The "Never Were Any WMDs" Lie

I'm continually frustrated that so many -- many Republicans included -- believe the lie that "there never were any weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq".

It's patently -- provably -- not true!  And the lie can be easily refuted using entirely liberal news sources (because it was all over CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, etc.).  Or Bill Clinton's own words, etc.

So to set the record straight, this is how I (and the liberal news networks) remember the history leading up to the US coalition (there's another lie -- "no coalition" -- there were many countries who joined the invasion) invading Iraq in March of 2003 after a yearlong period of waiting in vain for diplomatic breakthroughs (i.e. no "rush to war" either).

Today many forget that in 1983 the world knew as an absolute fact that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had actually used WMDs (nerve gas) against Iranian soldiers in their war.  They knew because we had video of Iranian soldiers under the effects of nerve gas (I remember watching the video on CBS, and it was disgusting).  And the networks followed up enough that they were convinced the story was true.

So there -- just there alone -- we know for a fact that the "never were any WMDs in Iraq" statement is a lie.  Or at least an intentional omission by those who know, and an ill-informed mantra learned by many who have been lied to by people with a partisan political agenda.

But there's more...

In 1988 US news networks (liberals) knew as an absolute fact that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had actually used WMDs (nerve gas) against Kurdish separatists in Halabja, in northern Iraq.

In 1992, shortly after the UN coalition defeated Iraq in the first Gulf War, the world was appalled as the US appealed for an uprising in southern Iraq and then was slow to respond when it happened and the Iraqi army and air force crushed it.  The belated "no fly zones" couldn't save the rebels, and it only served to keep Saddam Hussein in power when his own people clearly wanted him gone.

In any case, then in 1992, Americans knew as an absolute fact that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government had actually used WMDs again (nerve gas) against Shi'ite separatists in southern Iraq.

And so, starting in 1992, the increasingly frustrated UN imposed sanctions upon Iraq requiring them to allow weapons inspectors "unfettered access" to Iraqi WMD sites so they could find and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.  However, it's clear from the record (this article from NPR details the whole history) these inspectors never had "unfettered access."  In fact, they were continually, routinely, delayed, misdirected and otherwise obstructed, so that they had no way of knowing if they were really finding Iraq's WMD stockpiles.  Many of these inspectors were convinced Iraq was hiding something, still.

This pattern of obstruction continued even as late as 2003, just weeks before the US coalition invasion of Iraq.  Inspectors would be told there were WMDs hidden in a presidential palace (you remember this from the news, don't you???), the inspectors would lead a convoy there to inspect it, Iraqi soldiers would hold them up for 2 or 3 hours, or a full day, so they couldn't inspect it, and then once they finally arrived they found -- surprise, surprise! -- that there was no evidence of WMDs remaining.  That was the repeated history of a decade of UN weapons inspections!

Yes!  The inspectors did find and destroy large quantities of WMDs and many WMD-producing facilities (again, what do the liberals say?  "Never any WMDs in Iraq"???), but there was always a feeling that there was more being hidden.  On more than one occasion, Iraq was found to have been lying and hiding WMD programs which were later discovered by weapons inspectors and destroyed.

Why should they -- and the administration of George W. Bush -- have assumed that they'd found everything when there was so much evidence that Iraq continued to hide and obstruct, and had been shown to have hidden WMDs which were later found?

The history generously supports what President Bush said, in 2002, "We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger."  I agree! 

In late 2002, shortly before the US led invasion, the UN found Iraq to be in "material breach" of its obligations to obey UN resolutions (i.e. it was still avoiding and flaunting its obligations to submit to inspections, and presumably was still hiding things from inspectors).  And Hans Blix, head of the UN inspection regime, was frustrated.  NPR says: "Blix does express frustration with Iraq's failure to account for its vast stores of chemical and biological agents it was known to have at one point."

So there is the crux of my argument -- expressed not by partisan US officials, but by a relatively neutral Hans Blix of the UN: 1) he indicates there were once "vast stores of chemical and biological agents", 2) Iraq was "known to have [them] at one point," and 3) Iraq was responsible for a "failure to account" for these vast stores.  He's admitting that the UN inspectors knew Saddam Hussein had vast stores of WMDs at one point, and the UN inspectors had no way to confirm that they did not still exist!  Obviously, despite continued operations and the destruction of much of Iraq's stockpiles and infrastructure, the total stockpiles destroyed and the entirety of the infrastructure destroyed could not reliably be estimated to equal Iraq's total capacity at one time.  Even Blix, as late as 2002, believed Saddam still had WMDs hidden somewhere.

