Why the World Did Not Know about WMD in Iraq

1792-80825After U.S. Central Command called on us to help transport from Iraq enough yellowcake uranium to make several atomic bombs stored at Saddam’s nuclear weapons complex, I realized why neither the Pentagon nor the White House advertised the presence of this WMD precursor: safety and security.

Before the U.S. military moved in to secure the facility after the 2003 invasion, looters had been there first. Even though the universally recognized yellow-and-black radioactivity warnings were posted on the bunkers, locals had ripped open the storage areas and stolen casks of yellowcake with many sickened as a result. More importantly, we did not want the insurgents alerted to the exposed stockpile as they might attack the facility. This is also why the George W. Bush administration did not crow about the approximately 5,000 chemical munitions that U.S. forces uncovered throughout Iraq, as recently reported by the New York Times. That is a serious quantity of WMD, by any standard. Interestingly, the Bush team could have diluted near-uniform shock at the failure to find WMD by highlighting these discoveries instead of allowing the narrative we all know to solidify: “no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq found except a few dozen old, mustard-gas artillery shells left over from the 1980s Iran-Iraq War.” Yet President Bush and his advisors chose to protect the troops and the mission rather than score political points back on the war’s second front, the American body politic. (None of this, however, mitigates any unpreparedness by the Pentagon to treat service members exposed to chemical weapons.)

Before my company arrived to provide guards and to build and operate a base camp for U.S. Department of Energy scientists dissecting Saddam’s nuclear weapons facility, the American Army had occupied the site with almost a company of infantry. This was quite a bit of combat power tethered to a non-populated, static location when needed to actively defend the people against the elusive al-Qaeda in Iraq terrorists and Iranian-allied militias rampant until early 2008 when the American Surge forces and the Sunni Arab “Awakening” had turned the tide delivering our victory in the Iraq War. The limited number of combat troops available did not permit fixing them at every site where WMD were found or might be found. Hence the requirement to not advertise that Saddam had left thousands of chemical weapons lying around, potentially under any mound in mostly flat Iraq. That would have set off a dangerous treasure hunt—and if found, a tremendous threat to American troops and everyone in Iraq especially if weaponized nerve gas had ended up with al-Qaeda.

We were able to move the yellowcake successfully because of our proven relationships with the tribes along our supply line to the nuclear weapons facility, located at the center of an area known as the “Triangle of Death,” due to extensive U.S. combat fatalities suffered there. Because of our and other U.S. government contractors’ employment of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, we helped drain the swamp (or “sea” in Maoist terms) whence the al-Qaeda insurgency sprung. The uranium operation caused us, as usual, to rent trucks from the surrounding tribes with comprehensive war-loss insurance (meaning if a truck got blown up then the owner took the loss). This in turn caused the tribes to look outwards on the convoy movements to protect their expensive tractor trailers instead of inwards—searching for a chance to attack. Doing business for the tribes with the American government, and then the Iraqi government, turned out to be safer than supporting the nihilistic, totalitarian jihadis and the traitorous Sadrists, minions of Iran.

Regardless of what position one takes on the U.S. invasion, the world could not abide by large quantities of nuclear weapons precursor in the hands of the genocidal tyrant in Baghdad. As we are seeing with the current, seemingly endless negotiations with Iran, the millionaire mullahs of Tehran are using the pretext of “peaceful” nuclear power generation in order to assert that the denial thereof is a direct assault on a nation’s sovereignty. Consequently, the concept that we could have gotten the yellowcake removed from Iraq as a part of lifting the rapidly degrading sanctions and truly certifying the country clean of all chemical weapons without the overthrow of Saddam defies logic and experience. The continued possession by Iraq of approximately 5,000 chemical warheads undiscovered after almost eight years of aggressive UN inspections along with the existence of enough yellowcake uranium to make 14 or so nuclear bombs with technology that the Iranians and Libyans already possessed calls for a new coda to replace “Bush lied, people died.” Certainly, we should look to the reinstatement of a principle justification for the American invasion of Iraq.

Carter Andress is president of AISG, Inc. (American-Iraqi Solutions Group) and the author, with Malcolm McConnell, of Victory Undone: The Defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq and Its Resurrection as ISIS (Regnery, October 2014).    

