Wikileaks reveals WMDs

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
May 9, 2010
58,308
5,099
245
Gotta love Wikileaks.

By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.
In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.
Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”

Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache
Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard


WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com

Myabe Bush did lie to us after all, if you call keeping evidence that will exonerate him lying.
 
I am sure that early on I said that, and then later, when small labs or whatever, I have said that the Iraqi programs had been generally ended. I am sure you said, "The Syrians have it. Invade Syria to find out." This issue is a non-issue. Bush himself has said that if he had flatly known that the WMDs were not there,he would not have invaded.

You are not a conservative, that's for sure, only a stupid reactionary, while I am a GOP moderate conservative. So two words for you: buh bye.
 
I am sure that early on I said that, and then later, when small labs or whatever, I have said that the Iraqi programs had been generally ended. I am sure you said, "The Syrians have it. Invade Syria to find out." This issue is a non-issue. Bush himself has said that if he had flatly known that the WMDs were not there,he would not have invaded.

You are not a conservative, that's for sure, only a stupid reactionary, while I am a GOP moderate conservative. So two words for you: buh bye.
i'd like to see a source for that
 
I am sure that early on I said that, and then later, when small labs or whatever, I have said that the Iraqi programs had been generally ended. I am sure you said, "The Syrians have it. Invade Syria to find out." This issue is a non-issue. Bush himself has said that if he had flatly known that the WMDs were not there,he would not have invaded.

You are not a conservative, that's for sure, only a stupid reactionary, while I am a GOP moderate conservative. So two words for you: buh bye.

If I did say anything like that I have since had a severe attack of amnesia. Not that I am calling you a liar or anything, but do you have any sort of evidence to back up your Bush quote? Most of the stories I have read said he planned to invade Iraq even before 9/11. If those are true there would be no reason for him not to do so if there were no WMDs.

Since I never claimed to be a conservative, I do not mind not be called one. It will probably be a surprise to many liberals on this board that the resident conservative expert does not think i am a conservative, but I don't care. One thing I know for a fact, you are no more a moderate conservative than Bush is.
 
wmd's to me was the smoking gun that could show in the form of a mushroom cloud....

nuclear wmd's, yellowcake from africa kinda stuff...that was touted by the administration
 
wmd's to me was the smoking gun that could show in the form of a mushroom cloud....

nuclear wmd's, yellowcake from africa kinda stuff...that was touted by the administration
ah, the "yellowcake from Africa" was not that he ACTUALLY got it, but that he TRIED to
and the facts found proved that he did, but was denied
 
The WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly-WikiLeaked documents. Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war.

see, he had WMD! we were right! everything is good now.

tossfaces
 
It always gets me how Democrats conveniently forget about their own Democrat Party Leaderships belief in WMD's.

I'm not surprised though..(an inconvenient truth... I suppose).
 
It always gets me how Democrats conveniently forget about their own Democrat Party Leaderships belief in WMD's.

I'm not surprised though..(an inconvenient truth... I suppose).

believing there might be something, and invading a country because you believe there might be something are not the same.

the little difference is the invasion.

an inconvenient truth, i suppose.
 
It always gets me how Democrats conveniently forget about their own Democrat Party Leaderships belief in WMD's.

I'm not surprised though..(an inconvenient truth... I suppose).

believing there might be something, and invading a country because you believe there might be something are not the same.

the little difference is the invasion.

an inconvenient truth, i suppose.

Yup...all the Democrats in Congress voted against funding it...:lol:

Or was it they got a yellow streak up their back and for political reasons, turned on the military and conveniently forgot how they voted before the election, then tried to de-fund the soldiers still fighting in the field of battle several times, insulted the military leaders just previous to the next election.
 
It always gets me how Democrats conveniently forget about their own Democrat Party Leaderships belief in WMD's.

I'm not surprised though..(an inconvenient truth... I suppose).

believing there might be something, and invading a country because you believe there might be something are not the same.

the little difference is the invasion.

an inconvenient truth, i suppose.

