WMD in Iraq

[signal4l]

I read Chuck Pffarrer's book, Seal Target Geronimo, this summer. I knew that it was a bit controversial not only with regards to its account of the killing of OBL, but with regards to his theory about WMD's in Iraq. To paraphrase, he wrote that Saddam had large stockpiles of WMD before the war. Some went to Syria, others were given to Al Quaeda and hidden in Iraq. He wrote about the use of WMD's against our troops. After reading the book I did some internet searches and came across this:

http://www.wired.com/2011/11/iraq-wmd-seal-target-geronimo/

I read this article today:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Looks like Mr Pffarrer's book is a bit more accurate than some may have us believe. Its more than a bit upsetting that our military would attempt to conceal the obvious presence of WMD in Iraq and deny treatment to our soldiers that suffered from exposure to this crap.

I guess Matt Damon will have to release a revised version of The Green Zone.

[Caeser25]

It could be called The Yellow Brick Road and incorporate the Arab Spring in relation Qaddafi, Asad and the Petrodollar.

[Averageman]

I spoke to our Brigade NBC NCO who was manning detection equipment in a Fox Vehicle during the Gulf War about this. He told me he had four indications of chemical weapons being used and reported each one.
I have no doubt that something was up and that it was quickly hushed up in those instances. We had folks with hair falling out in patches, rashes that lasted months etc.
I'm wondering that if someone had taken "Gulf War Syndrome" a bit more seriously we would have had the evidence needed to understand that yes, there were WMD's in Iraq.

[Mauser KAR98K]

Does this mean Bush was right after all?

[Sensei]

I spoke to our Brigade NBC NCO who was manning detection equipment in a Fox Vehicle during the Gulf War about this. He told me he had four indications of chemical weapons being used and reported each one.
I have no doubt that something was up and that it was quickly hushed up in those instances. We had folks with hair falling out in patches, rashes that lasted months etc.
I'm wondering that if someone had taken "Gulf War Syndrome" a bit more seriously we would have had the evidence needed to understand that yes, there were WMD's in Iraq.

What chemicals did he detect and what agent causes the symptoms that you describe?

[rero360]

I know that a mustard gas artillery shell was used as an IED on route IRISH between the Green zone and BIAP sometime around late March/ early April of 2007. I had to bring my pro-mask with me when I went home on mid tour leave towards the end of that April. This NY Times article comes as no surprise to me at all.

[ABNAK]

Silly fellas, we all know Saddam didn't have any WMD. C'mon now........:rolleyes:

[ABNAK]

I know that a mustard gas artillery shell was used as an IED on route IRISH between the Green zone and BIAP sometime around late March/ early April of 2007. I had to bring my pro-mask with me when I went home on mid tour leave towards the end of that April. This NY Times article comes as no surprise to me at all.

Nonsense.....Bush lied, people died. We do not want to hear something that actually happened while you were there.

[Averageman]

What chemicals did he detect and what agent causes the symptoms that you describe?

I did not ask more about what he was willing to tell me at the time we were talking about it.
I believe he was telling me the truth as at the time he told me we were both military retired more than three years and I was working with him on something totally unrelated to that part of his military service.
He was and still is a stand up guy and his integrity in and out of the service was ever in question.
We were talking about something unrelated and WMD's came up in the conversation as we discussed our old Brigade and that kind of just came out as we discussed some things we had seen.
I found it rather unnerving at first, but it made a lot of sense when what I saw and what he said were put together.

[High Tower]

I dare say most of us who were there knew they were there. The truth was simply not politically convenient.

Its hard to hide now that ISIS has them. So the drive-bys blame the Pentagon which probably isn't entirely wrong.

[MountainRaven]

If Iraq had WMDs, why did the Bush administration quietly let the accusation die? Particularly in light of the, "Nobody died when Clinton lied" crowd.

[Moose-Knuckle]

If Iraq had WMDs, why did the Bush administration quietly let the accusation die? Particularly in light of the, "Nobody died when Clinton lied" crowd.

