• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

About those missing WMD's

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Steve said:
how can Iraq declare it has chemical weapons in 2009, ""two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities"" yet some still deny that they had any?

This is what still remains after two wars and thousands of bombs attempted to destroy their WMD stockpiles and infrastructure..

how can a person ignore TWO BUNKERS.. filled and unfilled weapons, precursors, and five plants???

the fact is there are today.. """two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities" in Iraq..

or did Iraq suddenly build the five plants, fill the weapons and hide them in the two bunkers after the war ?
I repeat what Scott Ritter said:

"Whatever dual-use industrial capability that did exist (so-called because the industrial processes involved to produce legitimate civilian or military items could, if modified, be used to produce materials associated with WMD) had been so degraded as a result of economic sanctions and war that any meaningful WMD production was almost moot. To say that Saddam had the capability or the technology to produce WMD at the time of the US invasion is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
The same can be said about Iraqi biological capability. The discovery after the invasion of a few vials of botulinum toxin suitable for botox treatments, but unusable for any weapons purposes, does not constitute a feed stock. And as for the smoking gun that the Bush administration did not want to come in the form of a mushroom cloud, there was no nuclear weapons programme in Iraq in any way shape or form, nor had there been since it was dismantled in 1991."
 
WikiLeaks vs. Donald Rumsfeld: Whom Do You Believe?
Greg Mitchell
February 9, 2011
The new memoir by former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld has drawn wide criticism for his failure to accept any blame on the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascoes, and his claims that when he and others promoted falsehoods about Iraq WMD they were merely minor "misstatements," not lies. But among his other misdeeds was offering misleading statements to the American public about the progress of the war in Iraq, often blaming journalists for being far too critical.
WikiLeaks' massive "war logs" release on Iraq last October exposed Rumsfeld in this regard over and over, but were quickly forgotten by mainstream journalists -- even though the material was not "political" or even from the media but rather from U.S. soldiers on the ground.
"Thanks to WikiLeaks, though," Knickmeyer concluded, "I now know the extent to which top American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world, as the Iraq mission exploded. The American troops, who were risking their lives on the ground, witnessed and documented it themselves... Despite the statements of the top U.S. commanders at the time, it wasn't the journalists in Baghdad who were lying."

http://www.thenation.com/blog/158425/wikileaks-vs-donald-rumsfeld-whom-do-you-believe


Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq
October 7, 2004
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.
In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, asked Duelfer about the future likelihood of finding weapons of mass destruction, to which Duelfer replied, "The chance of finding a significant stockpile is less than 5 percent."
Duelfer said Wednesday his teams found no evidence of a mobile biological weapons capability.
The U.S. official said he believes Saddam decided to give up his weapons in 1991, but tried to conceal his nuclear and biological programs for as long as possible. Then in 1995, when his son-in-law Hussain Kamal defected with information about the programs, he gave those up, too.
Iraq's nuclear program, which in 1991 was well-advanced, "was decaying" by 2001, the official said, to the point where Iraq was -- if it even could restart the program -- "many years from a bomb."

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/


Weapons of Mass Exploitation
8 May 2011
by: Ravi Batra, Truthout
In order to keep his poll numbers up, the president and his officials were in a hurry to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. There was a frenzy of claims that Saddam possessed WMDs including chemical arms and nuclear weapons. But when none were found, the officials were furious that Saddam, so to speak, had deceived them. They were also furious at their critics who wondered aloud if the entire WMD claim was actually a fabrication.

http://www.truthout.org/weapons-mass-exploitation/1304696645


Ex-top soldier: Iraq war 'fiasco' due to Rumsfeld's 'lies'
By Daniel Tencer
October 13th, 2010
The US had no reason to invade Iraq in 2003, and only did so because of "a series of lies" told to the American people by the Bush administration, says Gen. Hugh Shelton, who served for four years as the US's top military officer.
Shelton, who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1997 to 2001, makes the comment in Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior, a soon-to-be-published memoir reviewed at Foreign Policy by Thomas E. Ricks.
Shelton reportedly saves his harshest criticisms for Rumsfeld himself, who he said had "the worst style of leadership I witnessed in 38 years of service."
Shelton goes on to criticize the Bush administration's assertions about Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction.
"Spinning the possible possession of WMDs as a threat to the United States in the way they did is, in my opinion, tantamount to intentionally deceiving the American people," Shelton writes.
Ricks notes that "[t]hese are pretty serious charges, given that they come from the man who was the nation's top military officer for four years immediately preceding 9/11."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/13/iraq-fiasco-due-bushs-lies/
 
Wikileaks Documents Show WMD Were Found In Iraq
Posted by Matt Margolis on Dec 8, 2010

dennis says: December 9, 2010 at 2:02 am
Surely you jest. The "WMDs" you reference were left-over materials gotten through the agency of Saddam's U.S. connections back in the days when he and Rumsfeld had their chummy photo-ops.
Whereas the WMDs referenced by the Bush admin in the run-up to the war stoked fears of nuclear "mushroom clouds" over American cities, of technologically advanced delivery systems wielding and dispersing equally advanced weapons. Which never existed in Saddam's Iraq. It was all hysteria, and everyone who believed such weapons existed was in the throes of that hysteria.
If "jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict" why have no reports appeared in the news of widespread toxic chemical deaths? The conventional weapons Saddam had were far more lethal than your mythical WMD. The known stockpiles of high-velocity explosives the US military failed to lock down after our invasion, which disappeared due to the war planners' gross negligence, are responsible for God knows how many dead and maimed US troops.

