasons why the news of the discovery of the weapons and the injuries they inflicted on our soldiers was withheld from the public:

Participants in the chemical weapons discoveries said the United States suppressed knowledge of finds for multiple reasons, including that the government bristled at further acknowledgment it had been wrong. "They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds," Lampier said. "And all of this was from the pre-1991 era."

Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.

All the weapons found in Iraq were produced during a crash program started in the 1980s for use against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War from September 1980 to August 1988. Since the overthrow of the Shah in the 1979 Iranian revolution, and the subsequent hostage crisis that began with the occupation of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by Iranian revolutionaries on November 4, 1979 -- after which 52 American diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days -- the United States and the revolutionary Iranian government had regarded each other as fierce adversaries.

With this history, the United States covertly aided Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. A report in the New York Times on August 18, 2002 referenced then-current statements made by President George W. Bush and his national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, that Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iran was justification for "regime change" in Iraq. The article, headlined "Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas," pointed to the blatant hypocrisy of the Bush administration's position, given U.S. complicity in Iraq's earlier chemical weapons program.

When the Times contacted Frank Carlucci, the Reagan administration defense secretary from 1987-89, he stated: "I did agree that Iraq should not lose the war, but I certainly had no foreknowledge of their use of chemical weapons."

Col. Walter Lang, retired, the senior defense intelligence officer at the time of the Iraq-Iran War, told the Times he would not discuss classified information, but added that both DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) and CIA officials "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose" to Iran.

"The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," Land said. He added that Reagan's aides were more concerned that Iran not break through to the Fao Peninsula and spread the Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Colonel Lang said that the DIA "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival."

The chemical weapons discovered during the post-Saddam U.S. occupation of Iraq, according to what was revealed in this latest exposé, were basically surplus war materiel left over from Iraq's war with Iran. The Times report noted:

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

Despite the fact there is no evidence that Saddam's government manufactured chemical weapons after 1991, President Bush, on September 12, 2002, while attempting to build a case for the 2003 Iraq invasion, said: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." (Unlike the chemical weapons found by U.S. troops, no biological weapons at all were found.)

Bush continued, "The regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons."

Had the discovery of the chemical weapons been useful to the Bush administration when they were first uncovered, there is little doubt that their discovery would have been widely publicized by the White House to justify the 2003 invasion. Instead, their discovery was kept a secret, even when hiding their existence posed a serious threat to our troops in Iraq.  Far from justifying the invasion of Iraq, the age and obsolescence of the weapons only confirmed that the invasion had been launched under false pretenses.

In our July 6, 2008 article, "Did We Get Lied Into War?" we described the findings of a 170-page report compiled by the Senate Intelligence Committee, concluding five years of investigations. The committee focused especially on five key speeches made by administration officials concerning "the threats posed by Iraq, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi ties to terrorist groups, and possible consequences of a US invasion of Iraq." It selected statements from those five speeches pertaining to eight categories: nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, methods of delivery, links to terrorism, regime intent, and assessments about the postwar situation in Iraq.

We will look at what the Senate report said about chemical weapons. It first cited an excerpt from a Bush speech delivered on September 12, 2002:

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

The Senate report offered this reaction to the Bush assertion:

The committee's conclusions initially related that statements by the administration "regarding Iraq's possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information." But then it added: "Statements ... regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities  did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties  as to whether such production was ongoing."[Italics in original.]

The committee's "postwar findings" once more contradict prewar administration allegations, finding: "The Iraq Survey Group conducted its review of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and found that there 'were no caches of CW munitions.'"

But Saddam's antique store of chemical weapons, some of which were developed with the help of Western governments to use against Iran, have not outlived their usefulness. The Times report notes:

Many chemical weapons incidents clustered around the ruins of the Muthanna State Establishment, the center of Iraqi chemical agent production in the 1980s.

Since June, the compound has been held by the Islamic State [ISIS], the world's most radical and violent jihadist group.

It would not be surprising if our government soon announced that we must send troops to Iraq to prevent ISIS from accumulating some of those same second-hand chemical weapons that were used to justify the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Related article:

Did We Get Lied Into War?

[Lib-Lickers 2]

that material was all known about long before Bush came into office and was already categorized and stored underground by the UN inspectors that they had over there years before

that yellow cake was not one of the reasons for the invasion and it was useless for anything Iraq had going,, it was from their old nuclear program they had in the early 80’s before the Israelis put an end to it

[Ransomed]

Fine, don’t attack, but to not even make a public statement about it at the time? I mean, why not tell the American people the truth about it now?

Freegards

[JimRed]

So, they finally admit that there WERE WMDs in Iraq. Then they say they were the wrong ones. Typical leftist BS.