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

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

  • herb benty

    Thank you President G.W, Bush for your integrity and resolve.

  • mikeman

    I think this guy had something to say, but the article is poorly written. Long, rambling sentences are a sign of muddled, disorganized thinking.

    I gave up trying to think for this writer, half way through his article.

    • sakovkt

      Agree

    • JacksonPearson

      This is really old news. The findings of WMD’s in Iraq was published years ago by FOX News, and the New York Times.

      • Mel Middleton

        The news that there were WMD’s in Iraq is not new, but this article explains, for the first time (at least to me), the reason why Bush was prepared to allow his reputation to take a free-fall, despite being fully aware of the truth. My estimation of Bush’s integrity just took a huge leap upward.

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        Until every Lefty Democrat and every smug urban progressive admits they were wrong, and that Saddam did indeed possess WMD, this is not “old news” but “new news” that needs to be trumpeted throughout the land until history has been corrected.

      • MLCBLOG

        I disagree. I believe it is still a timely matter.

    • Professor Umnik

      I had no problem with it, and I’m a simian.

    • glpage

      Until I read this comment I didn’t think there was an issue with the article. And I still don’t. Iit appears the author, unlike most folks, doesn’t adhere to the notion one’s writing needs to be understood at the 9th grade level.

  • Gislef

    If you can’t read the content because of the presentation, then critiquing the presentation is valid.

  • darius

    total nonsense! there was no need for the war. Who gave Iraq the precursor for chemical weapons? Who travelled to Baghdad right through Saddam’s worse crimes against Kurds of Halabja to ensure that the United States will stand by Saddam’s murderous regime?
    Ignoring such colossal strategic blunders and then say we had to go to war and contribute to the loss of life for upwards of 150,000 Iraqis (per study published in Lancet, later updated upward to 600,000) is the trademark of neocons.
    Of course Saddam had WMD “components”, they just weren’t operational, and the precursors are everywhere, every one has precursor. The hidden warheads weren’t ready to be deployed.
    But this is part of the narraitve that says we, the US, run the world according to how we see fit, and every thing we do becomes ipso facto legal because we do it.
    so no surprise here, let’s move on.

    • Mel Middleton

      I agree that the war was a mistake (it was clearly a Muslim Brotherhood inspired trap). But you have to admire Bush for allowing his reputation to take a huge hit in order to protect others.

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        Do you really think it was a mistake to disarm Saddam of his WMD given his hatred of the U.S., his ongoing acts of war against us, and his documented ties to Islamic terrorists? We can’t know, of course, that Saddam would have tried a chemical attack against the U.S., but we can know why the Christmas Day bomber, the Times Square Bomber, the Boston Marathon bombers, etc. didn’t have any of Saddam’s chemical weapons: George Bush took them away from him.

        • JayWye

          AND Libya surrendered it’s nuclear weapons program. Even Iran suspended it’s nuclear weapons program (temporarily) out of fear of an invasion by the US. Of course,once they realized the US “progressives” were undermining the efforts in Iraq,they went back to work on their nukes.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            That’s right – more important benefits of deposing Saddam and taking away his WMD.

    • glpage

      The justification for the war had little to do with the actual WMDs. Saddam had ignored 17 UN resolutions to allow inspectors to verify the lack of WMDs. The original resolution was a condition for the end of the first Gulf war; the subsequent resolutions were supposed to help enforce it. The Europeans, for the most part, were willing to let the charade continue because they were getting cheap oil from Saddam.

    • RAM500

      You must be happy that the world is now run politically by other countries, ones our “president” likes better than his own.

  • Dan Knight

    Well darius unwittingly makes my point. Blame America for the crimes of the Left and the mysterious, zionist, globalist, conservative, space alien conspiracy run by the neocons. … or is it the neocons who are run by the space aliens? Or the illuminati, or the trilateral commission, or the CFR. Whatever. We get it. The CIA used their time travel machines to invent the Soviet Union b/c we had to have an enemy to make the evil conservative bazzilionaires rich. But … refusing to let the bazzilionaires who support the Democrats buy all the regulations they need to run shops and corporations such as … well, me … out of business. No, Nope, that’s a bridge too far. We need all the government police state minions a ‘conspiracy theorist’ doesn’t want to protect the ‘conspiracy theorist’ from his neighbors: Just as long as the police state doesn’t interfere with his vices or steal his gold. Everyone else can just go shove it.