Maybe it's because we gave them to Saddam to fight/murder the Iranians with during their little war in the 80's?

[signal4l]

Maybe it's because we gave them to Saddam to fight/murder the Iranians with during their little war in the 80's?

This makes sense

[Jer]

This makes sense

Not enough. Bush was absolutely lambasted over this WMD's and completely lack thereof long enough (still) that if this wasn't the case proof would have surfaced. I admittedly haven't read the links so if someone wants to summarize what both the Bush administration as well as the Obama administration had to gain from this, please explain it. In other words, if this was good for Bush to hide the truth why would Obama not out the evidence when he took office during a time that would have given him or his party the most leverage when it was most convenient to him? I've been saying for years now that WMDs existed and were moved to Syria and stashed in pockets all over the region before the invasion took place but I'm not sure I'm buying that evidence existed and was quelled all this time. I don't trust our government for shit (any party) but this conspiracy theory is a bit much for even me to swallow.

[Averageman]

Because Bush One was the head of the CIA and then Vice President when a lot of this malarky was going on?
If you try and explain to the Man on the street that there were WMD's in Iraq and that we gave them to Saddam to fight the Iranians and in turn he used them on his own people, well most folks would have a seizure.
The idea that these things were pretty much left unsecured as we went in to Iraq and then at that point there was a chance for them to be used against us or sold on the open market is pretty scarey. I think we know where they went and that some of them may be being used now.
I don't think the Man on the street would feel real secure knowing he paid for them.

[signal4l]

More interesting reading:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2668677/Dick-Cheney-predicts-terrorist-attack-far-deadlier-9-11-decade-over.html

Cheney predicts an attack "far deadlier' than 9/11 will come before the end of this decade. Given the current nonsense with the ISIS nut jobs and the complete incompetence of our president, I would be surprised if the attack didnt come sooner.

Cheney mentions the possibility of a nuke attack. It would seem that a WMD attack is more likely. It would be even more tragic if the WMD's used against us were originally given to Saddam by the US???

[BrigandTwoFour]

More interesting reading:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2668677/Dick-Cheney-predicts-terrorist-attack-far-deadlier-9-11-decade-over.html

Cheney predicts an attack "far deadlier' than 9/11 will come before the end of this decade. Given the current nonsense with the ISIS nut jobs and the complete incompetence of our president, I would be surprised if the attack didnt come sooner.

Cheney mentions the possibility of a nuke attack. It would seem that a WMD attack is more likely. It would be even more tragic if the WMD's used against us were originally given to Saddam by the US???

It's rather ironic to me that in the years following the end of the Cold War, the actual probability of a nuclear weapon being employed in anger is going up every year. Proliferation of material is a serious issue. The engineering behind building a nuclear weapon is pretty well-known, as the tech is older than the Edsel. It's just a matter of material and infrastructure.

[C-grunt]

Everyone that was there knew that those mustard and sarin shells were buried all over the country.

In 2003 during the invasion my company secured one of the suspected chemicl weapons factories. When we arrived the Iraqis had already blown the place up and it was fully engulfed in fire. There were large lakes of chemicals around the factory that were burning a purple flame. The Time reporter we had got some good photos of it and they are published in the book "21 Days to Baghdad". Our NBC guy tested it and it came back mostly chlorine and a few other chemicals..

After we took Baghdad we were running around securing vital structures and snatching up HVTs. One of them was a nuclear scientist that my platoon grabbed. He spoke perfect english and had a Brittish accent as he spent 20+ years in London before returning to Iraq to work on Sadam's nuclear program.

[Jer]

Because Bush One was the head of the CIA and then Vice President when a lot of this malarky was going on?
If you try and explain to the Man on the street that there were WMD's in Iraq and that we gave them to Saddam to fight the Iranians and in turn he used them on his own people, well most folks would have a seizure.
The idea that these things were pretty much left unsecured as we went in to Iraq and then at that point there was a chance for them to be used against us or sold on the open market is pretty scarey. I think we know where they went and that some of them may be being used now.
I don't think the Man on the street would feel real secure knowing he paid for them.

