Newsflash: Wikileaks Verify That Saddam Hussein Had WMD AFTER George W. Bush Invaded Iraq

It’s really quite remarkable what the mainstream media gatekeepers somehow think isn’t worth reporting.

I would not have come across this story at all had I not been investigating the site of Questioning with boldness (his article link is here). 

Here’s the story Questioning with Boldess links to (I add the bold font):

WikiLeaks docs prove Saddam had WMD, threats remain
by Seth Mandel
October 28, 2010

WikiLeaks’ latest publication of Iraq war documents contains a lot of information that most reasonable people would prefer remained unknown, such as the names of Iraqi informants who will now be hunted for helping the U.S.

And although the anti-war left welcomed the release of the documents, they would probably cringe at one of the most significant finds of this latest crop of reports: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

“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,” Wired magazine’s Danger Room reports. “But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.”

That is, there definitively were weapons of mass destruction and elements of a WMD program in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq when U.S.-led coalition troops entered the country to depose Hussein.

Predictably, the liberal media did their best to either ignore the story–like the New York Times and Washington Post did–or spin it. It’s not an easy choice to make, since ignoring the story makes you look out of the loop and hurts your reputation as an informative publication, yet spinning the story means actively attempting to confuse and mislead your readers. CBS News chose the latter.

“WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs: No Evidence of Massive WMD Caches” read the headline on CBS News’ online. Here is the story’s opening paragraph:

“The nearly 400,000 Iraq war log documents released by WikiLeaks on Friday were full of evidence of abuses, civilian deaths and the chaos of war, but clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction–the Bush administration’s justification for invading Iraq–appears to be missing.”

There are two falsehoods in that sentence, demonstrating the difficulty in trying to spin a clear fact. The Bush administration’s justification for invading Iraq was much broader than WMD–in fact, it was similar to the litany of reasons the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which specifically called for regime change in Iraq as the official policy of the United States government (Iraq had repeatedly violated international law, Iraq had failed to comply with the obligations that ended the Gulf War, Iraq had circumvented U.N. resolutions, etc.).

“If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow,” President Clinton said in February 1998. “Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”

The second falsehood was the phrase “appears to be missing.” In August 2004, American soldiers seized a toxic “blister agent,” a chemical weapon used since the First World War, Wired reported. In Anbar province, they discovered a chemical lab and a “chemical cache.” Three years later, U.S. military found buried WMD, and even as recent as 2008 found chemical munitions.

This isn’t the first time Iraq war documents shattered a media myth about Saddam’s regime. In 2008, a Pentagon study of Iraqi documents, as well as audio and video recordings, revealed connections between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Called the Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP), the report–based on more than 600,000 captured original documents and thousands of hours of audio and video recordings–proved conclusively that Saddam had worked with terrorist organizations that were plotting attacks on American targets around the world.

One way to identify a media narrative in deep trouble is the naked attempt to draw conclusions for the reader instead of just presenting the story. The CBS report on the leaked WMD documents is a case in point of the reporter telling the reader what they ought to think, knowing full well that otherwise the facts of the case would likely lead the reader to the opposite conclusion.

“At this point,” CBS reporter Dan Farber desperately pleads, “history will still record that the Bush administration went into Iraq under an erroneous threat assessment that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing and hoarding weapons of mass destruction.”

That’s as close as the liberal mainstream media will get to admitting they were wrong. It’s their version of a confession. The myth that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was WMD-free has met its demise.

And these weapons couldn’t simply be the lost scraps of Saddam’s attempts to destroy the stockpile, as Ed Morrissey points out.

“Had Saddam Hussein wanted those weapons destroyed, no lower-ranking military officer would have dared defy him by keeping them hidden,” he writes. “It would have taken dozens of officers to conspire to move and hide those weapons, as well as a like number of enlisted men, any and all of whom could have been a spy for the Hussein clique.”

But now that we’ve answered the question of whether there were actual weapons of mass destruction in Iraq–there were and are–we may have a more significant question to answer: Who has possession of these weapons now?

“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,” Wired reports. In 2006, for example, “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons were brought in from Iran.

“That same month, then ‘chemical weapons specialists’ were apprehended in Balad,” the Wired report continues. “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 doesn’t say.”

Seth Mandel is the Washington DC based correspondent of Weekly Blitz.

Figures.

Given the fact that Saddam Hussein obviously had WMD prior to the invasion (it is a documented fact of history that he used them against Iran in their war, and it is a documented fact of history that Saddam used WMD on his own people in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1988).