  • http://None jemnet

    I say BS to that explanation of suppressing evidence of WMD before the Iraq War.
    It was well known, a fact actually published in a book by one of Hussein’s generals, that there were WMDs and most were moved out of Iraq to Syria with help from the Russians before the war started. This fact was no doubt suppressed by Democrat traitors in the CIA to help undermine the Republican President, and also kept out of publication by democrats who controlled the media. The book? “Saddam’s Secrets” by General Georges Sada, published in 2006. (Get a copy that was not sabotaged by publishing an earlier chapter twice, instead of the section about the WMDs which starts at page 249.)

    • Dan Knight

      Thank you for the reference

    • RAM500

      The claim has also been made that we hushed up the Iraqi WMDs because so many were marked as to indicate US or European sources of supply, going back as far as the Iraq-Iran war.

      • JayWye

        I seriously doubt that the US sold any chemical weapons to Iraq,or to any foreign nation. Ours were all binary chemical weapons(and carefully monitored under the US-Russian treaty),and Saddam’s were of a different,Soviet design. Because Saddam had Soviet caliber artillery and weapons,different than US or NATO weapons. I don’ t know if France sold any chemical weapons to Saddam,they did sell other French weapons to him.
        I’m sure Western nations sold Iraq chemicals for pesticide manufacture,which could have been used to make WMD chemicals. chemical weapons are “human pesticides”,they work the same way.

        • http://None jemnet

          Soviet design and source is the most likely and the reason that Russia helped remove the WMD from Iraq.

    • DNY

      I very clearly recall a report from shortly after the overthrow of the Ba’athist government of a large cache of barrels that field-tested positive for nerve gas and sickened some of the GIs who found them in an Iraqi military depot. The original report got scrubbed from the internet fairly quickly and reports that the barrels were only organophosphate pesticide went up.

      Leaving aside for a moment the assessment of the Canadian intelligence services that TEPP, an organophosphate pesticide banned in the U.S., would make an effective terrorist weapon, does anyone really think the Iraqi military under Saddam Hussein stockpiled pesticide?

      The removal of the WMDs to Syria is also well-attested, besides by the testimony of old Ba’athist generals, by the fact that our troops when they switched part of their activities to providing humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians, couldn’t find any Iraqi tank trucks suitable for transporting water, because seemingly every tank truck in the length and breadth of Iraq had been rinsed out with gasoline.

      • WhiteHunter

        I believed at the time–and still do–that Bush should have ordered the compilation of a complete, authoritative, meticulously documented, multi-volume compendium of Saddam’s crimes, atrocities, treaty and international law violations, and secret weapons programs and the irrefutable evidence proving them, including photographs, maps, the results of laboratory analyses of substances found, and eye-witness testimony of victims and U.S. personnel (both military and nonmilitary contractors), in the style of the evidence presented at the Nuremberg war crimes trials of 1945-6, which was later published and is no doubt still available in the complete edition in any major research library or repository of Government documents.

        It could have been produced in two versions: one of them complete and exhaustive, for the historical record, and kept classified but available for reference by a limited number of qualified, closely supervised individuals on a strict need-to-know basis (which of course excludes the DNC or the NYT, but might include the chairmen of the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees–under penalty of criminal prosecution for unauthorized disclosure or dissemination); the other a redacted edition published and offered for public sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office after details that must be kept secret for the legitimate reasons given in this article had been removed.

        Until I read this piece, I’d been under the impression that the refusal to disclose what was known and discovered about Saddam’s WMDs and would have silenced Bush’s slanderers was just Karl Rove’s idea, in yet another example of his politically suicidal advice to Republicans. This article has cast things in a different, more rational and forgivable light.

        • HankHilltopper

          Too bad you were not King-for-a-Day circa the 2002 timeframe.

  • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

    If this is true, then Bush’s choice was interesting but still mistaken. He should have realized how deadly it was to allow the Democrats to make their “Bush lied” claim and leave it unrebutted. And more was at stake than Bush’s reputation: support for the Iraq war was undermined, as was the support for decapitating Iran. We now face a situation where Barack Obama may be able to allow the Mullahs to have nuclear weapons without the public rising up against him – a very dangerous situation for America.