That's a stretch at best. The public is well aware of us supplying arms & firepower to all sorts of entities over the decades that were then turned against us. It's nothing new and the backlash they faced for NOT disclosing WMD's is greater than had they disclosed after the fact.

[Magic_Salad0892]

TOS is having a thread on this right now, and there are enough people stating that they personally saw Iraqi manufactured chemical weapons, and Russian delivery munitions that I'm more willing to believe that than I am to believe that the US did it.

[Jer]

TOS is having a thread on this right now, and there are enough people stating that they personally saw Iraqi manufactured chemical weapons, and Russian delivery munitions that I'm more willing to believe that than I am to believe that the US did it.

I'm not denying that. I always said there was WMDs based on what I 'heard' as well but I'm not getting how the conspiracy serves either administration. You almost have to believe in a conspiracy for the sake of having a conspiracy to be onboard with this one. Generally there's something to be gained and it trumps any potential backlash and I'm not seeing it in this situation since the cover-up created more back-lash than any reveal of the truth would have.

[williejc]

Are there no more of our shoulder fired stinger missiles floating around? Years ago, didn't we furnish a few to the Taliban to fight the Russians in Afghanistan? What happened to the LAWS anti tank gizmos that we shared? Maybe all these little jobbies are still in the bad guys' storage dumps.

[signal4l]

I have never been a big believer in conspiracy theories but I am having a hard time understanding why the Bush admin would conceal evidence that justified the invasion of Iraq.

With the multiple cases of exposure, injuries they must have known that the truth would eventually come out

[Jer]

Are there no more of our shoulder fired stinger missiles floating around? Years ago, didn't we furnish a few to the Taliban to fight the Russians in Afghanistan? What happened to the LAWS anti tank gizmos that we shared? Maybe all these little jobbies are still in the bad guys' storage dumps.


I have never been a big believer in conspiracy theories but I am having a hard time understanding why the Bush admin would conceal evidence that justified the invasion of Iraq.

With the multiple cases of exposure, injuries they must have known that the truth would eventually come out

Exactly what I'm saying. When they're talking about impeachment proceedings for his invasion w/o cause based on inaccurate or falsified intelligence I'm pretty sure this would've come up had the solid evidence existed at that time. At that time is the key. I fully believe there was evidence but it wasn't until long after the media scrutiny died down to where it wouldn't make sense to rehash. Possibly even DURING the Obama administration which would make sense that he would suppress that evidence as it doesn't help his agenda or his party.

Saying the people would be up in arms over arming someone to fight a common enemy and then later turning that very gun on us... well... that's just about every conflict we've faced for almost a century. In fact, I'd say we've been in less conflicts with someone we DIDN'T arm more than those we have. It's pretty common and we're still fighting them today. This is nothing new and I don't see Americans losing too much sleep over it if it were to come out.

[JBecker 72]

Probably because people around the world differentiate giving the enemy of our enemy chemical weapons as opposed to standard arms. Seems like that would be a big no no as far as the UN and NATO is concerned. Or at least that's what I would think if we did in fact give them chemical weapons.

I am just throwing thoughts out though.

[Moose-Knuckle]

Are there no more of our shoulder fired stinger missiles floating around? Years ago, didn't we furnish a few to the Taliban to fight the Russians in Afghanistan? What happened to the LAWS anti tank gizmos that we shared? Maybe all these little jobbies are still in the bad guys' storage dumps.

MANPADs, we've supplied them to just about every "freedom fighter" aka terrorist group out there. US MANPADs aided in bringing down Gaddafi and others recently. This is why Benghazi is such a cluster **** of a coverup.

[Averageman]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Banner&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.

He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.

The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.

All three men recall an awkward pause. Then Sergeant Duling gave an order: “Get the hell out.”


A worthy but perhaps liberal slant of a read on the situation.