[PIF]

Have to ask someone else ... all this 12 year old hind sight is ridiculous ... maybe the folks who are pushing this meme should get down and dirty about all the mistakes made in all the other wars? After all FDR gave us 403 thousand dead and that led to Bush beating Gore which led to 0bama which led to the GOP’s insatiable appetite to eat its own in order to elect either a modern version of Trotsky or Jughashvilli ...

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

I’m used to liberals rehashing the Iraq war and Bush’s so called “lies”. It’s sad to see it on Free Republic. And all because of something Trump said in a debate?

We are watching a civilization die. Part of it is an ignorance of history. The populist candidate, who proves his prowess outside of government, then returns to the adulation of the common man, while threatening those that run the established power structure. Julius Caesar or Donald Trump?

The fact is that our Founding Fathers trusted laws, not men. They would have been aghast at otherwise intelligent people spouting off messianic rhetoric about a political candidate. Individual people don't save the government (that's an old-world idea... the kind they fought against); the system of government protects the people. But we can't change the system overnight, and doing so will mean pain for everyone. So instead, we'll just elect a savior!

I'm recording names and statements here, because, after Trump wins (and, if it's between him and Hillary, I'll vote for Trump myself), I'm going to show up on every thread where some of the (presently) most obnoxious sycophants post and quote back to them everything they are saying now. Fools deserve to be humiliated by their own words...

[Washi]

This is the third or fourth thread I've seen today revisiting the entire Iraq war issue.

This issue has been discussed, in depth, on FR and the overwhelming consensus, among Freepers has been that, given the widely accepted intelligence available at the time, GWBs invasion was justified.

It was only the moonbats that argued the "Bush Lied, People Died" line.

Now I see we are revisiting the whole argument.

Why?

Because Trump supporters are working hard to, again, justify one of Trump's leftist positions/statements so they can continue to feel good in their support for him.

[Ransomed]

No problem, I am just puzzled by Bush’s actions and those convoys.

Freegards

[Hoodat]

that yellow cake was not one of the reasons for the invasion

Again, the reason for invading was that Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement from 1991. Read it for yourself.

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ

Enough with the DNC talking points here. Those lies have gone on long enough.

[Lib-Lickers 2]

you can be authorized to do about anything,, nobody said they didn’t have authorization.. it had nothing to do with 500 tons of yellow cake stashed from 1981

oh and then there is this from George W Bush himself admitting they screwed up they never found the WMDs they thought were there:

In a speech before the World Affairs Council of Charlotte, NC, on April 7, 2006, President Bush stated that he fully understood that the intelligence was wrong, and [he was] just as disappointed as everybody else when U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

[fuzzylogic]

The response to the yellow cake is always, “but that was known and under the control of the U.N.”. My response is; yeah, the same U.N. that had been kicked out of the country and was corrupted by the oil-for-food program. Saddam had prepared to restart his nuclear program by keeping the important parts ready-to-go.

The 5000 chemical weapons are always cited as “from the 80’s”. Frankly I don’t care. We knew he had them, knew he’d used them, knew he hadn’t accounted for the destruction of all of them. What were we supposed to do? ...just say, “ah, but we don’t have evidence of NEW ones”???

Saddam was a sick murderer and his sons were worse. He was the biggest supporter of terrorism and was the worst among dictator nations. After 911 the threshold for tolerating these thugs was lowered. I’m glad we took him out, who knows what would have happened if we hadn’t? Things would be much better if it weren’t for Obama, he’s destroyed the opportunity for a stable middle east, all in the name of “ending wars”. That said, nobody ever wants to think about the alternate consequences had we not taken him out.

[Hoodat]

The Authorization enumerates the reasons we went to war in Iraq. Yellowcake is not mentioned. Once again, enough with the lies already. We went to war for the reasons listed in the Authorization for Use of Force in Iraq. It is plainly stated. Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement. Do you understand what a cease fire is? It is an agreement where hostile actions are suspended per an agreed set of rules. It is not a permanent end. It is a break. And Iraq violated those rules, thus opening themselves up to a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War.

Enough with the DNC lies already. The resolution was put in writing, passed into law by a Democrat Senate, and signed by the President.

[CommerceComet]

You could summarize the article by saying that we found Iraqi chemical weapons but those don’t count.

[dfwgator]

The m.......... bought some yellow cake. Okay? In Africa. He went to Africa, and he bought yellow cake!
- Are you sure?
- Yes I'm sure BITCH! I got the head of CIA right here to tell you.
- Huddilihuu. “Are you sure? Are you su- " I can't believe you m-------as. That's ridiculous! Me and Jab just come back from Africa...
- Craddle of ---kin' civilization!
- ...And this n---a out here buying some yellow cake...
- From the motherland!
- Are you sure it was yellowcake?
- If ya'll ---as don't believe me i got some yellowcake right here. Look - u see? u believe that?
- Don't drop that ---t!
- I know what I'm doing. Yo i got it wrapped up in this special CIA napkin.
- Don't drop that ---t!
- I'm holdin' on to this --it!
- Pray to God you don't drop that --it!
- Yellowcake....

