Saddam’s WMDs: The Left’s Iraq Lies Exposed

Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to JewishWorldReview.com, HumanEvents.com and CanadaFreePress.com. He may be reached at atahlert@comcast.net.


BN-DI219_0619ic_G_20140619114229The recent turmoil in Iraq brought on by the rise of the Sunni extremist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has ironically struck a blow to the American Left’s endlessly repeated narrative that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq prior to the war. The State Department and other U.S. government officials have revealed that ISIS now occupies the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex. Al Muthanna was Saddam Hussein’s primary chemical weapons facility, and it is located less than 50 miles from Baghdad.

The Obama administration claims that the weapons in that facility, which include sarin, mustard gas, and nerve agent VX, manufactured to prosecute the war against Iran in the 1980s, do not pose a threat because they are old, contaminated and hard to move. “We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible to safely move the materials,” said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

The administration’s dubious rationale is based on information provided by the Iraq Study Group, which was tasked with finding WMDs in the war’s aftermath. They found the chemical weapons at Al Muthanna, but they determined that both Iraq wars and inspections by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) had successfully dismantled the facility, and that the remaining chemical weapons were rendered useless and sealed in bunkers. The report called the weapons facility “a wasteland full of destroyed chemical munitions, razed structures, and unusable war-ravaged facilities,” the 2004 report stated.

Yet other sections of the same report were hardly reassuring. “Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there,” it stated. “The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers. Although declared, the bunkers’ contents have yet to be confirmed.” It added, “These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential black-marketers.”

Another report paints an even more disturbing picture of the Muthanna facility. It warned that the number and status of Saddam’s sarin-filled rockets was unknown because facilities were not able to be inspected, leaving investigators only able to surmise about the weapons’ condition. Even in degraded conditions, the report said, these rockets still posed a proliferation risk:

Although the damaged Bunker 13 at Muthanna contained thousands of sarin-filled rockets, the presence of leaking munitions and unstable propellant and explosive charges made it too hazardous for UNSCOM inspectors to enter. Because the rockets could not be recovered safely, Iraq declared the munitions in Bunker 13 as ‘destroyed in the Gulf War’ and they were not included in the inventory of chemical weapons eliminated under UNSCOM supervision.

Because of the hazardous conditions in Bunker 13, UNSCOM inspectors were unable to make an accurate inventory of its contents before sealing the entrances in 1994. As a result, no record exists of the exact number or status of the sarin-filled rockets remaining in the bunker. … In the worst-case scenario, the munitions could contain as much as 15,000 liters of sarin. Although it is likely that the nerve agent has degraded substantially after nearly two decades of storage under suboptimal conditions, UNMOVIC cautioned that ‘the levels of degradation of the sarin fill in the rockets cannot be determined without exploring the bunker and taking samples from intact warheads.’ If the sarin remains highly toxic and many of the rockets are still intact, they could pose a proliferation risk.”

Nonetheless, U.S. officials, who claimed they were well aware of the facility insisted that the United States wouldn’t have left it there if it were a genuine threat. They also continued to stress that the takeover by ISIS doesn’t constitute a military gain by the group because the weapons would prove useless, even if ISIS were able to penetrated the sealed bunkers where they are stored. ISIS has reportedly yet to gain access to the bunkers.

However, there are numerous holes in these assessments. The Obama administration, eager to leave a “sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq” as the president described it in 2011, paid little heed to the prospect of large swaths of that nation being overrun by terrorists who have taken over key cities and military bases, and confiscated sophisticated American military equipment in the process. One defense official conceded as much, telling the Wall Street Journal that had they known the Maliki government would lose control so soon, they might not have left the weapons behind. And Psaki’s contention that the weapons could not be moved safely even by terrorists is hardly reassuring when one considers the reality that ISIS uses suicide bombings as one of it chief military tactics.

A far more critical consideration is the possibility that many of the Iraqi Sunnis who have joined ISIS due in large part to their alienation by the Shi’ite-dominated government of Nouri al-Maliki are comprised of former Saddam Hussein loyalists, some of whom may have working knowledge of the chemical weapons stored at Al Muthanna. Former WMD specialist Paul Perrone extrapolated on where such working knowledge might lead. “I’m more concerned with the prospect that these Muslim terrorists have access to formulas or precursors that would enable them to create their own WMD,” he warned.

The latest revelations on the details of Saddam’s weapons stockpile, now potentially in the hands of Sunni radicals, affirm the Bush administration’s characterization of Iraq as a territory situated in a hotbed of radicalism, flooded with a bevy of highly dangerous weapons and overseen by a criminal rogue regime. Indeed, the WMDs are to say nothing of the Hussein government’s nuclear weapons program, also put to a stop by intervention in Iraq. In 2008, American and Iraqi officials had “completed nearly the last chapter in dismantling Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program with the removal of hundreds of tons of natural uranium from the country’s main nuclear site,” the New York Times reported. Approximately 600 tons of “yellowcake” was removed from the Tuwaitha facility, the main site for Iraq’s nuclear program. According to global security.org, uranium enrichment levels of 95 percent were achieved at the Tuwaitha facility. That site was also the location of the Osirak nuclear reactor destroyed by Israel in 1981.

And in what sounded like a harbinger of the future, the Times noted that although the yellowcake could not be used in its current form to produce a nuclear device or dirty bomb, the “unstable environment” in Iraq necessitated its removal, lest it fall into the “wrong hands.” In an updated correction to the article, the Times notes that the Osriak nuclear reactor “theoretically produced plutonium, which can fuel an atomic bomb.”

The Left dismissed this reality by claiming the yellowcake had been in Iraq prior to 1991 and thus was not the same yellowcake Bush referred to in his 2003 State of the Union address as part of his justification for invading Iraq. Led by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, the emboldened anti-war Left attempted to turn the claim into a scandal saying that Bush knowingly lied to the American public regarding Iraq’s effort to procure yellowcake from Niger.

Ultimately, Wilson and his story were thoroughly discredited a year later by a Senate Select Committee report, which further noted that President Bush had been fully justified in including the infamous “16 words” regarding that intelligence in his speech. Moreover the left has never bothered to explain why yellowcake procured before 1991 was any less dangerous in terms of its WMD potential, given Saddam Hussein’s regular defiance of international law also enunciated by Bush as one of the primary reasons for deposing him.

In 2010, documents procured by Wikileaks revealed more information on the WMD threat posed by Iraq that was known to the government. The self-described whistleblowers, who could hardly be called pro-war, released 392,000 military reports from Iraq that revealed several instances of American encounters with potential WMDs or their manufacture. These included 1200 gallons of a liquid mustard agent in Samarra that tested positive for a blister agent; tampering by large earth movers thought to be attempting to penetrate the bunkers at Muthanna; the discovery of a chemical lab and a chemical cache in Fallujah; and the discovery of a cache of weapons hidden at an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint with 155MM rounds that subsequently tested positive for mustard.

