Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq With Surprising Results
* By Noah Shachtman
* October 23, 2010 |
* 9:25 am |
By late 2003, even the Bush White Houses 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 doesnt reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime the Bush administrations most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddams 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, theres 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.
In WikiLeaks massive trove of nearly 392,000 Iraq war logs, there are hundreds of references to chemical and biological weapons. Most of those are intelligence reports or initial suspicions of WMD that dont pan out. In July 2004, for example, U.S. forces come across a Baghdad building with gas masks, gas filters, and containers with unknown contents inside. Later investigation revealed those contents to be vitamins.
But even late in the war, WMDs were still being unearthed. In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.
A small group mostly of the political right has long maintained that there was more evidence of a major and modern WMD program than the American people were lead to believe. A few Congressmen and Senators gravitated to the idea, but it was largely dismissed as conspiratorial hooey.
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.
But the more salient issue may be how insurgents and Islamic extremists (possibly with the help of Iran) attempted to use these lethal and exotic arms. As Spencer noted earlier, a January 2006 war log claims that neuroparalytic chemical weapons were smuggled in from Iran.
That same month, then chemical weapons specialists were apprehended in Balad. These foreigners were there specifically to support the chemical weapons operations. The following month, an intelligence report refers to a chemical weapons expert that provided assistance with the gas weapons. What happened to that specialist, the WikiLeaked document doesnt say.
Read More WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com
Heh. I think the latest Wikileaks were supposed to be Democrats' "October surprise."
Heh. I think the latest Wikileaks were supposed to be Democrats' "October surprise."
Maliki has denounced the leaked documents to the press, saying that their release was politically timed to prevent him from gaining a second term as Prime Minister.
WikiLeaks nails the wild Lancet scare
Icon - Comments 106 Comments | Permalink
Andrew Bolt Blog Icon Arrow
Andrew Bolt
Sunday, October 24, 2010 at 07:17am
Im not sure its what WikiLeaks intended, but its latest leaks reveal that the infamous Lancet paper which claimed the US-led liberation of Iraq cost the lives of 655,000 Iraqis in fact exaggerated the death toll by at least 600 per cent:
The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq (over six years). These include 66,081 civilians, 23,984 enemy insurgents, 15,196 host nation (Iraqi government forces), and 3,771 friendly (coalition) forces. Some 60 percent of the total is civilian deaths.
And thats leaving aside the argument about who actually killed the Iraqis, and whether more would have died under Saddam. Note also that this death toll is less than the number of people murdered in South Africa over the same period, and that even allowing for population differences, Iraqs death toll is now lower.
Settle back and see if thats how the ABC and Fairfax report these latest leaks.
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.
And I will repeat for the millionth time, democrats and other world leaders talked about saddam's weapons of mass destruction long before Bush came along.
There was a general belief that saddam had wmds.
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesnt reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime the Bush administrations most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddams toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained.
"The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud" Condi Rice
Far from grounds for an invasion that killed over 80,000 people
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesnt reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime the Bush administrations most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddams toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained.
"The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud" Condi Rice
Far from grounds for an invasion that killed over 80,000 people
We went to Veit Nam and Somalia for far FAR less than a breach of a peace agreement.
oops I forgot
It's OK for dem Presidents to go to war.
We did not attack Sadam because he had some half degraded blistering agent.
Why do you think Bush did not try to claim this find as his great success?
If Saddam had them, why did he not deploy them?
I have little doubt he wanted them but the cost was prohibitive, especially since Bush I and Clinton owned the sky's with war planes and spy satellites.
Of course Jr. and the Neo-Cons manufactured 'evidence' for the case of invasion before the United Naitons with piss-poor photos and lies from a respected former General. It matters not if WMD's existed or not, the Neo-Cons hoped to invade Iraq as early as 1997. Simply google PNAC and read the statement of principles - pay close attention to who signed the document.
If Saddam had them, why did he not deploy them?
I have little doubt he wanted them but the cost was prohibitive, especially since Bush I and Clinton owned the sky's with war planes and spy satellites.
Of course Jr. and the Neo-Cons manufactured 'evidence' for the case of invasion before the United Naitons with piss-poor photos and lies from a respected former General. It matters not if WMD's existed or not, the Neo-Cons hoped to invade Iraq as early as 1997. Simply google PNAC and read the statement of principles - pay close attention to who signed the document.
So we find chemical weapons, but since he didn't use them, on us, it's OK.
There's a long list of countries that said saddam had them. Countries that had nothing to gain.
But New Conservatives (former liberals) had the magic power to convince them before the US had been convinced.
We did not attack Sadam because he had some half degraded blistering agent.
Why do you think Bush did not try to claim this find as his great success?
Just can't read the facts and say;
"oops we were wrong, sorry about that, I bought into all the lies."
or even just keep your mouth shut.