Yup...all the Democrats in Congress voted against funding it...:lol:

Or was it they got a yellow streak up their back and for political reasons, turned on the military and conveniently forgot how they voted before the election, then tried to de-fund the soldiers still fighting in the field of battle several times, insulted the military leaders just previous to the next election.

your cute act is more than stale.

and shifting the blame from perps to enablers does nothing for you.
 
believing there might be something, and invading a country because you believe there might be something are not the same.

the little difference is the invasion.

an inconvenient truth, i suppose.

Yup...all the Democrats in Congress voted against funding it...:lol:

Or was it they got a yellow streak up their back and for political reasons, turned on the military and conveniently forgot how they voted before the election, then tried to de-fund the soldiers still fighting in the field of battle several times, insulted the military leaders just previous to the next election.

your cute act is more than stale.

and shifting the blame from perps to enablers does nothing for you.

Well.. I guess were getting nowhere..
 
I am sure that early on I said that, and then later, when small labs or whatever, I have said that the Iraqi programs had been generally ended. I am sure you said, "The Syrians have it. Invade Syria to find out." This issue is a non-issue. Bush himself has said that if he had flatly known that the WMDs were not there,he would not have invaded.

You are not a conservative, that's for sure, only a stupid reactionary, while I am a GOP moderate conservative. So two words for you: buh bye.

If I did say anything like that I have since had a severe attack of amnesia. Not that I am calling you a liar or anything, but do you have any sort of evidence to back up your Bush quote? Most of the stories I have read said he planned to invade Iraq even before 9/11. If those are true there would be no reason for him not to do so if there were no WMDs.

Since I never claimed to be a conservative, I do not mind not be called one. It will probably be a surprise to many liberals on this board that the resident conservative expert does not think i am a conservative, but I don't care. One thing I know for a fact, you are no more a moderate conservative than Bush is.

I heard him on the TV as did millions of others. This is common knowledge, so go look it up.
 
I am sure that early on I said that, and then later, when small labs or whatever, I have said that the Iraqi programs had been generally ended. I am sure you said, "The Syrians have it. Invade Syria to find out." This issue is a non-issue. Bush himself has said that if he had flatly known that the WMDs were not there,he would not have invaded.

You are not a conservative, that's for sure, only a stupid reactionary, while I am a GOP moderate conservative. So two words for you: buh bye.
i'd like to see a source for that
Actually the claim was made by Rove in his book.

Rove on Iraq: Without W.M.D. Threat, Bush Wouldn't Have Gone to War - NYTimes.com

Karl Rove, the chief political adviser to President George W. Bush and architect of his two successful campaigns for the White House, says in a new memoir that his former boss probably would not have invaded Iraq had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction there.


“Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D.? I doubt it,” he writes. “Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the W.M.D. threat. The Bush administration itself would probably have sought other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about regime change, and deal with Iraq’s horrendous human rights violations.”
 
Last edited:
I am sure that early on I said that, and then later, when small labs or whatever, I have said that the Iraqi programs had been generally ended. I am sure you said, "The Syrians have it. Invade Syria to find out." This issue is a non-issue. Bush himself has said that if he had flatly known that the WMDs were not there,he would not have invaded.

You are not a conservative, that's for sure, only a stupid reactionary, while I am a GOP moderate conservative. So two words for you: buh bye.
i'd like to see a source for that
Actually the claim was made by Rove in his book.

Rove on Iraq: Without W.M.D. Threat, Bush Wouldn't Have Gone to War - NYTimes.com

Karl Rove, the chief political adviser to President George W. Bush and architect of his two successful campaigns for the White House, says in a new memoir that his former boss probably would not have invaded Iraq had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction there.


“Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D.? I doubt it,” he writes. “Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the W.M.D. threat. The Bush administration itself would probably have sought other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about regime change, and deal with Iraq’s horrendous human rights violations.”
So, did GWB lie, or did Rove lie?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top