[MountainRaven]

Are there no more of our shoulder fired stinger missiles floating around? Years ago, didn't we furnish a few to the Taliban to fight the Russians in Afghanistan? What happened to the LAWS anti tank gizmos that we shared? Maybe all these little jobbies are still in the bad guys' storage dumps.

Last I heard, batteries were dead. That was 2001-2002, during the NATO invasion of Afghanistan. Understand that at that time, the missiles and batteries were over a decade old. They're even older now, of course.

[Averageman]

Last I heard, batteries were dead. That was 2001-2002, during the NATO invasion of Afghanistan. Understand that at that time, the missiles and batteries were over a decade old. They're even older now, of course.

I would be more concerned with the 400 + Russian made Man Potable SAMS that the Libyans had that kind of disappeared from war stocks during the ousting of khadaffi.
Can you say Benghazi?

[Reagans Rascals]

I whole heartedly believe there were/are WMD's there... however perhaps Bush took on the brunt of it so as to not let confidential Intel sources be compromised... we experienced the exact same thing with the Ukrainian Downing of Siberian Airlines 1812... we had broken their code and we're listening into the chatter in realtime yet if anything was done about it on our part to prevent it, they would have been alerted to the encryption breach and swapped crypto... thus in the interest of preserving Intel pipelines we had our hands tied.... I believe this is why Bush never divulged his Intel sources for the WMD scuttlebutt...

[Belmont31R]

I whole heartedly believe there were/are WMD's there... however perhaps Bush took on the brunt of it so as to not let confidential Intel sources be compromised... we experienced the exact same thing with the Ukrainian Downing of Siberian Airlines 1812... we had broken their code and we're listening into the chatter in realtime yet if anything was done about it on our part to prevent it, they would have been alerted to the encryption breach and swapped crypto... thus in the interest of preserving Intel pipelines we had our hands tied.... I believe this is why Bush never divulged his Intel sources for the WMD scuttlebutt...



There have always been a lot of chemical weapons and such in Iraq. Its the timeline or when/where type stuff that is question.


But I also think, looking back, we were going to Iraq after 9/11 no matter what.


However, at this point, I have no idea how to articulate our ME strategy, and I have ZERO doubt those in DC could, either. Which is the big problem right now. In 2002-2005 things were much less muddled. Obama has managed to put off or minimally do so little no one can define American strategy. Its just pieced together as we go depending on what he can take credit for.

[Reagans Rascals]

Its just pieced together as we go depending on what he can take credit for.

BINGO.... if he can't use it to promote political agenda and win favor to his plight, it's swept under the rug and a scape goat is sought out immediately

[Iraqgunz]

People are missing part of the puzzle. The question isn't whether Iraq had chemical/bio/nuke material. The question was whether or not they were actively pursuing said programs or planning the use of any such weapons. There is no proof (that I am aware of) that shows that is the case. Saddam played a game of poker with the U.S and his bluff was called.

The resulting consequences are that our intervention in Iraq had destabilized the region and we are now seeing the aftermath. Even more troubling is that the entire region is in bad shape and so is Libya, Yemen and probably Afghanistan in the near future.

[Eurodriver]

People are missing part of the puzzle. The question isn't whether Iraq had chemical/bio/nuke material. The question was whether or not they were actively pursuing said programs or planning the use of any such weapons. There is no proof (that I am aware of) that shows that is the case. Saddam played a game of poker with the U.S and his bluff was called.

The resulting consequences are that our intervention in Iraq had destabilized the region and we are now seeing the aftermath. Even more troubling is that the entire region is in bad shape and so is Libya, Yemen and probably Afghanistan in the near future.

Exactly.

30 year old stockpiles of mustard gas does not a US Invasion justify.

[montanadave]

People are missing part of the puzzle. The question isn't whether Iraq had chemical/bio/nuke material. The question was whether or not they were actively pursuing said programs or planning the use of any such weapons. There is no proof (that I am aware of) that shows that is the case. Saddam played a game of poker with the U.S and his bluff was called.