Foreign involvement with WMDs in Iraq was documented as well. A war log from January 2006 speaks of 50 neuroparalytic projectiles smuggled into Iraq from Iran via Al Basrah; Syrian chemical weapons specialists who came in to support the “chemical weapons operations of Hizballah Islami” (Hezbollah); and an Al Qaeda chemical weapons expert from Saudi Arabia sent to assist 200 individuals awaiting an opportunity to attack coalition forces with Sarin. As Wired Magazine characterized it, the Wikileaks documents revealed that for several years after the initial invasion, “U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.”

Left-wing members in Congress were certainly aware of these threats and more posed by the Hussein regime, which lead them to unanimously authorize war and even vocally champion its necessity. Their assessment was based on nothing less than the very intelligence known to the Bush administration at the time. Secretary of State John Kerry, as a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations before war was authorized, said, “There’s no question in my mind that Saddam Hussein has to be toppled one way or another, but the question is how” and that there was likewise “no question” that Hussein “continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home.”

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton intoned in 2002:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Justifying her well-known position, Clinton said later said in a 2003 interview with Code Pink, “I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted … I would love to agree with [Code Pink], but I can’t, based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.” 

However, these statements were made in the wake of 9/11 when Democrats sensed hawkishness was the key to their political fortunes. A few short years later, sabotaging the war that they had started and betraying the troops that they had sent to the field was where Democrats’ political futures lied. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and others made this transition through a blatant campaign of deceit that went virtually unchallenged by the media. Clinton, for example, averred on the campaign trail, “[I]f we had known then what we know now there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this President that authority” and claimed that she didn’t know that her vote for the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002″ was a vote for war. 

The con is still on going. In September of last year, Secretary Kerry brazenly asserted that he and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel had “opposed the president’s decision to go into Iraq” and that “evidence was used to persuade all of us that authority ought to be given.” Chuck Hagel, in fact, also voted in favor of the war before jumping ship, forsaking the lost lives he squandered in the field and joining with the hard left. As for the “manipulated evidence” canard cited by Kerry, the latest details of Saddam’s WMD stockpile — something there can be no doubt that the Secretary of State was aware of — exposes yet again the left’s great deception on the danger of Hussein and the motivation behind the Iraq war.

And now ISIS, disowned by al Qaeda for being even more ruthless than it is, controls a chemical facility containing contents declared “destroyed” because they couldn’t be recovered safely, along with bunkers containing contents “yet to be confirmed.” And an administration with an unparalleled facility for lying assures us everything will be fine because the chemical weapons have no useful military value and can’t be moved safely.  As with the rest of the Left’s handling of Iraq, this is an analysis that no one should have faith in.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Shein Ariely

    Magic number the 300 USA troops.
    The 300 Spartans that confront the Persians in the battle of Thermopylae changed stop the advance of the Persian Empire and changed the History.
    Is this number a sign of a change for a better of president Obama policy toward
    the modern Islamist Iran quest of hegemony?

    God put Obama on earth to accomplish a certain number of things.
    Right now he is so far behind, he will live forever.
    However he still has a chance if he will prove once again that he got it what Winston Churchill said:
    ”We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have
    exhausted all the other possibilities’.

    Last call for Obama administration to draw conclusions and fix the outcomes of his catastrophic policy:

    1: Libya — transformed into a Jihadist hub.
    2; Iraq– Jihadist take control of large areas.
    3: Syria: I don’t know what to say about Obama policy.
    Except that Russia scores many points.
    4: Iran: giving away the effective sanctions that eroded Iranians support to the Islamist dictatorship.
    Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Islamist Iran supreme leader, said that the Islamic Republic’s ideals include destroying America.
    Google search: /iran-supreme-leader-jihad-continue-until-america-no-…
    5: Egypt: He legitimized the Muslim Brotherhood that preaches to destroy USA civilization.
    USA court revealed Muslim brotherhood mission in a sixteen-page Arabic document:
    “”The Ikhwan must understand that their working America is a kind of
    grand Jihad in eliminating and DESTTROYING WESTREN CIVILIZATION FROM WITHIN.”.
    Google search:jcpa.org/the-muslim-brotherhood-a-moderate-islamic-alternative-to-al-qaeda-or-a-partner-in-global-jihad
    6: Palestinian: legitimized the united government with Hamas Islamist terrorists organization- the self declared enemy of all non Islamic cultures.
    “” Only under Islam wings Christianity, Judaism and Islam may coexist.””
    Read Hamas charter: http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

    • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

      ALAS, BARACK OBAMA

      the feckless p*ssycat Leo is no fearless, roaring, death defying King Leonidas. Moreover, the lead from behind (a weaker America is best for itself and the world) leftist girlie-man won the presidency on the ominous date November 4, 2008, which was what? The 29th anniversary of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Since his election Obama’s proven to be the greatest enabler of Iranian (Persian) power worse than Carter and Bush combined. He’s the anti-Spartan opposite of King Leonidas.

  • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

    ARNOLD

    Let’s not forget that Saddam retained the services of his nuclear scientists, and was in possession of 550 metric tons of YELLOW CAKE URANIUM-which the Maliki government sold to Canada in July 2008. He never gave up his ambitions of turning Iraq into a nuclear armed state. Good thing he’s gone.

    http://www.apollospeaks.com

    • BagLady

      and let’s not forget that much of the nasty stuff was provided by the west to hit Iran with. Perhaps a close inspection was not advisable, under the circumstances. However, since ISIL has stuck with ‘conventional’ weapons, ugly though they are, we must presume that there were no weapons of mass destruction for them to steal.

      • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

        Who in the West wanted Saddam to build the bomb and use it against Iran? I’ve not heard that one before.

        • SamDuhigiyn321

          like
          Jacqueline implied I’m taken by surprise that a mom can earn $8130 in 1 month
          on the computer . see post F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Flagged …

        • BagLady

          “the bomb”? WMDs include chemicals and gases, do they not? Delivered by various means. Didn’t Saddam use such things against Iran? By all accounts he did. Where did they come from? We were bosom pals at that time. Remember?

          • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

            From whom did Saddam purchase weaponized chems and gases?

          • KCRedeye

            Which by your own admission……Iraq did indeed have WMD! Thank you!

      • JackSpratt

        Some of the stuff may have come from Western countries, but the only weaponry that was given to the participants in the Iraq-Iran war by the U.S., was Iran, in exchange for hostages and a nice chunk of change. As Ollie North said, the weaponry Iran received would have been shot up against Iraq in a week. The chunk of change went to support the Contras in their war against Daniel Ortega and the communist Sandinistas. If you remember the democraps were supporting the communist Sandinistas.
        In our two wars with Saddam, some of his munitions came from Western countries, like the cases of French grenades that were found. But he was using mostly Soviet bloc armament, and I don’t recall any U.S. weaponry turning up.