The most pressing concern, in US foreign policy circles, that a weakening of resolve from Russia, Germany and France (each of which had financial ties to Iraq, and would benefit from a lessening of sanctions) would allow Saddam Hussein to be released from UN sanctions and mandates, so that he could resume his former activities unmolested, and could thereby prove a destabilizing influence in the Middle East, as well as continuing to fund worldwide terrorism.

Admissions and Allowances:

1) It's true.  By 2003, Saddam Hussein may not have had a substantial WMD stockpile.  He might have destroyed it in secret, though there was no way for US intelligence officials or UN inspectors to know this.  Why should they have trusted his word, when in so many other cases he was known to have lied?

2) It's possible, even if Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpile and his biological and nuclear weapons programs had really been dismantled, that he wanted the world to think that he still had such weapons and such capabilities.  He may have seen benefit in making its bitter enemy Iran, or even other enemies, believe he still had the ability to use WMDs.  In fact, it's p
ossible that Saddam Hussein set himself up for invasion by refusing to deny that he still had WMDs.  The obstruction of the inspectors may have been a ruse to make Iraq's enemies think that he still had WMDs when he didn't.  Still, President Bush can't be blamed for not taking Saddam at his word, and thinking the worst of him, right?

3) It's possible the CIA and the Bush Administration overstated the case for WMDs still in Iraq.  That's what administrations do!  The Obama Administration has obviously overstated the case for US citizens' ability to "keep the health plans they like".  Why aren't liberals up in arms about that?  What's clear from the evidence is that the Bush Administration could rationally and realistically believe Saddam Hussein's Iraq still had WMDs, and might retain some ability to create more.  They also believed the inspection regime, and the full array of UN sanctions against Iraq, might soon come to an end, and Iraq might soon be free to reconstitute its WMD programs anew!  So no wonder they might have tried to push the envelope a little in order to provide rationale for an invasion that would put an end to Saddam Hussein's destabilizing shenanigans once and for all.  I believe the Bush Administration thought it was doing the world a favor by invading Iraq, and the evidence presented here shows you why.

That said, it's also possible, as was reported by reliable intelligence sources, that Iraq smuggled the remainder of its WMD stockpile by truck convoy into Syria in the weeks before the US invasion.  It's entirely possible that the WMDs we've been concerned about during the Syrian Civil War in 2013 did in fact originate in Iraq, in 2003.

In any case, here's what the evidence proves:

1) it's provably clear that Iraq did have substantial stockpiles of WMDs at one point,

2) mainstream, typically liberal, news sources reported as absolute fact in 1983, 1988 and 1992 that Iraq actually used nerve gas WMDs against its enemies, internal and external, and

3) UN weapons inspectors had no way to confirm that all of Iraq's WMDs had been destroyed.  In fact, the continual obstruction of inspections by Saddam Hussein's Iraq led rational people, including some of the inspectors themselves, to believe that Iraq still hid at least some WMDs as late as 2003, and might even have some hidden infrastructure to resume production.

The Case for the War On Terror

I post comments in many different fora, and sometimes I will re-post here things I have posted elsewhere. This particular post is a response to criticism of the War on Terror and, specifically, a response to someone else's contention that Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror. I apologize if it is somewhat rambling -- I'm responding to several contentions at once -- but I believe it is reasonably comprehensive, which is a good way to lead into what I'm sure will be further discussion of Iraq and the War on Terror on this blog.

My Post:

The evidence supports increasing connections between terrorists and state governments.

Implicated by the evidence include: Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, N.Korea, Pakistan, Libya and Saudi Arabia to one degree or another.

Someone earlier mentioned the ISI -- that's the Pakistani intelligence service which basically set up the Taliban puppet government in Afghanistan which was later suborned and more or less taken over by Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda operatives. The ISI had a life of its own to the extent which Pres. Musharraf allowed up until the point sometime in September 2001 when US diplomats approached him and said either you can be our enemy and we will dismantle your government or you can desist in all support of terrorists, collar and manage the ISI, and become an ally in the US-led War on Terror. Given this choice, Musharraf "chose wisely."