The resulting consequences are that our intervention in Iraq had destabilized the region and we are now seeing the aftermath. Even more troubling is that the entire region is in bad shape and so is Libya, Yemen and probably Afghanistan in the near future.

Thank you.

And the chemical weapons uncovered by American troops were apparently the very same weapons the United States had actively assisted Saddam in deploying against Iran during the Iraq-Iran war (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran) and these weapons were designed in the United States and manufactured in Europe before being sold to Iraq (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7b1_1413558133).

Cheney and company's threats of Saddam's WMD capabilities in Iraq and mushroom clouds and all the rest as a justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was and is total bullshit.

[Jer]

People are missing part of the puzzle. The question isn't whether Iraq had chemical/bio/nuke material. The question was whether or not they were actively pursuing said programs or planning the use of any such weapons. There is no proof (that I am aware of) that shows that is the case. Saddam played a game of poker with the U.S and his bluff was called.

The resulting consequences are that our intervention in Iraq had destabilized the region and we are now seeing the aftermath. Even more troubling is that the entire region is in bad shape and so is Libya, Yemen and probably Afghanistan in the near future.

Just to reiterate for those young'uns who may not remember... Saddam was left in power (unstable political climate in the area to say the least so it was questionably our best option) with a binding resolution that required him to allow regular inspections among about a dozen other key points that HE agreed to in order to be left in power. Fast forward to 9/11 and we were in a less innocent world where those who wished to do us harm COULD attack is on our own soil and the decision was made to seek out those that meant to do us harm before they could and #1 on that list was ol' Saddam. He wasn't allowing inspectors in to do what he agreed to and was thumbing his nose at every other portion of the very agreement that left him in power and was clearly defiant against the US. He had demonstrated the desire to take us down and it was only a matter of time before he tested that. Bottom line, he was left in power with an agreement which HE broke and we had decided that sanctions and threats weren't going to cut it in a new political climate where we could be attacked. Not again. I agree 100% with the invasion as it was a necessary evil. I just disagree with how long it took to punish him for his actions and the fact that it took a 9/11 for us to open our eyes to the threats such as him. If we were more willing to use force in a situation where it was a blatant violation of a treaty maybe we wouldn't have to make treaties in the first place. But, that's more global political opinion than anything so we'll just leave it be for now. This drum the liberals banged for the better part of a decade about not having WMDs therefore the invasion and subsequent overthrow was unjust was another case of misdirection because it made headlines.

[montanadave]

Just to reiterate for those young'uns who may not remember... Saddam was left in power (unstable political climate in the area to say the least so it was questionably our best option) with a binding resolution that required him to allow regular inspections among about a dozen other key points that HE agreed to in order to be left in power. Fast forward to 9/11 and we were in a less innocent world where those who wished to do us harm COULD attack is on our own soil and the decision was made to seek out those that meant to do us harm before they could and #1 on that list was ol' Saddam. He wasn't allowing inspectors in to do what he agreed to and was thumbing his nose at every other portion of the very agreement that left him in power and was clearly defiant against the US. He had demonstrated the desire to take us down and it was only a matter of time before he tested that. Bottom line, he was left in power with an agreement which HE broke and we had decided that sanctions and threats weren't going to cut it in a new political climate where we could be attacked. Not again. I agree 100% with the invasion as it was a necessary evil. I just disagree with how long it took to punish him for his actions and the fact that it took a 9/11 for us to open our eyes to the threats such as him. If we were more willing to use force in a situation where it was a blatant violation of a treaty maybe we wouldn't have to make treaties in the first place. But, that's more global political opinion than anything so we'll just leave it be for now. This drum the liberals banged for the better part of a decade about not having WMDs therefore the invasion and subsequent overthrow was unjust was another case of misdirection because it made headlines.