It is also a fact of history that prior to George W. Bush invading Iraq in 2003, inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq by Saddam for over four years, having been expelled by Saddam Hussein in 1998 during the Clinton administration.

Given the simple fact that Iraq is a country the size of Texas, and given the fact that Iraq knew full well exactly when US and allied satellites passed over their country, and given the fact that Saddam Hussein’s own generals believed that Iraq in fact did possess WMD -

March 13, 2006
NY Times: Saddam’s generals believed they had WMD to repel US
By Jim Kouri

The New York Times reports that just prior to the United States lead invasion, Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein informed his top generals that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons three months before their war plans meeting.

According to the Times report, the generals all believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were counting on the WMD to repel the oncoming coalition invaders.

While reporting on this story, Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly said he is not surprised that the CIA and other nations believed Saddam had WMD since Hussein’s own generals believed they had them. He said that this proves President Bush did not lie and that he believed what Saddam’s own generals believed — that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD.

O’Reilly also rhetorically asked when the Democrat Senators Reid, Kennedy, Durbin and others would apologize for calling President Bush a liar about WMD. He also asked when liberals such as Barbara Streisand, Jessica Lange and other would apologize to Bush for calling him a liar. [...]

- you will explain to me how we know that Iraq didn’t have WMD how, exactly???

I mean, you dug up the entire country, did you?

Given the type of murderous crazy dictator thug Saddam was, and given the fact that he clearly had possesed WMD, and given the fact that he had in fact kicked out all the weapons inspectors from a country the size of Texas for more than four years, it would seem a no-brainer that the burden of proof clearly rested with the side that claimed that Saddam Hussein had entirely abandoned his WMD arsenal and program.  Which pretty much proves my contention that liberals truly don’t have any brains.  They are people who literally will themselves to be truly stupid; they determine to believe a depraved and asinine worldview that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality by sheer brute force of will.

That explains why so many American university professors continue to be Marxists (nearly one in five!!!) even though Marxism couldn’t have been proven to be more completely wrong and immoral both as an economic and as a political system.

Liberals are people who live in a bubble-world.  They live in a world of their own theories, and hate the real world.  And if the facts don’t fit their theories, well, they dominate the media and get to write the news stories, don’t they???

It is a good thing that journalists are atheists, because that means they don’t have to worry about the fact that one day they will burn in hell forever and ever for their rabid bias and dishonesty.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

10 Responses to “Newsflash: Wikileaks Verify That Saddam Hussein Had WMD AFTER George W. Bush Invaded Iraq”

  1. Questioning With Boldness... Says:

    Thank you again! I know that the original report of this was from last year but it does go to show just how much the media picks and chooses what they report on based upon agendas. It’s another sad example of how bad things have become within our country.

  2. RS Says:

    This article was incredibly informative in a couple ways for me. First of all, I didn’t know about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (I was rather young then, and didn’t pay attention to news and politics much), which helps me understand how there was much more political depth and backing to the invasion of Iraq than I originally thought. Second, I never would have known about these Wikileaks docs about Iraq’s WMD’s unless I read about them here. Seriously, the original article on them came out 4 MONTHS ago??? This should have been headline news all over the place! (Especially during the election season, even though the economy and kicking out democrats became the priority.)

    Another important note that comes out from this article–that more people should realize–is that a WMD in not necessarily “The Bomb,” but can include chemical and biological weapons. It boggles the mind how the world seemed to collectively forget Saddam’s chemical bombing of the Kurds.

    Also, I’ll be sure to check out “Questioning with Boldness” on a regular basis now. One can never get too much Truth.

  3. Michael Eden Says:

    RS,

    It really is amazing how the mainstream media serve as our gatekeepers, shutting off the pipleline of info to anything that might justify a conservative position, isn’t it?

    Yes, it SHOULD have been headline news. The reason it wasn’t is quite evident: leftwing media bias to a shocking degree.

    Bush was right. The people who constantly screamed were wrong. And the press who did the drive-by coverage of “Bush lied, people died” just moved on after the FACTS came out.

    I wrote this 3-part article quite a while back. If you’re really interested in why the Iraq War of 2003 took place, I think you should read it.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    It really is amazing.

    With RS, I had not heard about that.

    Thanks for coming across that and helping to get the word out, Questioning with Boldness.