We have seen terrorist groups exist for decades, without much accomplishing anything but a few dead soldiers and/or civilians. But with the advent of state supported terrorism, the terrorists have vastly increased their capabilities. Part of it is the funding. But more importantly, is bases. The terrorists get protected havens from which to plan and train for attacks, and then to retreat to when the deeds were done.

For this, Sudan, Somalia (whose government didn't really exist for a decade-or-two until last week), and Afghanistan were particularly useful, and northern Iraq also played a part. Osama bin Laden basically moved into anarchic situations with little or no operating governments, and took over the existing infrastructure -- trading chaos for order on his terms. He used these shell-governments like the Taliban to mask and support his buildup of terrorist schemes, several of which succeeded in being more successful than any previous terrorist attacks, a few of which were defeated, but which culminated in 9/11.

While bin Laden used these geographic locations as his base, the "state support" for his operations came from a loosely defined cabal which included several of the aforementioned governments. Proving which ones is difficult. Of these governments supporting anti-US terrorism, one of the most active was Iran. There is also some evidence that Iraq either directly or tacitly supported and or tolerated the terrorists who were working to undermine Saddam's declared enemy the United States.

We know from the UN that Iraq had WMDs at some point. There was never ay evidence that they were destroyed en masse. Inspectors believed that they still existed as late as 2003, but their efforts to prove this were foiled by constant interference by the Iraqi government (in direct violation of several UN resolutions).

There was also an attempted attack, in 2004 or 2005, made by terrorists coming out of Syria launched against Amman, Jordan, which was comprised of WMDs which the Syrians have never been known to have in their possession. The Iraqis DID have these WMDs (as catalogued and quantified by the UN inspectors before they were kicked out and/or played with by Saddam's government), which leads one to an obvious assumption that they were originally Iraqi WMDs which were transferred to Syria, and from there to terrorists.

This scenario -- the transfer of WMDs from Iraq to Syria -- is admitted as a possibility by the Duelfer Report, with some evidence cited, and is seemingly borne out by the Amman attack (which was intercepted and defeated en-route, before they could kill an estimated 1,000-10,000 Jordanians).

The whole list of connections between and with terrorist groups, as well as the presumed transfer of WMDs mentioned above all provide a framework for believing there is/was a fairly sophisticated cabalist network of anti-US and/or rogue governments supporting anti-US terrorism.

The Bush Doctrine is basically to treat these governments which support terrorism against the US as if they were responsible for the actions of the terrorists, which -- let's be real -- they are!

Therefore, Iraq, if it had any connections with terrorists (and I and many others believe they had plenty), then they were a valid target in the War on Terror. So, too, are other governments listed here. If we went into Iran tomorrow I'd be all for it. Or Syria.

Afghanistan was the obvious first target in this war against states who support terrorism, and Iraq was the second, primarily because they were the weakest of these states. If internal support had existed to continue the War on Terror, perhaps further steps would have been taken. However, support for the War on Terror today is questionable.

I believe the primary reason the American Public is not behind the War is that these things have not been adequately explained to them. One could blame the Bush Administration for this, and it would be valid to do so, but as responsible is the fact that the American news media drowns out the President's voice with its incessant antiwar drumbeat which crows over and over again about the deaths and risks and despair, and allows no room for hope that something could be accomplished through this war (which, of course, would be much easier without the active participation of the American media in the anti-war effort).

A Curtain Closes

Some things, even in International Affairs, are permanent. Death is one of those things.

No matter how the spinmeisters -- at CNN or Al Jazeera -- try to play this, one thing about Saddam Hussein's execution cannot be a negative. He is gone forever.

So long as he lived -- even in captivity -- some remote possibilities remained on the table. Now, some of those potentialities are completely eliminated.

There is a complicated interplay of motivating factors for the terrorists/insurgents in the Iraqi front of the War on Terror. One impetus for some of them to keep going was the dream -- however unrealistic -- that if they played their cards right they might somehow restore Saddam and his regime to power in Baghdad. Saddam himself played to this hope (or fear, for those Iraqis on our side).

Now that's impossible. And that cannot but be a great thing for the United States and the War on Terror.

The extent of the impact of Saddam's death may take a while to assess. Some of it may be counteracted by the "martyr" factor (most of which existed while he was imprisoned, regardless of his life status).

But it is likely -- and it is my hope -- that some of the wind will be taken from the terrorists' sails from this simple, but final, action.