Yeah, Saddam and his non-existent WMDs were a vastly greater existential threat to the United States than, say, North Korea or Iran and their actual nuclear weapon programs. :suicide2:

[Jer]

Yeah, Saddam and his non-existent WMDs were a vastly greater existential threat to the United States than, say, North Korea or Iran and their actual nuclear weapon programs. :suicide2:

Remind me again of the details of the treaty that Kim Jong-il or Mohammad Khatami was violating that allowed us to invade w/o congressional approval or starting another world war.

Listen, I'm the last person who would be considered a Gee Dub apologist but as already stated... Saddam bluffed and we called him on it after 9/11 showed us what letting him continue to build support & confidence could lead to. He played w/fire like the idiot he was and got burned. Not allowing inspectors in for over a decade to do what he agreed he would let them do multiple times per year and posturing was as bad as actually having WMDs (even if he didn't) and he knew damn good and well that he was rattling the cage of the sleeping dog. 9/11 woke us up and we did what we should've done the first year he violated the terms of the treaty.

[montanadave]

Remind me again of the details of the treaty that Kim Jong-il or Mohammad Khatami was violating that allowed us to invade w/o congressional approval or starting another world war.

Listen, I'm the last person who would be considered a Gee Dub apologist but as already stated... Saddam bluffed and we called him on it after 9/11 showed us what letting him continue to build support & confidence could lead to. He played w/fire like the idiot he was and got burned. Not allowing inspectors in for over a decade to do what he agreed he would let them do multiple times per year and posturing was as bad as actually having WMDs (even if he didn't) and he knew damn good and well that he was rattling the cage of the sleeping dog. 9/11 woke us up and we did what we should've done the first year he violated the terms of the treaty.

Saddam got burned? Hey, that guy's dead. Meanwhile we're still on the hook for the couple of trillion bucks we pissed away in the sand and dealing with the seemingly perpetual maelstrom of shit we created by removing him from power.

If that ain't the definition of a Pyrrhic victory, I'll eat my hat.

[Jer]

Saddam got burned? Hey, that guy's dead. Meanwhile we're still on the hook for the couple of trillion bucks we pissed away in the sand and dealing with the seemingly perpetual maelstrom of shit we created by removing him from power.

If that ain't the definition of a Pyrrhic victory, I'll eat my hat.

You're right, we should be continue being paper tigers. We should invade countries and then leave the violent dictator in power under the auspices of a treaty by which he agrees to the terms contained within and then, once we're out and he decided to start puffing up his chest and gaining confidence in those who would follow him, do absolutely nothing to reprimand him. Hell, before long evil dictators will be lining up to sign treaties to have us leave them alone so they can go about their business w/o fear of recourse too.

[Iraqgunz]

I am hardly a young un' and was actually in the military during the first Gulf War.


Just to reiterate for those young'uns who may not remember... Saddam was left in power (unstable political climate in the area to say the least so it was questionably our best option) with a binding resolution that required him to allow regular inspections among about a dozen other key points that HE agreed to in order to be left in power. Fast forward to 9/11 and we were in a less innocent world where those who wished to do us harm COULD attack is on our own soil and the decision was made to seek out those that meant to do us harm before they could and #1 on that list was ol' Saddam. He wasn't allowing inspectors in to do what he agreed to and was thumbing his nose at every other portion of the very agreement that left him in power and was clearly defiant against the US. He had demonstrated the desire to take us down and it was only a matter of time before he tested that. Bottom line, he was left in power with an agreement which HE broke and we had decided that sanctions and threats weren't going to cut it in a new political climate where we could be attacked. Not again. I agree 100% with the invasion as it was a necessary evil. I just disagree with how long it took to punish him for his actions and the fact that it took a 9/11 for us to open our eyes to the threats such as him. If we were more willing to use force in a situation where it was a blatant violation of a treaty maybe we wouldn't have to make treaties in the first place. But, that's more global political opinion than anything so we'll just leave it be for now. This drum the liberals banged for the better part of a decade about not having WMDs therefore the invasion and subsequent overthrow was unjust was another case of misdirection because it made headlines.

