Posted on 10/17/2014 7:33:31 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
New media accounts including coverage by NROs Patrick Brennan confirm what I repeatedly have written since the depths of Operation Iraqi Freedom: The late dictator Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass death, and the United States of America was correct to invade Iraq, find these toxins, and destroy them. Also vital: padlocking this Baathist general store for militant-Islamic terrorism.
As I explained on July 17, 2006:
While the liberal press gently sleeps, evidence continues to mount that Hussein had WMDs, though perhaps not in quantities that would bulge warehouses.
Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent, states a June 21 declassified summary of a report from the National Ground Intelligence Center. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraqs pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.
It turns out that based on open sources I vastly underestimated the size of Husseins stockpiles of deadly devices.
In this storys first outrage, it now transpires that Hussein had some 5,000 tank shells filled with sarin nerve gas, mustard gas, and other lethal agents. This is roughly ten times the arsenal that I reported that he possessed. Had I access to more accurate information back then, my pieces would have reflected the depth of Husseins supplies of these munitions.
These recent news stories overlook another discovery from 2004: The U.S. Department of Energy and the Pentagon removed 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium from Iraq that could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device or diverted to support a nuclear weapons program, according to a DOE press release. This development was almost totally overlooked by the entire press corps, absent The Weekly Standards Stephen Hayes, author Richard Miniter, and yours truly.
Team Bushs near-silence about Saddam Husseins 3,894 pounds of uranium points to this storys second outrage: the Bush administrations phenomenally flaccid response to its most vociferous detractors on the WMD question.
Then-president George W. Bushs critics used the most bitter and vicious tones to accuse him of deceiving America and the world about weapons of mass death. Bush lied, people died was the Lefts relentlessly repeated anti-Bush indictment. The liberal fever swamps were rife with theories that Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their pals at Halliburton concocted the WMD charges from whole cloth. Why? To justify a U.S. invasion in order to seize Iraqs oil fields. Lifting sanctions and simply letting Iraqs oil flow must have been too much trouble.
The notion that Operation Iraqi Freedom rested upon a giant foundation of even bigger lies severely damaged the reputations of the United States of America, Bush, the conservative movement, and the GOP the latter two of which tended to support the Iraq invasion. (So did then-senators Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry, and 108 other congressional Democrats at the time, although most later turned tail and pretended never to have voted to attack Iraq.)
Amid this wholesale meltdown of domestic and international public opinion, the Bush administration inexplicably and unforgivably yielded to the architects in Bushs political operation and sat on this treasure trove of exculpatory evidence. In fact, Bush did not lie about WMDs. They really existed and in enormous amounts. Moreover, they were sitting in the Iraqi desert, making U.S. GIs physically ill. (In yet another outrage, 17 soldiers reportedly were denied the medical attention or subsequent commendations that they deserved for handling these poisons. They also allegedly were told to clam up about what they saw.)
It is outrageous that the Pentagon and, apparently, Bushs political team concealed proof that Americas chief casus belli actually existed. Instead, the howling hyenas of the Left were allowed to gnaw away at Bushs political corpse.
Why did anyone involved in this disaster think that this would be good for America domestically or globally? How thick were the skulls of Bushs political advisers not to see the importance of presenting this information amid deafening shouts that the president and those of us who supported Operation Iraqi Freedom were a pack of filthy liars?
Anyone who aided and abetted this extremely destructive cover-up should be removed immediately and barred permanently from government agencies, political campaigns, and party organizations.
The third and most frightful outrage here is that some 2,500 of these canisters of nerve gas and mustard gas remained in Iraq. Rather than implement a policy of No WMD Left Behind, roughly half of Saddam Husseins WMDs were cast adrift in Iraq.
And now they are in the humane and prudent hands of the Islamic State.
Experts now say that these deadly weapons have degraded and pose no threat to anyone.
Would you bet your life on this?
At any time, the Islamic State can use these weapons against American and allied targets in the Middle East or anywhere else. If they detonate them and they work, hundreds or thousands could be killed.
Then again, they or their comrades in the Jihadist International could strap these artillery shells to sticks of dynamite and threaten to explode them. While the sarin and mustard gas might be inert, which mayor, governor, prime minister, or president could bank on that? Such uncertainty would give the Islamic State tremendous leverage: Obey our demands, or those sticks of dynamite will become a cloud of nerve gas.
Bush did not lie, we now learn.
However, in some twisted act of self-mutilation, his government severely wounded itself and America by hiding the abundant evidence that would have silenced Bushs and the USAs loudest and harshest opponents and enemies. Even worse, these imaginary weapons that proved to be all too real were abandoned in the sands for the Islamic State to adopt as their own.
And, before he prematurely withdrew U.S. troops from Iraq, Obama did nothing to fix any of this.
From the Euphrates to the Potomac, this is nothing short of governmental malpractice.
Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University.
“What they were looking for was the newer stuff that had already been moved out of the country.”
OK, so why not release to the public the full amount of old stuff you do find that is still there? Why tell soldiers they can’t speak of getting hurt by the stuff they did find?
FReegards
1) You did not build your business.
2) Push the lie of global warming.
3) That said you can keep your doctor under Obamacare.
4) That the Affordable Health Care Act was affordable.
5) That shipped guns to Mexico in order to blame the second Amendment.
6) That have that lied about Benghazi.
7) That sicked the IRS on conservative groups, etc....
Oh so now you are going to believe the on the record certified lying politicans this time on WMDs???
The Administration is so desperate to sell conservatives and the majority of people war with Syria... They are replaying the WMD card.
Do you really think American troops should risk their lives so that Saudi Arabia can build that gas pipeline that Assad refused to sell them?
The WMDs in Syria is filthy lie. The only people over there that got caught releasing any type of WMD was ISIS (aka Al-Qaeda/FSA/The Rebels) who got it from our friends...Saudi Arabia.
Oh yeah I know the war mongers in the media try to say it was Assad, but a UN investigation determined it was NOT Syria but the Rebels trying to get the U.S. to join the war.
But that was either ignored by the same media or a was on the very back pages of the newspaper.
Don't be so gullible and fall for the WMD bull$hit again.
“In 2002 and 2003 Bush Cheney, Rummy, Condi were making the case that the Iraq invasion was about nukes not WWI era poison gas technology”
Nobody, not Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, not anybody, was making the case that Saddam had nuclear weapons. He was actively trying to acquire them.
Your use of a quote by Rice, out of context, is disingenuous at best. At best.
Bush did not lie, we now learn.
However, in some twisted act of self-mutilation, his government severely wounded itself and America by hiding the abundant evidence that would have silenced Bushs and the USAs loudest and harshest opponents and enemies
I disagree with the author's conclusion...there were numerous reports of WMD findings. Announcements were made. Announcements were buried. The author is suggesting that more announcements should have been made.
The MSM had already decided to go with the "Bush lied" meme. The Army could have found a nuke on a launch pad with the words "Nuke New York" painted on the missle in plain English and the MSM would have buried the finding. Freepers knew this.
Nothing. Nothing was going to silence Bush's critics.
This MSM author now faults Bush for not yelling louder about the finds. Why? To receive even more ridicule?
Excellent article EXCEPT that this outraged author doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to propose possible answers to his own question beyond some flaccid notion of political campaigning.
“
Bush Didnt Lie: But why did his administration sit on the evidence of Saddam Husseins WMDs?”
Why?
1. They wanted to lose. There are serious reasons to support this answer. Primarily because the establishment hates the conservative movement.
2. They were instructed to do so by some behind the scenes, covert power player. It’s hard to comment on this, but the conspiracy notion is that a power elite pulls the world’s strings and this would have somehow played into their strategy.
3. Bush wanted to reveal this but could not despite the damage it was causing him politically because it would have enabled other countries or people groups to make irrefutable claims against Iraq’s resources. The Kurds and Kurdish independence comes to mind.
Well that’s one story that would seem to jive with a possible motive for the inexplicable actions, if all this is true.
When this story first broke the first thing I thought of was the truck convoys into Syria and how no one really made a big deal about them. I found this article which alleges Russia facilitated the possible removal of the current WMDs before and during the invasion.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/oct/28/20041028-122637-6257r/?page=all#pagebreak
He either approved or had a motivation to just let it go because it wasnt actually a big deal to him, or had knowledge that there wasnt really anything to it.
Now we have to invade Syria to get the WMDs that were moved there might have been politically and militarily counter productive to what he was trying to do in Iraq?
Freegards
Your recall is spot on. That is what I remember too.
“This MSM author now faults Bush for not yelling louder about the finds.”
So you are saying that all the info was out there, already put by the Bush administration but the pres didn’t report it? That surely did happen, but I sort of thought that this guy is saying that for some reason the true amount wasn’t revealed to the press by the administration, as well as how many soldiers got hurt by dealing with them.
“Amid this wholesale meltdown of domestic and international public opinion, the Bush administration inexplicably and unforgivably yielded to the architects in Bushs political operation and sat on this treasure trove of exculpatory evidence. In fact, Bush did not lie about WMDs. They really existed and in enormous amounts. Moreover, they were sitting in the Iraqi desert, making U.S. GIs physically ill. (In yet another outrage, 17 soldiers reportedly were denied the medical attention or subsequent commendations that they deserved for handling these poisons. They also allegedly were told to clam up about what they saw.)
It is outrageous that the Pentagon and, apparently, Bushs political team concealed proof that Americas chief casus belli actually existed. Instead, the howling hyenas of the Left were allowed to gnaw away at Bushs political corpse.”
He isn’t denying that they released some of the what they found and the press then ignored it, he is saying the full scope of what they found was concealed by the administration for some reason, or at least what I am getting from it. I could be mistaken.
Freegards
Where Bush went wrong was in not arresting Pinch and the rest of the treasonous Mediacrats after 9/11.
First thing I would have done was deport Moore and pull his passport.
What is the advantage to keep this quiet? All these answers are stretches.
Anyone think it’s odd this all comes out just now as Obama beats the war drums for Iraq war III?
The ONLY news here is that the NYT is FINALLY reporting on Saddam’s WMD.
Of course Saddam always had WMD and never hesitated using it.
This Bush lied, people died crap is nothing more than Left wing propaganda BS.
Yes, those answers are mere suppositions. However, there is a reason. The answer could be as simple as “Pres Bush hated arguing with people.” I hope it’s much more sinister than that. If that’s it, then that means Pres. Bush was totally naïve, and I just don’t see evidence for that.
I think the NYT is absolutely using this as a justification for beating the drums for war. The NYT isn’t anti-war; they’re anti-the-wars-they-don’t-like, and pro-the-wars-they-do-like.
Rove gave the advice. Bush made the decision. Either that or Bush was a dunce who was told what to do. Sorta’ like Obama.
Is the new story concerning this about finds of actual WMD stores that the administration didn’t release to the press at all for some reason or about the old stories that were released and ignored or dismissed by the press?
Freegards
I have to ask myself “Did Bush do this to intentionally hand everything over to the democrats?” Remember, the Bushes and the Clintons are buddies. Old man Bush attends gay weddings. Barbara Bush slanders Sarah Palin. Something ain’t right.
The powers run a “Gore”. We HAVE to vote for his opponent.
The powers run a “Kerry”. We HAVE to vote for his opponent.
.....run an “Obama”. We HAVE to vote for his opponent.
.....run a “Romney”. We HAVE to vote for his opponent.
The powers get who they want no matter what.
Maybe they kept it silent because of who sold the weapons to Saddam. Who was president when Saddam purchased them? mmmm
I don’t doubt for a minute that all the liberal politicians and media people knew this when they were all yelling “Bush lied!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.