    • teapartyson

      Bush could not have known of Barak Insane Obammy’s intentions nor that he would be his successor, He could only know that destruction was the key and if pockets of WMD existed throughout Iraq and possibly Syria that a “California Gold Rush” would have been in no one’s interests. Also he would not have known we would blow a Status of Forces Agreement so we could keep Iraq safe.

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        Bush certainly did know that Democrats were undermining support for the war (for their political advantage, not because they cared about America’s interests) and he should have realized he needed to counter those claims. He could have produced some the WMD without going into specifics or starting a “gold rush”. He also should have realized that if the Democrats’ narrative were unchallenged, the American people (not just Obama, whom Bush could not know would succeed him) would reject the idea of invading Iran when that might well be the only way of preventing the Mullah’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

    • MLCBLOG

      I agree. Bush should have found a way to speak up and defend himself and his administration, thus us, his voters. He let it go and I agree was mistaken to do so.

      He would not have had to give particulars. Could have found a way. I believe there was a deer in the headlights buy-in (liberal guilt) that we are the bad guys and a confusion about how to manage such situations.
      He actually left us high and dry.

  • m313m

    We took out the Iraqi dictator while not dealing with the original death-to-America country next door, even when Iranian IEDs were responsible for American casualties. We suffered a wrenching domestic political psychodrama because Bush decided not to explain himself.

    His stoicism is not admirable considering the damage left in its wake. Keeping secrets and expecting us not to worry our pretty little heads does not work when the stuff that hits the fan lands in our faces. Bush’s intact integrity came at the expense of the rest of us.

    • JayWye

      If the chemical weapons depots like al-Murthanna had become open knowledge,insurgents could have found ways of getting in there and obtaining some to use against US troops. It was judged by US military that it was too dangerous and risky to even enter and catalog all the weapons in the “Dragons Egg” because some may have leaked,and the explosives could be unstable and cause an accidental release of toxins.(and were still deadly enough to kill or maim,even if not “militarily useful” due to ‘degradation”) So they sealed it up and kept it quiet. IF the US had stayed,eventually,the site would have been cleaned up and the weapons neutralized permanently.
      But we cut and ran at the first excuse available,AFTER Bush.

      Also,Bush failed to deal with Iran for their interference in Iraq and Afghanistan,and I agree he should have. But by then,the US “progressives” were undermining the US efforts in Iraq,and they made it politically impractical to deal with Iran. In hindsight,we see that was a bad move.

  • muchiboy

    Perhaps.But it was like opening Pandora’s Box.The analysis that should have led to a more considered action was either not there,faulty or ignored.Saddam’s regime was as close to evil as possible,but what replaced it,chaos and anarchy,was no better.Anyone can see it was,and remains,a grave failure,both of Bush Jr Administration and Foreign Policy.Any doubters should re read “The Emperor’s Clothes.

    • JayWye

      it was not BUSH’S idea for the US to depart so early from Iraq and thus allow it to sink into chaos. Saddam’s deposing was essential.
      but the follow-on POTUS failed to give Iraq enough time to stabilize,he “threw them into the pool,to sink or swim on their own”. and Iran and al-Qaida just loved that.

      • MLCBLOG

        That’s right. Now that you mention it, Bush wanted to stay there.

  • Pete

    There is just so much in the news and I already read about the munitions 2 or 3 weeks ago.

    I did not know, who the author of the article was and was going to skip it.

    I am glad I read it. Especially paragraph #4 . It made it very worthwhile to read. It added new information that I have seen nowhere else.

  • Sgt. Seth

    Mr. Andress is a liar and an idiot. The idea that we could not safeguard stockpiles of weapons with the US Marines, Army and Air Force is absurd. The notion that it was more important to keep this secret than to validate the main reason for the war is ridiculous. We have a radical America-hating leftist in power for two presidential terms largely as a result of this crime against the American people. The risk was in NOT exposing the evidence of the WMDs. Now look at our foreign policy and the state of our military. And where do you suppose it will be in another two years? I once thought President G.W. Bush was a decent man. I can no longer. This scandal stinks beyond comprehension. The reason Mr. Andress had to write in such a convoluted manner, noticed in the comments of so many readers, is that he is full of crap and he knows it. (Or even sadder for him if he doesn’t.) I still don’t know why this was done. I do know Mr. Andress is no patriot.