[Lib-Lickers 2]

you can also listen to Bush say the exact same thing

.. and what was found certainly was not worth an all out invasion of Iraq and the 100,000 casualties and 4000+ dead..

[Hoodat]

LMAO! You are da man!

[Hoodat]

[PrairieLady2]

In my opinion, the topic IS relevant for more than one reason. First, there’s another Bush running for office. The unspoken question is...how many of his brother’s and father’s policies will he support and carry out? Or will he distance himself from their failed policies? Both of the Bush’s were involved in middle east wars.

What’s Jebs! outlook on war in the middle east? Does he see the mistakes that were made and how will his policies impact the middle east? If he can’t or won’t admit to their mistakes, how can we believe him? How can we trust him if he can’t see their mistakes?

Politics is the art of persuasion. People get their minds working when ‘suggestions’ are made. Trump is ‘suggesting’ that there may be issues with Jeb! in light of the prior presidencies of family members.

Can Jeb! handle that? Obviously not. He doesn’t have emotional maturity. He’s a dreamer, like the democrats.

He should be able to look Donald Trump in the eye, man to man, and tell Trump something like this..”We aren’t here to vet my father’s past successes or failures, and we aren’t here to rehash my brother’s successes or failures. We are here to look at what “I” have to offer since I’m not my father or my brother. “I” am running for president here, not them. I have the advantage of the success and errors of family member presidents because they allowed me to learn about what “I” need to do as president.”

Something along those lines, or even different ones..I’m just suggesting one possibility that could open that door to discussion about what makes a Jeb! presidency different from that of his father and his brother.

But what does Jeb! do? He looks helplessly at the audience and the moderators at a Presidential Debate and pleads with them to stop the bully from picking on his family.

REALLY?????

So, when Donald Trump challenges him, it actually puts Jeb in a position to strengthen his candidacy and in the process make the Donald look like a duck.

The Donald is actually doing him a favor and the pathetic whimp is incapable of seeing it!

So yes, the question is relevant. What WILL Jeb! do about the clay feet of the middle east where there is no cohesion, where every man there is a bully, attempting to bully his way through the world in an effort to conquer it for Islam? Jeb! becomes Jello in the face of a bully.

Trump puts question marks in our minds..do we want more failed Bush policies? Do we want more lies about no new taxes, or absent WMD’s in Iraq? Do we want to listen to Jeb’s own lies? He can’t even admit that his dad or brother had both strength’s and weaknesses, nor can he admit his own.

All he can do is stand there and cry helplessly about the bully picking on his family. He can’t even come up with a reasonable challenge to Trump to put Trump on the defensive.

All he can do is cry about eminent domain? Eminent Domain was written into the constitution In 1791. It’s NOT new! Not even a reasonable challenge because he doesn’t tell the whole story. He tries to appeal not to intelligent informed people, but stupid, ignorant ones who are too lazy to do any homework. And in so doing, he makes himself look stupid and inept.

That’s the kind of man who slips and slides sleazy policies in because he can’t deal with honesty and reality face to face. Passive-Aggressive, emotionally immature. He might look ok standing by himself, but put him next to the real thing and he looks like a cheap imitation. He’s guilded brass, not solid gold.

So, we are faced with assessing Trump’s charges. Are they valid, or not? If so, it puts Trump in good standing as someone who speaks truthfully. If not, then it becomes the act of a lying bully.

So we the Jury, the PEOPLE must look at the evidence presented so that we can make an educated decision, a judgement if you will as to the character and abilities of the men who seek to hold office. So yes, we must look over the ‘evidence’ that’s available in the light of time, history, and the presentation of new facts/evidence. That’s our job as voters. WE vet those candidates.

So yes, it’s very relevant for Freepers to rehash the information.

[Hoodat]

.. and what was found certainly was not worth an all out invasion of Iraq and the 100,000 casualties and 4000+ dead..

But then we didn't invade Iraq because of their WMD. We violated because they couldn't account for their WMD which was in direct violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement. You can read it for yourself in the Authorization For the Use of Force In Iraq - a bill introduceed by Tom Daschle (D- SD), passed by a Democrat Senate, and signed by George W. Bush.

The cease fire agreement covers WMD that SADDAM ADMITTED HAVING! Get it? And for eight years, an American President did nothing to secure that WMD. Yet here you are giving Clinton a free pass while lying about Bush's reason for going to war.

[dfwgator]

The Bushes are a lot tighter with the Clintons than Trump will ever be.

[jdsteel]

It gives zero reason to adopt the baseless lies from the left to do so.