    Little people like us end up being the only way to stop the avalanche of leftwing media propaganda. Because when enough of us post something, it starts getting read whether the elite left wants it to be or not.

  5. razvan Says:

    I dont think saddam really had those weapons he did not want the world to see that he did not have them so iran wont see iraqs weakness and even if he had them how would he strike the us with it via dhl or the mail man and i am sure if they found them they would have revield it to the people becuase bush him self said after the war that we made a mistake but we are freeing the people of iraq

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    There is absolutely no question that Saddam Hussein had WMD; it is simply a matter of fact that he used them on the Kurds.

    Further, Saddam Hussein kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq for more than four years, during which there is no possible way anyone could say he did not have WMD.

    It was discovered that Saddam Hussein was FAR further ahead in his nuclear weapons program than anyone had believed possible.

    Iraq, furthermore, is a giant country. Saddam was also quite good at burying evidence.

    Then there is the evidence that Iraqi WMDs were found in Syria and Jordan. In fact, terrorists were found with literally tons of the stuff in Jordan. And this was stuff that was known to have been made in Iraq.

    But that’s not the only reason why Iraq was a perfect and legitimate candidate for invasion. For one thing, don’t forget that there were 17 UN resolutions that gave the US the authority to attack.

    And lastly, we can see the difference between attacking Iraq and Afghanistan by the results: Iraq was a perfect place to make a difference. It was a tyrant-controlled country in the heart of the Arab world. It was a largely secular country. It’s people were educated. And its terrain was extremely suitable to American military equipment and tactics. We could make a difference there.

    Contrast that with Afghanistan, a country where ignorant people believe whatever lies the Taliban want them to believe, which makes our efforts to “win the hearts and minds” virtually impossible. It is the worst possible terrain for us to manuever. We will be frustrated for years before we finally find some pretext to leave.

    Bush chose to get us involved in Iraq and minimize involment in Afghanistan. Obama chose the exact opposite. I think time will prove Bush was right and Obama dead wrong.

  7. Anonymous Says:

    Saddam had chemical weapons before 1991 however you are ignoring UNSCOM reports that says they were satisfied that 95% of Iraqi munitions had been destroyed. It turned out that 99.89% of Iraqi munitions had been destroyed.

    Also you are wrong about Saddam “kicking out” UN inspectors. He never did, they were asked to leave by the US so Clinton could commence bombing Iraq in 1998.

    Finally, finding munitions in Iraq is not the same thing as Saddam having them. All of these finds are legacy weapons (i.e. before 1991), some were declared to the UN, and some were just missing but out of the operational command and control of Iraq.

    It’s like saying because several tons of uranium was shipped out of Iraq that Saddam must have been building a nuclear bomb, instead of it being acutally secured by the IAEA many years ago. No one would say that would they now…oh wait.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    You are WRONG. The fact is that Saddam Hussein DID kick out the inspectors, and that the UN ordered inspectors out when it became obvious that they were being used and not allowed to accomplish their mission:

    What a Difference Four Years Makes
    Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq–then and now

    The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them.”

    — Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98

    “To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago.”

    –John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02

    “The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and–as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning

    –Katie Couric, NBC’s Today, 12/16/98

    As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago.”

    –Maurice DuBois, NBC’s Saturday Today, 8/3/02

    The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate–a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes.”

    –AP, 12/16/98

    Information on Iraq’s programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.”

    –AP, 9/7/02

    Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad’s noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.”

    –Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98

    “It is not known whether Iraq has rebuilt clandestine nuclear facilities since U.N. inspectors were forced out in 1998, but the report said the regime lacks nuclear material for a bomb and the capability to make weapons.”

    –Los Angeles Times, 9/10/02

    “The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today’s evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq’s failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes.”

    –Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98

    If he has secret weapons, he’s had four years since he kicked out the inspectors to hide all of them.”

    –Daniel Schorr, NPR, 8/3/02

    “This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain.”

    –Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98

    “What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out.”

    –John King, CNN, 8/18/02

    “Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized Butler for evacuating inspectors from Iraq Wednesday morning without seeking permission from the Security Council.”

    –USA Today, 12/17/98

    Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies.”

    –USA Today, 9/4/02

    “But the most recent irritant was Mr. Butler’s quick withdrawal from Iraq on Wednesday of all his inspectors and those of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iraqi nuclear programs, without Security Council permission. Mr. Butler acted after a telephone call from Peter Burleigh, the American representative to the United Nations, and a discussion with Secretary General Kofi Annan, who had also spoken to Mr. Burleigh.”