    • 11bravo

      SGT; do you think Obama was NOT informed of this once he took office? I do agree that Bush (once the materials were safeguarded) should have put this info out – with photos!!
      Obama has kept this secret to further his political agenda – ruining our country.

      • Sgt. Seth

        Obama is a fly-blown steaming pile of dog feces. No further comment needed.

    • labar

      Sgt. Seth, I kinda doubt you ever thought G.W. Bush was a decent man. You call this a scandal? What do you call Benghazi, The IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, F&F, . . . . ?
      Obama is not POTUS because Bush didn’t do a dog and pony show on tv for you about finding the WMD’s, Obama is POTUS because the media propped him up completely, by ignoring his stupid blunders, protecting him from criticism, as well as attacking his Republican opponents with cheap shots and lies.
      Plus, the number one reason that Obama is POTUS, . ., . VOTER FRAUD!
      The Eric Holder Justice Department wouldn’t have filed suit against states where the citizens had approve measures requiring everyone prove who they were by showing an ID if they wanted to vote, if they weren’t relying on the tactic to win an election.
      Without VOTER FRAUD Obama never would’ve won in 2012. Probably not in 2008 either. He’s never won a clean election ever!
      The Progressive democrats, with their cheerleader MSM, which has been the case since the very first televised news broadcast, have always supported the Democrat party and attacked the Republican administrations in ways that they never went after Castro, Hussein or any other nation that was hostile toward the USA.
      Watching Dan Rather interview brutal dictators like Castro or Saddam compared to the condescending tone he would use when interviewing Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 and especially Bush 2, made it clear that he could be respectful to any type of person except for those who identify themselves as Republicans.
      The Democrats are against war anytime a Republican is POTUS. The Democrats have no problem with war when a Democrat is POTUS.
      Some liberal MSM slime ball reporters admitted that the further the situation in Iraq deteriorated, the happier they got, because that meant that Bush was failing.
      What that really meant was that more of our soldiers were dying and their deaths were counted by the media, not because they really cared about a member of our military losing their lives, just to produce the daily total of troops KIA so they could use it to erode the nations support for the war.
      And one last thing. You read the article that explained why this was done. You obviously don’t believe it. You don’t like it. And you certainly
      don’t accept it. But, quit saying “I still don’t know why this was done.”

  • Nabukuduriuzhur

    I’d feel a lot better if Qadaffi and Assad hadn’t been given so much of Saddam’s more recent arsenal. Supposedly they’ve given them up, but I doubt that all was recovered.

  • 11bravo

    Bush blew the war by going in light, and allowing Islamic law/Sharia to be part of the Iraqi constitution. It was always going to fail (the country), it was just a matter of time.

  • James_IIa

    When this story broke several weeks ago, quotes appeared from Karl Rove indicating that he didn’t want to “relitigate” the WMD claims. It was certainly within the capability of the US government to publicize these finds after all the safety and security issues had been taken care of.

    • MLCBLOG

      Rove is the biggest one in my book.

      At the risk of being nasty, this reminds me of Hilary’s remark about whether it really matters that four people are dead as a probable result of our government impotence and dereliction of duty. I can just see them walking off together into the sunset holding hands. Karl and Hilary.

  • sydchaden

    George Bush used to recite, “Islam is the religion of love”, and Obama has made the same saying the cornerstone of his foreign policy. Both have insisted that the USA is not at war with Islam. But, the problem is that Islam is at war with us. Islamic doctrine calls for “death to the infidels”, and the USA is a nation of “infidels”. Hopefully, the US will have a President who understands that, before Islamic terrorism goes nuclear.

    • MLCBLOG

      Our dear President Bush was a fool in many ways. I understand now. He was a complete liberal (though a Republican) and actually was doing the best he could. He was the precursor of the many RINOs that plague our government right now.

  • ericthemadman

    Thanks for nothing Bush!!

  • MLCBLOG

    Well said!! Amen, brother.

    • Dan Knight

      thank you, one of my better rants, … you could’ve seen the steam coming out of my ears!