[MountainRaven]

Just to reiterate for those young'uns who may not remember... Saddam was left in power (unstable political climate in the area to say the least so it was questionably our best option) with a binding resolution that required him to allow regular inspections among about a dozen other key points that HE agreed to in order to be left in power. Fast forward to 9/11 and we were in a less innocent world where those who wished to do us harm COULD attack is on our own soil and the decision was made to seek out those that meant to do us harm before they could and #1 on that list was ol' Saddam. He wasn't allowing inspectors in to do what he agreed to and was thumbing his nose at every other portion of the very agreement that left him in power and was clearly defiant against the US. He had demonstrated the desire to take us down and it was only a matter of time before he tested that. Bottom line, he was left in power with an agreement which HE broke and we had decided that sanctions and threats weren't going to cut it in a new political climate where we could be attacked. Not again. I agree 100% with the invasion as it was a necessary evil. I just disagree with how long it took to punish him for his actions and the fact that it took a 9/11 for us to open our eyes to the threats such as him. If we were more willing to use force in a situation where it was a blatant violation of a treaty maybe we wouldn't have to make treaties in the first place. But, that's more global political opinion than anything so we'll just leave it be for now. This drum the liberals banged for the better part of a decade about not having WMDs therefore the invasion and subsequent overthrow was unjust was another case of misdirection because it made headlines.

Saddam - with his pathetic paper tiger army decimated by the US-led Coalition in the 90s and constantly bombed for a decade, surrounded on all sides by hostile powers: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, and Kuwait, with American aircraft flying overhead daily - didn't want the fact that he didn't have WMD exposed? Shocking. Truly shocking. Maybe Israel will agree to allow inspectors in to verify whether or not they actually have nukes, too.

[Jer]

I am hardly a young un' and was actually in the military during the first Gulf War.

I wasn't calling you a young'un. I was agreeing with you and explaining part of that you didn't touch on.


Saddam - with his pathetic paper tiger army decimated by the US-led Coalition in the 90s and constantly bombed for a decade, surrounded on all sides by hostile powers: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, and Kuwait, with American aircraft flying overhead daily - didn't want the fact that he didn't have WMD exposed? Shocking. Truly shocking. Maybe Israel will agree to allow inspectors in to verify whether or not they actually have nukes, too.

So we have a treaty with Israel forbidding them to have WMDs and allow us to inspect regularly to insure they don't?

[MountainRaven]

So we have a treaty with Israel forbidding them to have WMDs and allow us to inspect regularly to insure they don't?

And how would you weigh being captured by the US versus being captured by Saudi Arabia or Iran? Saddam sure wasn't expecting to be hanged by Kurds, that's for sure.

If Israel proclaimed tomorrow that they had no nukes - and their military was left in a shambles by a concentrated air campaign of the sort the US waged against Iraq - there would be no Israel in three months. If Saddam allowed the inspectors in, they would have discovered that Iraq had no WMDs, and it would have been split between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Of course, that's pretty much what we've accomplished for Saddam since then, so....

[wild_wild_wes]

I have never been a big believer in conspiracy theories but I am having a hard time understanding why the Bush admin would conceal evidence that justified the invasion of Iraq.

With the multiple cases of exposure, injuries they must have known that the truth would eventually come out

Because the political mastermind Carl Rove thought it would be a dandy idea to keep it from the public:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/16/insiders-blame-rove-for-covering-up-iraq-s-real-wmd.html

Starting in 2004, some members of the George W. Bush administration and Republican lawmakers began to find evidence of discarded chemical weapons in Iraq. But when the information was brought up with the White House, senior adviser Karl Rove told them to “let these sleeping dogs lie.”

Rush was all over this on Friday:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/10/17/rove_s_incredible_wmd_miscalculation

RUSH: I look back on so much, so damn unnecessary. All because a political calculation was made to not revisit something that had already been determined, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I swear, I do not understand this. How can you be a member of the Bush administration and know every day the lies that are being told, the allegations that are being made, the absolute crumbling of the integrity of the institution of the presidency that was undergoing, and not even stand up and defend it. I don't understand it.