    –New York Times, 12/18/98

    “America’s goal should be to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional weapons…. To thwart this goal, Baghdad expelled United Nations arms inspectors four years ago.”

    –New York Times editorial, 8/3/02

    “Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night–at a time when most members of the Security Council had yet to receive his report.”

    –Washington Post, 12/18/98

    Since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly been working to build more chemical and biological weapons.”

    –Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02

    “Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad’s continued failure to cooperate with UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq’s prohibited weapons of mass destruction.”

    — Newsday, 12/17/98

    The reason Hussein gave was that the U.N. inspectors’ work was completed years ago, before he kicked them out in 1998, and they dismantled whatever weapons they found. That’s disingenuous.”

    –Newsday editorial, 8/14/02

    People who accuse me of being wrong when they themselves are grossly misrepresenting the facts do not get a second chance to lie, lie and lie again.

    Good riddance.

  9. Bob Greene Says:

    @ Michael Eden– Incontrovertible evidence Saddam had WMDs during the Bush pre-invasion campaign is still missing. To recount news story after news story claiming UN inspectors were “kicked out” effectively makes the case for group think among network media, but little else.

    According to the Arms Control Association, “… Iraq continued to harass, hinder, and frustrate inspectors until late 1998, when the inspectors withdrew from Iraq just hours before the United States and the United Kingdom launched three days of military strikes against Iraq for its noncooperation… With a U.S.-British attack imminent, Iraq announces November 14 that it will cooperate with inspectors. Baghdad’s cooperation is short-lived, however, and the IAEA and UNSCOM withdraw their personnel from Iraq December 16, just hours before the United States and the United Kingdom begin three days of air strikes, during which Baghdad declares that weapons inspections are finished…”

    http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02

    The various discoveries of weapons labs, Iraqis with training in bio- or chemical warfare is easily reconciled with the fact Iraq already had used chemical agents against the Kurds and Iranians. Saddam, himself, claimed in 2006 that he wanted Iran to believe he had WMDs, and would have been remiss in his bluff not to have sprinkled his country with “evidence” of WMD capability.

    Yet, had US troops actually found WMDs in 2004 or 2008, we can be sure Bush would have trumpeted the find. Alas, Bush accepted the report of David Kay, who later stated before the US Senate, “we simply have no evidence” Iraq had large or small stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons as late as 2002.”

    Kay says WMDs might still exist, but the evidence is simply missing. The Acronym Institute UK describes kay’s testimony, “Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here,” Kay said of intelligence estimates indicating Iraq had an active weapons of mass destruction program. “I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarized chemical and biological weapons there.”

    [Kay] said that it is theoretically possible in a country the size of Iraq that some weapons of mass destruction may be hidden, but given the ambiguity of the weapons search, that question may never be answered fully. “It’s possible that they could be there and we could never find them,” he said.”

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    Bob Greene,

    I think that article that I cited in entirety in my article speaks for itself. And you clearly didn’t bother to read it.

    A few quotes from that article regarding the developments learned from the Wikileaks case (classified documents released online):

    “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,” Wired magazine’s Danger Room reports. “But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.”

    That is, there definitively were weapons of mass destruction and elements of a WMD program in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq when U.S.-led coalition troops entered the country to depose Hussein.

    [..]

    In August 2004, American soldiers seized a toxic “blister agent,” a chemical weapon used since the First World War, Wired reported. In Anbar province, they discovered a chemical lab and a “chemical cache.” Three years later, U.S. military found buried WMD, and even as recent as 2008 found chemical munitions.

    This isn’t the first time Iraq war documents shattered a media myth about Saddam’s regime. In 2008, a Pentagon study of Iraqi documents, as well as audio and video recordings, revealed connections between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Called the Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP), the report–based on more than 600,000 captured original documents and thousands of hours of audio and video recordings–proved conclusively that Saddam had worked with terrorist organizations that were plotting attacks on American targets around the world.

    It is highly likely that Saddam’s WMD arsenal largely went to Syria. It is a fact that MASSIVE Iraqi convoys left Iraq bound for Syria as shown by satellite reconnaissance.

    You can call that “speculation” as you will, but sadly with Syria on the verge of total chaos we may very well find out the HARD way what happened to Saddam’s WMD arsenal when terrorists who acquired it from Syria uses it on us in an attack that would make 9/11 look like a friendly gesture.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 530 other followers

%d bloggers like this: