Wikileaks WMD Surprise

[Si modo]

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.

They were 20+ year old remnants......hardly the "mushroom cloud" Bush warned us about

Even Bush was too embarassed to bring them up as evidence. He scoured the country for weapons, paperwork or witnesses saying there was something there.....he got nothing

No mushroom cloud, of course, but enough to kill many and highly transportable because of the low LD50.

 

[Sallow]

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.

"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.

Eisenhower began military involvement in Vietnam.

Bush in Somalia.

Neither were democrats.

But this is rather silly..both parties have a hand in wars. But Conservatives do seem to favor starting them.

 

[Avatar4321]

Not really news. Anyone paying attention knew about the WMDs.

Anti Bush crowd is still denying it or making excuses.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Iraq's military was in a better position prior to some 2 wars and numerous bombing raids and withering embargoes..

By 2003..it was a defanged old lion. Hardly able to defend itself. And surrounded by bitter enemies.

 

[L.K.Eder]

i would really like to believe that most of y'all are stupid, but that cannot be true.

so a whole lot of you are just plain malicious.



wmd, my ass.

you will never learn, unless you got invaded because of such flimsy evidence. and your country destroyed, and your family killed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So Conservatives, why didn't Saddam use WMD's against us during our invasion in 2003? Everyone knew after Powell's performance before the United Nations the Bush Administration planned to invade Iraq; Saddam did too.
The fact is, no viable WMD's existed.
The facts are, the extreme elements in the Republican Party planned to invade Iraq earlier then 1997.
You may read their names at the end of this document:
Statement of Principles

 

[Truthmatters]

The claims the Bush admin claimed have been roundly disproven.


Anyone who disagrees with that statement is a partisan hack on the right.

 

[Si modo]

....
The fact is, no viable WMD's existed.
....

That simply isn't true.

 

[Truthmatters]

The Bush admin lied.

 

[Freeman]

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?

this is well question!

 

[BlindBoo]

Here we go again.

When they looked at the labels on those so call WMD they found a thank you note to Ronnie Raygun for all his support and help in getting Iraq off the nations who support terrorist list, and for that 4 billion dollars in loans to help get us started. No to mention all of our allies, like Germany, the UK and France, for selling him advance technology too.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Remnants from the West's support in the war with Iran. Was never a threat to the worlds remaining super power.

 

[BlindBoo]

Not really news. Anyone paying attention knew about the WMDs.

Anti Bush crowd is still denying it or making excuses.

There were, as predicted, left over stockpiles of chemial weapons that were lost after the war with Iran. Anyone paying attention knows that they were not the WMD the Bush administration so adamently claimed were there. Recall the claim that they were producing and stockpiling massive amounts of chemcical and biological weapon. Nothing new was ever found and the small caches of degraded chemicals were found.

 

[BlindBoo]

....
The fact is, no viable WMD's existed.
....

That simply isn't true.

It is completely true. Saddam was not a threat to the worlds remaining superpower. All the ordinace ever found was manufactored before 1991 and was not usable.

 

[Si modo]

....
The fact is, no viable WMD's existed.
....

That simply isn't true.

It is completely true. Saddam was not a threat to the worlds remaining superpower. All the ordinace ever found was manufactored before 1991 and was not usable.

As I said before, the chemistry of organophophates does not jibe with the claim that what was found were harmless/not viable, etc.

Damn those physical sciences - always getting in the way of politics.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

Yeah, the only thing lacking was the backbone to do anything about, liberal pinheads. It is funny how when President Bush was in office you nitwits went after him saying he lied, now this comes out and it's "democrats and other world leaders knew about it"? Just lying to Bush bash, you just admited it, idiots.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

"The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud" Condi Rice

Far from grounds for an invasion that killed over 80,000 people

There were grounds, you can stop lying now, everone knows dimwits lie when their lips are moving.

 

[midcan5]

History is just tough stuff, the true story often gets hidden in revisionist nonsense that goes for history today. Everyone knew he had chemical weapons, one could make them in the kitchen.


"The Ties That Blind - How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons" By Norm Dixon

"On August 18, 2002, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, "Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas". Quoting anonymous US "senior military officers", the NYT "revealed" that in the 1980s, the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided "critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war". The story made a brief splash in the international media, then died."

Norm Dixon: How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons

"On March 18, 2009, Attorneys Kenneth J. McCallion of McCallion & Associates, Jeffrey D. Katz of JDKatz, P.C., and Stanley Todman of OffutKurman, P.A., filed suit against the Government of Iraq, and four US chemical companies as a class action on behalf of the the victims of the Gas Attack. The case was filed in the US District Court for Maryland, and is styled as Aziz v. Iraq. This was the first and only known action brought against the Government of Iraq and the manufacturers of the chemicals involved in the poison gas attacks. The case was subsequently dismissed by the US District Court, and is presently on appeal in the Fourth Circuit. A ruling is expected in February, 2011."

Halabja poison gas attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

History of Iran: Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement

 

[AmericanFirst]

Funny these idiots forget that it was liberals protesting the Veitnam war even with democrats in charge.

I did not forget. The problem is the liberals. Which is the majority of the democrats now. We are only saying that the democrats cry about Iraq when it was a democrat that pushed us into vietnam. Double standard not two wrongs.

 

[Bfgrn]

Funny these idiots forget that it was liberals protesting the Veitnam war even with democrats in charge.

I did not forget. The problem is the liberals. Which is the majority of the democrats now. We are only saying that the democrats cry about Iraq when it was a democrat that pushed us into vietnam. Double standard not two wrongs.

IF Vietnam was wrong, HOW was Iraq right?