        • trickyblain

          According to the 1994 Rigle Report, the US provided the Iraqi gov’t with 70 shipments of Anthrax alone. The report lists 14 separate U.S. manufactured biological warfare agents that were sent during the course of the Iran-Iraq war.

          As was the case in the Soviet-Afghan war, most conventional weapons involved third parties (i.e., AKs purchased by the Saudis and shipped to Saddam), but were funded with American money. The Saudis also transferred hundreds of American made MK-84 dumb bombs, but most conventional weaponry was foreign-made and paid for by American taxpayers.

        • BagLady

          Oh come on. The weapons industry has no soul They sell to anyone willing to pay. If they have to push the paperwork through circuitous routes, they do.

          Ah yes, the love of Maggie’s life, Reagan. He funded the Contras. A more murderous bunch of terrorists you could not find.

          What exactly is it about ‘socialism’ that America has been indoctrinated to fear most? Is it the fact the the true capitalists might take back a bit of the wealth from the 1% ‘financial capitalists’ — previously known as ‘hangers on’, leaches even?

          • reader

            Is that Soros are you talking about? If you weren’t too dumb, you’d realize that the term “socialism” is a lipstick on the pig of gread, theaft and inhumane. Those who peddle it conciously – you probably don’t belong to that category – would rather talk about “being for little people” rather than how they would eliminate the competition and – further more – make the entire society work for them. Read Antony Sutton, if your attention span is too short for Ayn Rand. That’s “good” education you never had.

          • BagLady

            and your Republicans/Tea Party care do they? Do me a favour. ‘Left/Right’. Two sides of the same coin.

            Show me the benefit of your Contra wars? Who won? The corporate world, who else.

        • BagLady

          If you remember the democraps were supporting the communist Sandinistas.”

          I do indeed: http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/8/reagan_was_the_butcher_of_my

      • glpage

        Maybe you should consider that the ISIS, having just recently occupied Al Muthanna, haven’t had the time to break through barriers to the chemicals. Contrary to the continual leftist blather about no WMDs, there is, as this article points out, overwhelmingh evidence Saddam had, at the least, the materials to make and apparently did have some amount of chemical weapons. And, as just about every leftist in this country refuses to remember, the majority of the evidence for the existence of Saddam’s WMDs used by the Bush administration came from the Clinton administration.

        • SPEAK FOR YOURSELF

          Right therefore, lets bomb USA to complete smithereens and kill millions of people. Right? good idea. Because we have WMD’s don’t we HYPOCRITE!

          • Guest

            Can’t do that now or it will kill all those “orphan refugee” children in Texas that came here from So. America. You lefties are so screwed up.

          • glpage

            And when was the last time we used them? Saddam used gas and other chemical weapons on his own people and Iranians. Militant Islamists have shown on many occasions the desire to use any type of weapon they can get their hands on to further their cause. Their is no comparison between the US and ISIS except in the twisted narrow little minds of leftists.

          • BagLady

            Well there was Vietnam of course and then there is white phosphorus, ….. Let’s not speak of depleted uranium currently devastating the next generation – not ours….. yet.

          • gerry

            Dont you worry,as soon as they can they will bomb you.Remember Boston,9’11 etc etc..

        • gerry

          Well said,everything goes back to Clinton.

          • BagLady

            It goes further back than Clinton

        • Ken Starr

          With that logic that means Bush should have stopped 9/11

          • glpage

            Considering the Clinton administration conveniently forgot to tell Bush and his advisers about what they knew concerning possible terrorist activity here, uh, no. Nothing in my statement leads to any consideration of what happened on 9/11. Your statement is such a stretch as to be almost laughable.

          • Ken Starr

            Inform us with the BS

          • Ken Starr

            I’m sorry your reply is more BS than mine.

          • BagLady

            ….and many believe he could have..

        • BagLady

          … and the world is SOOO worried it’s playing golf. B**t.

          You’ll be claiming next that ISIL can launch a dirty bomb within 45 minutes. Oh how history repeats.

        • BagLady

          I reiterate my comment elsewhere.

          Faced with certain death, Saddam and his sons used nothing but conventional weapons. Why would they do that if they had such immense fire power at their fingertips?

          The man knew what was coming and bent over backwards to comply. He tried very hard to save his unworthy skin and that included getting rid of ‘illegal’ weapons.

          I expect things will change quite quickly, and weapons we find unacceptable today, will be freely used in the future as we lower our standards to meet those of the ‘terrorists’.

          It’s a great strategy for winning a war, eh? “Throw down your weapons else we’ll attack. …….. Thank you.”

          BANG.

    • CowboyUp

      Saddam couldn’t and wouldn’t watch Iran go nuclear without going nuclear himself, either.

    • Paul of Alexandria

      Has anyone else noticed the rather interesting coincidence between the fall of Saddam and the appearance of the North Korean nuclear program about 2 years later?

      • BagLady

        NO

      • Ken Starr

        The nuclear issues with NK have been around longer than when Saddam fell.

    • SPEAK FOR YOURSELF

      US has WMDS should we bomb the US and incite catholics to go around killing protestants?
      Should we bomb all countries with WMDS.
      Actually it sounds like a really good idea. Once we get rid of CHINA, RUSSIA, USA, UK, INDIA, PAKISTAN.
      Then all other countries can live without your interference?
      Sorry? what was that, all i could hear was BLATANT HYPOCRISY

      • reader

        Don’t you believe that we took out our WTC ourselves? Your circular logic got you all confused.

    • BagLady

      Why did Canada want YELLOW CAKE URANIUM?

      Good thing Saddam and his sons are gone?

      They may have been murderous, hedonistic bastards but a) they never did anything to you personally and b) Iraq is ten times worse off now than it was then. This once modern country lies in ruins. Half a million dead already and the numbers rising over 1,000 per month. How many cancer cases there are from depleted uranium dropped from above by our allies is anyone’s guess.

      Satisfied?

      • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

        Canada purchased Saddam’s yellowcake to power their nuclear plants. Saddam never sold the stuff and kept thousands of nuclear scientists and technicians on his payroll for developing nuclear weapons when conditions were ripe. The current turmoil in Iraq is largely due to Obama colluding with Iran in the aftermath of the 2010 election to ensure that Maliki not the Allawi (the secular Shiite national unity candidate supported by Sunnis… who won more seats than Maliki) would retain power. Obama and Iran wanted Maliki (Iran’s puppet) to survive as PM beacuse he wanted US troops out of Iraq-Allawi wanted a residual force to stay to protect Sunnis from radical Shiites. From his inaction in Syria (where ISIS arose) to his support for Maliki Obama owns this catastrophe. The story is posted on my website.

        • BagLady

          It’s amazing how ‘truth’ can be so subjective. I look in Maliki’s eyes and I see the same haunted look that I saw in Saddam’s when he knew his days were numbered. In a last futile attempt to save his skin, he got rid of his WMDs.

          Maliki is making his last stand. He is fighting the US demands and is, no doubt, a goner. He is fighting for his career…. maybe his life.

          The US wants the Sunni back in their government roles. A position that, had not George chucked them all out of, would have saved untold numbers of lives.

          There are requirements in international law concerning the invasion a foreign country. It behooves the ‘winner’ to mend the infrastructure and bring some benefit to the people to compensate them for the suffering yet to come.

          Perhaps if some importance had been placed on the ‘reconstruction program’ rather than using the system to syphon $billions from US tax payer into the accounts of Halliburton et al without any effect on the 40% unemployment rates. Every job above shovel ready gone to an American/European ……. Money laundering, money laundering. Everywhere you look.

          • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

            Saddam was required by his ceasefire agreement with the UN to SURRENDER his WMDs to them or prove that he destroyed them, he did neither. Bush installed Iyad Allawi, a Sunni, as Iraq’s interrum PM. The Iraqi government throughout the occupation owned 100% of its billions in oil revenues to rebuild Iraq.

          • BagLady

            NOTHING was found by our very eminent scientists (one of whom died mysteriously for claiming Blair ‘sexed up’ the dossier to back his desire to please the US).

            Please don’t let’s have a repeat of our poor soldiers trudging around in space-suits, frying in the desert whilst trying to fight an enemy in flip-flops.

            Regardless the ownership of the oil, international law is quite specific on the responsibility of the invader to put right the damage done and the US reneged on this requirement. Every cent paid into the rehabilitation process went straight back to the donor country. Money laundering by any other name.

          • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

            Nothing was found by scientists? You mean “weapons inspectors” don’t you? FYI it’s not the job of weapons inspectors to find anything. Their job is to INSPECT not do detective work. Saddam was required by the ceasefire agreement he signed with the UN to turn over to UN weapons inspectors his DECLARED STOCKPILE OF WMDs; or to prove that he destroyed them like he said. He did neither and was an internatilonal criminal for not doing so who paid the justified price of losing his “throne.”.

            Poor soldiers? According to a recent Kaiser Institute survey 85% of vets from Afghanistan and Iraq, knowing what they know today, would reenlist and fight in those countries all over again.

            On May 22, 2003 the US/UK led invasion of Iraq was certified as legal according to international law by the UN Security Council in a 14-0 vote.It was justified by Saddam’s noncompliance 17 UN Resolutions on WMDs, funding of terrorism, human rights violations, defying sanctions and embargoes, etc.

          • BagLady

            On May 22, 2003 the US/UK led invasion of Iraq was certified as legal
            according to international law by the UN Security Council in a 14-0 vote”

            I believer that, and correct me if I’m wrong, under International law one may only attack another country if one’s own country is in danger of attack. At no time was the US or Britain under threat of an attack by Iraq.

            As for the UN Security Council is concerned; they are not fit for purpose. Naught but a puppet of the US – as we all know.

            Sorry, but if they suddenly found a warehouse full of WMDs, I would suspect they were planted by Bush, Cheney, Blair and Rice to justify their ‘crimes against humanity’. (There’s been plenty of time and opportunity).

            Oh, and yes, I meant ‘scientists’. Dr David Kelly was an eminent scientist charged with discovering WMDs in Iraq. He was found dangling from a tree soon after he had accused Blair of lying.

          • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

            Russia and China (who sit on the UN Security Council) are “puppets” of the US? LOL! The legal basis of the Iraq War was Saddam’s non-compliance with the terms of his ceasefire agreement which he signed to stop the Gulf War.When a party to a ceasefire breaks its terms war resumes-as it dod throughtout the 90s when Clinton repeatedly bombed Iraq. As it did in the 2000s when the bombing continued leading to invasion.

          • BagLady

            Poor soldiers? According to a recent Kaiser Institute survey 85% of vets
            from Afghanistan and Iraq, knowing what they know today, would reenlist
            and fight in those countries all over again.”

            Though this figure does not include the 5,281 killed in the ‘war on terror’, nor the 1900 suicides in 2014 alone (22 per day). I doubt the 320,000 with brain injuries will be rushing back either.

            Finding your 85% a little hard to swallow.

          • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

            The vast majority of injured vets would fight in Iraq and Afghanistan all over again. The 85% would reenlist and fight again chancing injuring or death. WHAT UNBELIEVABLE COURAGE! It’s not my 85%. It’s the finding of a very large and comprehensive scientific survey.

          • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

            Truth is never subjective. Truth is the agreement of the mind with reality. The rest of your post is incoherent.

          • koconor100

            So many people confuse truth with facts.
            Fact. Hussain had WMD. We know this because , as some wag of a cartoonist pointed out , The USA still had the receipts from when they sold them to him.

            Fact. No one wanted to get hit by those WMD’s.

            Fact. They stopped him.

            Not sure if that’s good or bad ,or it serves some higher purpose , or if it’s all just a meaningless game, but them be the facts.

          • BagLady

            Tell me something. If Saddam had all these WMDs why, in his eleventh hour, did he not use any of them?

            Was he saving them for a rainy day?

          • koconor100

            So what you’re saying is this article is lying , there are no WMD’s , those photo’s were faked ?

            Interesting notion….

            Personally , knowing this dictator nerve gassed the kurds and killed bunches of them , I’m pretty sure he had them.

            and judging by the photo’s , he didn’t maintain them. Like most corrupt regimes, he can’t control his own people, and important functions of government are simply not performed .

            This is the problem with most of the middle east. This is the problem with the new Caliphate. They’re all corrupt bozo’s who couldn’t sit down and build a working weapon if their lives depended on it. And if someone gave them one , they can’t be bothered to maintain it.

          • BagLady

            I believe I pointed to the reality of the situation rather than the wishful thinking of the Right.

            If the rest of my post is ‘incoherent’, perhaps it’s because we dwell in different planets.

      • Stunned by the Stupidity

        But what’s most important is that Cheney & his ilk lined their pockets, inflamed more middle-easterners to hate the US even more, & ensured their future war profiteering for at least the next 50 years. Don’t you know how they roll yet?? You dumb American citizen, you… :/

        • BagLady

          I am neither dumb nor an American citizen.

  • Bamaguje

    “The latest revelations on the details of Saddam’s weapons stockpile… affirm the Bush administration’s characterization of Iraq as a territory situated in a hotbed of radicalism” – Arnold Ahlert

    Iraq only became a “hotbed of radicalism” after the U.S. invasion. Saddam was a secular leader.

    Saudi Arabia, which produced 14 of the 19 9/11 Jihadists, and Pakistan which is the global headquarters of Islamist terrorism are much more “hotbeds of radicalism” than Saddam Iraq ever was. Why hasn’t America invaded them?

    It is common knowledge that after the invasion, America found no ongoing WMD program in Saddam’s Iraq, yet you are Mr Ahlert clutching as straws on the to justify Bush’s invasion of that Middle east country that has plunged the Iraq into endless crisis and a “hotbed of radicalsim.”

    If indeed Bush had all this smoking gun evidence that Saddam was still producing and stockpiling WMDs, why didn’t his administration produce all these evidence when he was repeatedly pilloried for invading Iraq on fallacious grounds?

    • gerry

      It is common knowledge or it should be that exactly 10 years ago this May Demetrius table a report in the U N,stating that some of Saddam’s wmd were found in Jordan and Rotterdam.Those weapons were not discovered by U N inspectors,but by the King of Jordan and for Rotterdam ,by the wrecker.Could you please explain how those weapons managed to get to those countries under the nose of Hans Blix and his inspectors.Question I have asked and no one can answer it,not even the French.This is one of the reason Bush could not produce them.!

    • johnlac

      Saddam was a secular leader who also supported radical Jihadists in a number of countries. He also allowed Al-Qaeda forces (Zarkawi) to operate in parts of Iraq. He authorized an assassination attempt on GHW Bush. He also invaded a sovereign country, Kuwait which prompted the first war. We gave Hussein over half a years warning about invasion giving him ample time to dismantle WMD installations and move or clean them. The fact is, despite the lies of the left, as is being found he had large quantities of WMDS still in the country that could used for evil purposes. Although many of the WMDS might be thoroughly degraded, degraded means less than 100% capability. Obviously, a great number of the WMDs could still be very dangerous.

      It was the Clinton admin that passed the act to remove Hussein “by any means necessary.” Even hard left Dems like Kerry supported the act. Hussein might have had control of the country, but he was getting old. With his death and Al-Qaeda already operating in Iraq, the country would have thrown into turmoil anyway with the strong possibility of Al-Qaeda taking over or colluding with Saddam’s crazy sons. Pay me now, or pay me later.

      • DrBukk

        Saddam also paid $25K to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, later doubling that. Iraq was chosen partly because of the British colonial legacy. They kept records. Thus we learned of the global criminal conspiracy, Oil for Food, which influenced the UN Security Counsel’s vote against support for the war.
        The neo-con hope was to spread democracy by creating a stable and prosperous Iraq. Obama’s first act was to eviscerate support of Iran’s Green Revolution, and he’s continued to thwart secular movements across the Arab Spring.
        Another thing that galls me is the left has branded the invasion as “unilateral” when Bush had lined up 42 countries which supported the war.

      • JackSpratt

        Exactly!!

    • JackSpratt

      You’re stuck on stupid. It wasn’t Mr Bush who came up with idea of Saddam having WMD’s, it was every Intelligence agency in the world. And because of that, I knew the evidence of WMD’s being spirited out of Iraq in the days before theh U.S. invasion, were true. It’s not surprising, given the information that it is one of Saddam’s Inlaws who is leading ISIS in Iraq, that a stash of WMD’s was discovered by ISIS. He knew where the stash was all along.

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      Your facts are wrong as usual. The final Duelfer report (the last word of the weapons inspectors) concluded that Saddam had either reconstituted his WMD programs or was going to do so. And did you not read this article? Chemical weapons were in Iraq, and Wikileaks confirms it.

  • Heddrick Steel

    Excellent article in its detail.

    One important part to me is the Hillary Clinton statement at the time, referring to Saddam Hussein: “He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.”

    This is the wording of the Joint Congressional Authorization of Military Force of September 14, 2001 that gives authority to the president to punish at his own discretion anyone who provided that “aid, comfort” to al Qaeda, the support group of the 9/11 terrorists.

    “…the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

  • poest

    Remember, president Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998. On December 16th, 1998, Clinton commenced Operation Desert Fox, a four day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets. Saddam had frozen out UN inspectors looking for Iraqi WMDs. The rest is history and YET Bush continues to be the target of the very party that gave us the Vietnam war with its 60,000 deaths and countless injured, those which now suffer from the criminal maladministration of the VA!

    • BagLady

      Don’t they all. left or right?

      It’s a question I’d put to Granny Hillary. Being President brings with it the responsibility of making unpopular decisions that kill people…. apparently. How does one cope with the guilt?

      Blair ‘got religion’ and now sees himself as a ‘messiah’. Bush did the same though, to be fair, is the more humble of the two and I doubt George is able to charge $200,000 to speak at an event.

      Charles Taylor ponders his decisions in a prison cell while his wife rages that he should not have to live with ‘common’ people. Many others have come to a gruesome end.

      Now that the Clintons have come from ‘flat broke’ on leaving the White House to amassing some $100 million, she cannot be in it for the money and should retire to her country mansion and do a bit of charity work. But she won’t.

      It has to be power for the sake of power. This is the Catch 22 problem with politics. The very people who seek high office are the very ones least suited to it.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        She also stated that she doesn’t consider herself “well-off”. A net worth of $150 million is not well-off? In what universe?

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          In the George Sorosis 1% universe.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Charles Krauthammer cleared this up, for us. Hillary is not well-off because she is only part of the 1%. She’s jealous of those who are in the .1% bracket.

      • JackSpratt

        Mr Bush found religion before he entered the White House.

        • BagLady

          He did indeed but he didn’t summon God until he needed a back-up for his dastardly and, might I say, childish, swashbuckling act of total destruction.

          “He tried to kill my Daddy” is not what I want to hear as an excuse for killing nigh on 1 million innocent people and leaving millions more maimed.

          If we must have a world police force, please let it not be America.

      • Guest

        ” The very people who seek high office are the very ones least suited to it.” Quite true. See, for example:
        http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2014/01/leftism_a_radical_faith.html

    • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

      For his justification of the Iraq War Bush basically relied on the intel he received from Clinton that Saddam was hiding his declared stockpile of WMDs-the very intel that served as the basis for Desert Fox.

      • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

        Saddam Hussein’s top Air Force general wrote a book about the transfer of WMDS to Syria while Bush was dicking around with the useless UN and our own WMDs (Wacky Mindless Democrats- our Domestic enemies at the time). It is a shame that Republicans don’t know how to respond when they are confronted with the libtards about missing WMDS. They sit like idiots with no answer.

        • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

          Tell me about it. When a party to a ceasefire agreement breaks its terms war normally resumes. That’s what Saddam did for 12 years until George Bush resumed the Gulf War finishing him off. I’ll be posting an article on my website called “Saddamophobia” explaining all this to “Wacky Mindless Democrats (love it),” and those on the Right who think Iraq was a mistake.

          http://www.apollospeaks.com

        • JackSpratt

          One of Saddams nuclear scientists wrote a book: The Bomb in my Garden, relating how Saddam instructed them to take WMD components home with them in order to hide it from Weapons Inspectors.

          • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

            A credible book, glad you mentioned it. In post-Saddam Iraq US weapons’ inspector David Kay uncovered a clandestine network of COMPARTMENTALIZED WMD LABS with the components dispersed to various sites to avoid detection by UN Inspectors. According to Kay the labs could have been reassembled at the drop of a hat as Saddam kept his WMD scientists and techs on the government payroll.

          • gerry

            This old news.

          • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

            But true news.

          • SPEAK FOR YOURSELF

            So? Saddam had nuclear weapons so what? so does the US and they killed more Iraqi’s then Saddam. Also They have more people in prison then Saddam. THE US prison population is the largest in the world?

            They also have nukes.

            they also persecute freedom fighters such as Edward snowden and Julian Assange SHOULD WE BOMB AMERICA??

          • gerry

            America has been bombed.

          • wyebob

            yes you should, just start with DC.

          • gerry

            This is well known,but not to the litards.They don’t know much.They cannot tell us anything about their pathological liar,because his records are sealed.

        • gerry

          I always respond to them and asked how some weapons were found in Jordan and as far as Rotterdam,and not by the UN.How did they get there,they flew,swam,walked?This happened under the nose of the UN inspectors.The same UN whose members were bribed by Saddam.No wonder they could not find anything.

      • gerry

        He certainly also relied on the French secret service.They used to indicate to Hans Blix where the wmd could be found.Of course when Blix used to pay a visit to the site,the place was clean.Don’t forget that during his famous speech at the UN,De Villepin said””we must disarm him (Saddam)so apparently he was armed.

    • JackSpratt

      Dec 1998 is when Klinton receved a PDB informing that al Qaeda was planning on attacking the U.S. with airplanes (9/11 Commission investigation). Yet he never set a plan in motion to thwart such an attempt.

      • poest

        His dithering and diddling makes one wish to have wrung Klinton’s throat….. as was the former custom with chickens!

        • gerry

          Was too busy with Monica.

      • gerry

        Just like Benghazi.

  • notme123

    You mean to tell me that there really were WMD’s in Iraq! But the gov. and media said, and continue to say, they never found anything, and Bush “started” a war for nothing. Well, those lying politicians. (sarcasm intended)

    • BagLady

      What if we suddenly find (Oh my God) a stash of lethal substances. Will we point the finger and say: “See, Bush ‘n’ Blair were right all along”. Or will we suspect that maybe, just maybe, these weapons were planted in this long interim to save a few ‘messianic reputations’?

      The mind boggles at the thought of the lengths the powerful will go to to get their own way. Spoilt brats that they are.

  • tagalog

    WMDs? No WMDs? Depends on whose agenda the government is trying to meet.

    Obama HAS had one use so far, eh? To reveal the truth about Saddam’s WMDs.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      The poison gas WMD has already been used in Syria in 2013.

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

      • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

        “The report’s lead author, Åke Sellström, said that the quality of the sarin used in the attack was higher than that used by Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war,[45] implying a purity higher than the Iraqi chemical weapons program’s low purity of 45–60%.[46]
        A U.N. report of 2014 found that ‘the evidence available concerning the
        nature, quality and quantity of the agents used on 21 August indicated
        that the perpetrators likely had access to the chemical weapons
        stockpile of the Syrian military, as well as the expertise and equipment
        necessary’ and that the chemical agents used in the Khan al-Assal chemical attack ‘bore the same unique hallmarks’ as those used in Al-Ghouta attack. However, in none of the incidents was the commission’s ‘evidentiary threshold’ met with regard to the perpetrator.”

        According to this report on Wiki., the weapons used in Syria were NOT from Iraq. because the quality of the gas used was higher that that produced in the former Iraqi program….Get a clue, people. These were NOT the supposed Iraqi WMD’s shipped to Syria. That was a fabrication. It never happened.

        • reader

          According to this report on Wiki? Are you serious? Can you throw a few reports from the huffpo for good measure? What a joke.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Fascist Arab dictatorships have used poison gas, a WMD, on people in Iraq AND Syria.

          FACT.

          The WMDs were produced somewhere and USED by Arab fascists.

          How many more people have to die until you are satisfied Doug Roy?

  • Pepe Turcon

    Those weapons of mass destruction are actually unimportant. The attitude of the mad leader is the weapon of mass destruction just as Hitler did to the Jews where the “showers” where the weapons of mass destruction. This is just another leftist narrative to avoid focusing on the important issues: evil exists and it must and will be destroyed, regardless of Obama and friends.

    • SPEAK FOR YOURSELF

      Then every government on the planet should perish

      • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

        At what cost?

  • Paul of Alexandria

    ISIS has no shortage of volunteers willing to give their lives to retrieve these supposedly too-dangerous weapons. And even if they’re not in prime condition, that doesn’t mean that they can’t be used.

    • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

      BINGO!

  • seewithyourowneyes

    Not to mention that we announced our intention to invade Iraq months before the actual invasion. We sat in front of our TVs watching long lines of trucks and cars fleeing Iraq before the invasion. At least one intelligence source had stated that Saddam had mobile biological and chemical weapons labs in trucks. I wonder if any of the chemical weapons recently used in Syria originally came from Iraq?

    • FrontandCenter

      Not sure if you are familiar with the name, but a number of years ago Jack Van Impe was making this accusation that Hussein knew in advance we were coming and shipped a large mass of his WMD’s to Syria. We knew he had them because he was using gas against the Kurds.

  • DCM

    Yes, this was a great article and FINALLY explained that Iraq DID HAVE WMD’s which I knew all along and don’t understand why George Bush (then President) didn’t give out this data at the time he was being told by the left he/his adm. were lying?? Now, this information needs to be put in all newspapers possible (ads if they won’t print it as news). Even at the time, news showed trucks/tanker trucks and railroad cars pulling up to these sites moving the WMD’s right before an inspection was to take place. Then, why didn’t the right speak up?? That’s what I was mad about and won’t forgive them for not being more vocal.

    • JackSpratt

      There was also testimony by Iraqi’s that told of two airliners being stipped out and something like 16 flights shipping WMD’s out of Iraq. I’m pretty sure that the WMD’s in Syria that was in the news in the last year, were Saddam’s.

    • gerry

      Everuyone knew it,starting with Richard Butler and the French secret service.

  • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

    More propaganda. The Bush administration also thought these old discarded weapons were worthless and they were not the reason we went to war, or he would have trotted them out then and presented them to the public. Why didn’t he? He would be laughed out of town. So should this author today.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Saddam never had WMDs?

      Ask the Kurds of Halabja Iraq if they agree with you.

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

      • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

        Those WMD’s were long before the Iraq War during the Iran-Iraq War. Since the Gulf War those weapons were dismantled or obsolete. Why is it that you can read and write but cannot understand? By the way, the U.S. supplied the technology for Iraq to make those weapons. We have a huge stockpile of the same weapons, except in better shape and just as illegal. Will that be the justification for coming to wipe out our nation someday?
        I remember well how Colin Power portrayed mobile weapons trailers and all kinds of other B.S. before the world; along with active, weaponized chemical weapons and a reconstituted nuclear program. It was all a lie, a fabrication to get Americans to go to war with Iraq. Iraq was also blamed for helping Al Qaeda and that was proven false. The Iraq War brought Al Qaeda into Iraq. Our presence brought them there. We helped strengthen the anti-American Muslim movement and turned Iraq into another Muslim state, when before, it was more secular, allowing Christians and Muslims to live side by side.

        • reader

          Can you actually state what your argument is? You’re throwing everything at the wall. What sticks?

          Is it that WMD were dismantled? Obviously, that can’t be since they’re still there.
          Is it that WMD are obsolete? What do you mean by that exactly? Do you think that obsolete mustard gas does not kill people?
          Is it that the USA had supplied the technology? Perhaps, some of it, but how is it relevant?
          Is it that Bush lied? But he did not.
          Is it that Bush is responsible for Al Qaeda resurgence? Can’t be – according to Obama, who had said that Iraq was stable to justify his pull-out.

          Try to be coherent – for once in your life.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Fool. You believe the words of Sadaam Hussein, who said he didn’t have WMDs? Ignoring the fact that he did use the on the Kurds of Halabja Iraq in 1988? You’ve got to believe a comrade.

          You should work for Pravda, Fascist Irans PressTV.

          You are just as pig headed as someone warning not to fight nazis because all you’ll do is create more nazis.

          All your words do is defend Islamofascism and Socialism at the expense of Humanity.

          And now the world has seen poison gas used on people in Syria. You should be proud of yourself.

          Knowledge to build WMDs come from North Korea, scientists from the former Soviet Union.

          • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

            You are talking about yourself. I’ve studied the facts in depth and have the understanding to know the difference from truth and propaganda.
            You sound like a neo con who believes in going to war to prevent war. It is well known that S.H.’s technology for his chemical weapons came directly from the U.S.
            Our war with Iraq helped fuel the Islamofascist movement and brought al qaeda into Iraq.
            But I’m wasting my words with any neo con, if that is what you are. They are brainwashed to believe in pre-emptive war like it’s a good thing, but are blind to the grave sins of our own nation: abortion and rejection of God in our public schools and gay marriage. They know not God, but think themselves more righteous than others simply because they are Americans.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Present your sources comrade.

            Better a neo-con than a regressive “progressive” neo-commie.

            Blame the US for the actions of islamofascists. Thanks neo-commie! And who backed Sadaam? Neo-Commies.

            Who recently invaded and annexed the Crimea comrade?

            You got a problem with America? Good. Now FOAD.

          • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

            I’ll present sources when you present yours. If this articles is all you have, then it speaks against your opinion. You admit to being a neo con. I admit to being a Christian patriot who hates communism and despises the neo con pre-emptive war fascist philosophy as ungodly and evil and akin to Hitler’s ways. I fear the God of Heaven who will hold all men to account. I greatly respect the U.S. Constitution and wish it was obeyed as the law of the land, but it has been rejected and altered by wicked leaders, especially SCOTUS judges who deem themselves the rulers of America contrary to law.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Why do you hide your activity “Dug Roy”?

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Colin “Power”?Don’t you mean Colin Powell, comrade?

    • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

      The WMDs at the center of the controversy were the huge stockpile Saddam declared to the UN in 1991 and agreed by treaty to surrender or show proof they were destroyed. For 12 years the fool did neither and was rightly deposed.

      • http://pastorsb.com/ Doug Roy

        That is also a lie. The UN weapons inspectors worked for years in Iraq and dismantled entire factories. They were in the process of verifying those results of no WMD’s when Bush said there was no more time and pushed for the war and it began. I have not forgotten.

        • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

          So UN Resolution 1441 was a lie that Saddam up to that point was still in gross non-compliance with his ceasefire agreement after 12 years? And Hans Blix and the inspectors were also lying when they reported that Saddam hadn’t cooperated with them? And that he gave them a bogus 12,000 page document “proving” that his huge, declared, missing stockpile of WMDs was destroyed? Till the end Saddam remained intransigent on his WMDs while a large carvan of Iraqi trucks rolled into Syria carrying secret cargo. Wonder what that was?

        • joe

          What’s-a-matter Roy Boy? You chokin’ on those inconvenient facts son? Huh? Well shut my liberal skank mouf. I done been put in my place. LOL!!!

  • truebearing

    Great job of delineating the WMD fraud, Arnold. Now all the Left can do is change the subject and create false equivalencies.

    • gerry

      That only things the left knows,creates falsities.

  • ArentIpretty

    There is also documentation of Russia helping to remove WMDs to Syria prior to the US invading Iraq.

  • Crook Ofraud

    all those who lied and blamed bush should be shot for their lies first up harry reid, I’d like to personally shoot him

  • BagLady

    As Tony Blair said in his memoirs re Iraq WMDs: “politicians are obliged from time to time to conceal the full truth, to
    bend it and even distort it, where the interests of the bigger
    strategic goal demand that it be done”.

    Saddam got rid of everything to save his hide. He saw the writing on the wall and knew they were coming to get him. He bent over backwards to comply and all the kings horses and all the kings men, search as they might, found nothing of significance.

    Major General Laurie, head of Defence Intelligence: “We could find no evidence of planes, missiles or equipment that related to WMDs.”

    David Kelly, the elderly and very eminent British scientist was a weapons inspector in Iraq. He accused the Blair government of ‘sexing up’ the issue for political gain. He committed suicide (?) soon after.

    Of course, there has been much passage of time since then. Plenty of opportunities to replace Saddam’s stock of Devil’s Dust by whomsoever it would benefit. N’est pas?

    • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

      In 1991, before the outbreak of the Gulf War, Saddam flew part of his airforce to Iran for safekeeping. In 2003, before the outbreak of the Iraq War, a long, large convoy of Iraqi trucks crossed into Syria carrying secret cargo. Wonder what that was? Saddam’s missing stockpile of WMDs, most likely.

  • Robert Johnson

    EXACTLY like Vietnam War in so many ways. No one learned anything. Now it’s even worse. America has become fatally stupid and it’s only a matter of time that she, like the Titanic, sinks beneath the icy waves of history forever. Good luck to everyone.

  • Robert Johnson

    General George Sada, Saddam’s former Chief of the Air Force, wrote in his autobiography that he spoke with the men who flew all of Saddam’s WMD to Syria a month or two before the US invaded.

  • Aaron Tovish

    Folks, it was well known, thanks to UNSCOM, that Saddam Hussein had amassed chemical and nuclear weapons materials prior to the first Gulf War. No one ‘left’ or ‘right’ claims otherwise. It was well known that UNSCOM had sealed al Muthanna while Hussein was still in power. There is no evidence that his regime tried to recover WMD from the site, no doubt for the same reason UNSCOM did not, it was too unsafe and the results would be a little or no value. Al Muthanna was never cited as evidence by the right of Hussein’s deceptive intent. The U.S. UNDER PRESIDENT BUSH had exactly the same attitude toward al Muthana when the US occupied Iraq. So let’s stop the finger pointing!
    As for yellow cake, UNSCOM documented that as well — all pre-Gulf-War one. No new yellow cake was found by the US (Bush). And let’s remember yellow cake is not even usable in a reactor, much less a bomb.
    This article is much ado about nothing. Read more critically.
    The only question is whether al Muthanna should have been cleaned up right away. “Lefties” have been calling for that for years now. Where were the “righties”?

    • catisout

      Sealing Muthanna while Saddam was in power was no doubt looked on as a joke by Saddam. He had a store house of WMD’d being “guarded” by a ridiculously small group of blue helmets? He could overwhelm that in a heart beat were it to come to that. It was his responsibility to destroy them and he dithered and they let him get away with that for too long. Given his ability to overwhelm the UN blue helmets it is a joke ot say that they were not under his control. Bush i.e. the US military WAS in control susequent to the invasion. So a decision to delay, however stupid was not intentionally insidious. Obama left the Muthanna stash vulnerable not Bush. Why didn’t he order them destroyed prior to his pulling out any meaningful control over them? Regarding your last sentence . . . so the lefties have no influence with Obama who has been in charge of our presence in Iraq for going on six years?

      • Aaron Tovish

        Thou protesteth to much!
        Bush scheduled the US withdrawal for 2011, not Obama. Bush and company had no plans to eliminate the al Muthanna mess prior to withdrawal. (We haven’t even eliminated our own chemical weapons despite treaty obligations to do so — negotiated by Bush Sr.). There was no pressure — nonpartisan or otherwise — on Obama to take care of this. The people working on this are not partisan — as we can all see plainly now, this is in everyone interest. Hindsight is wonderful, but in the future let’s listen more attentively to those who are doing serious sustained work in the field — in this case notably Green Cross International.
        If Saddam Hussien was so keen to use the al Muthanna “arsenal” why didn’t he do so in extremis, i.e. when being brought down by the US and company?
        I know you will grab any straw to hit Obama over the head with, but check you what’s in your hand: a straw.

        • catisout

          Neither Bush nor McCain, had he been elected, would have “left” to the “extent” Obama abandoned our achievements. Nor would ISIS have been so emboldened. Saddam was not only hiding other smaller stockpiles, and creating mobile labs, somehow he never got around to doing what the armistice required in so many instances. He did not use the other WMD’s he retained against our troops either, besides that was not necessarily why he retained them anymore than having a few nukes would have threatened us directly. Coalition forces goal was to remove him as a regional threat. You can argue about the chess game and this or that move but his gamesmanship was no longer to be tolerated.

      • Aaron Tovish

        Why wasn’t my previous post posted?

  • Debra Burlingame

    The Dulfer Report (Iraq Study Group–CIA) laid it all out, and this was studiously ignored by the press. Thank you for reminding the world of the dangerous political game that was played in 2003-2004 to diminish and weaken the Bush administration at the expense of national security. I can only add that if anyone doubts that Saddam wanted to get in the game with Al Qaeda, note that he sent emissaries to Afghanistan on two occasions, sponsored an AQ-linked (and OBL funded) terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and celebrated 9/11. This was all laid out in the 9/11 Commission Report (which the press did NOT read.) Here is link to the 9/11 murals U.S. troops found in Iraq in 2003. These photos show 3rd Infantry troops in Baghdad the day it fell, and a Marine in Nasariyah, at Iraqi Military HQ (run by one of Saddam’s sociopath sons). http://www.spiritoftruth.org/911mural.htm

  • Greg Alterton

    In an interview with the Daily Telegraph in London, published January 25, 2004, David Kay, the former head of the the Coalition’s Iraq Survey Group charged with searching for Saddam’s WMDs, claimed that part of Saddam’s weapons program was hidden in Syria. “We’re not talking about a large stockpile of weapons,” Kay told the Telegraph. “But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.” Did the media, let alone the left, insist on getting to the bottom of this possibility? Of course not.

  • Stunned by the Stupidity

    The author’s totally biased & dishonest misrepresentation of this topic is ridiculous.
    1. Yellowcake isn’t a weapon of mass destruction. Get a f’n clue
    2. NO stockpiles (as claimed by Colin Powell) of ANY post disarmament period (i.e in the 1990′s) of WMDs (e.g. vx, sarin, chlorine, anthrax, etc) has EVER been found. The must gas that you cited was from old stockpiles.
    3. Bush knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he stated those 16 words at the state of the union address. He knew very well that the CIA & State departments didn’t consider the Niger story credible. He cited British intelligence claims (which NO US President should ever rely on to bolster his push for a war in Iraq. He didn’t exactly “lie”, but he most definitely DID intend to mislead the US public (which he succeeded in doing for quite a long time). I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the CIA manufacture the who Niger thing from the very beginning and also included a discredit to create plausible deniability. I also don’t doubt for a second that GHWB & Cheney influenced the National Intelligence that was fed to Congress to mislead them, along with their campaign to brand anyone who didn’t go along with their march to war as “unpatriotic, unAmerican, etc.”

    The only worthwhile thing that you pointed out in your article is the possible risk/threat that psycho-jihadist may try to recover some old WMDs from the bunker (if they can get to it & IF it is still viable) and possibly use/sell/make more of it. I seriously doubt ANY useful information was left behind at the plant that would allow ANYONE to make their own NEW WMDs–even you wouldn’t be that dumb.

  • koconor100

    ISIS is dangerous precisely because it’s just a Summer War , just a way to get young Muslims to sign up to a suicide cause and get them all killed off before they can over throw the various regimes of Iran , Syeria , Iraq , etc etc. Standard Tactics.

    What do you think they’re going to do when they finally figure out they’ve been sent on a suicide wild goose chase for their holy caliphate , and ohy by the way they have access to this stuff. Stuff that might kill them if they start to mess with it , but everyone already wants them dead anyways …
    :(