cam1 says: December 9, 2010 at 11:26 am
Apparently, Bush too was in on the cover up of this supposed find. Yeah, that's it. Bush knew it all along but did not hold it up like he had just won the Super Bowl. Very plausible. What a good sport. I suppose he just didn't want to embarrass all the liberals who knew that the cause for war was a sham.
Again, more sketchy phony baloney with no substantiation and willing rubes on the right will jump on it like those little black flies circling a fresh pile.

dennis says: December 9, 2010 at 3:55 pm
And it was George W. Bush who got Congress worked up over Iraq's illusory weapons of mass destruction – I never bought that story. Neither did Colin Powell or a lot of other people in the intelligence community. It was delivered and hammered home in the manner pathological liars use, and the more they repeated it the less I believed it.
"Congress saw the confidential and top secret information the President had to work from…" Yes, it was the same material Powell called "BS" from the start, but ultimately was pressured into presenting as legitimate, to his everlasting disgrace, at the United Nations.
Once more, the WMD that posed a real danger were Saddam's known huge stockpile of high explosives. Unfortunately the Bush admin was so focused on getting the nation to believe their BS on Saddam's exotic weapons they failed to exercise ordinary common sense and guard the conventional weapons. Tragic how many people had to die because of that.

http://blogsforvictory.com/2010/12/08/wikileaks-documents-show-wmd-were-found-in-iraq/
 
What in the world are you guys arguing about?

Bush believed Saddam still held WMD's as did most of the rest of the US gubmint, both pubs and donks. The CIA believed he still held them. Most western intelligence services believed Saddam still held WMD's.

In the end, it would appear they were all wrong.

But this does bring up an excellent question for you loons.

For a Bush administration that was so agile that within 8 months of taking office it had planned and executed the 9/11 attacks, how is it the same magicians couldn't figure out how to plant some of them nasty WMD's in Iraq to justify the invasion?
 
TSR said:
Well then, former pres. Bush should never have admitted there were no wmd's in Iraq. At least thats what he said in the interview I saw.

I wonder for National Security reasons if a President might fudge, just a bit?


Or are you talking about his joke "nope, no WMDs here"?
 
Wait a minute, I've figured it out. Not finding WMD's in Iraq was a false flag operation designed to draw attention away from 9/11.

Afterall, Bush was a bumbling, lying idiot who couldn't find WMD's in Iraq, how could he have possible planned and executed 9/11.

:lol:
 
Whitewing said:
For a Bush administration that was so agile that within 8 months of taking office it had planned and executed the 9/11 attacks, how is it the same magicians couldn't figure out how to plant some of them nasty WMD's in Iraq to justify the invasion?


Bush was stupid, he was only smart enough to pull off 911, but not smart enough to fabricate paperwork that proved Iraq had WMDs.

Give your head a shake, man.

He went to Harvard, not Columbia, for gosh's sake. :lol: :lol:
 
Whitewing said:
Wait a minute, I've figured it out. Not finding WMD's in Iraq was a false flag operation designed to draw attention away from 9/11.

Afterall, Bush was a bumbling, lying idiot who couldn't find WMD's in Iraq, how could he have possible planned and executed 9/11.

:lol:
Great point, Whitewing!
 
lightninboy said:
Whitewing said:
Wait a minute, I've figured it out. Not finding WMD's in Iraq was a false flag operation designed to draw attention away from 9/11.

Afterall, Bush was a bumbling, lying idiot who couldn't find WMD's in Iraq, how could he have possible planned and executed 9/11.

:lol:
Great point, Whitewing!

The war in Iraq was a false flag operation, to give Canada smoe free yellowcake, so we could sell the US more electricity.

That is what Saddam was going to use it for, was it not?
 
lightninboy said:
Steve said:
how can Iraq declare it has chemical weapons in 2009, ""two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities"" yet some still deny that they had any?

This is what still remains after two wars and thousands of bombs attempted to destroy their WMD stockpiles and infrastructure..

how can a person ignore TWO BUNKERS.. filled and unfilled weapons, precursors, and five plants???

the fact is there are today.. """two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities" in Iraq..

or did Iraq suddenly build the five plants, fill the weapons and hide them in the two bunkers after the war ?
I repeat what Scott Ritter said:

"Whatever dual-use industrial capability that did exist (so-called because the industrial processes involved to produce legitimate civilian or military items could, if modified, be used to produce materials associated with WMD) had been so degraded as a result of economic sanctions and war that any meaningful WMD production was almost moot. To say that Saddam had the capability or the technology to produce WMD at the time of the US invasion is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
The same can be said about Iraqi biological capability. The discovery after the invasion of a few vials of botulinum toxin suitable for botox treatments, but unusable for any weapons purposes, does not constitute a feed stock. And as for the smoking gun that the Bush administration did not want to come in the form of a mushroom cloud, there was no nuclear weapons programme in Iraq in any way shape or form, nor had there been since it was dismantled in 1991."

given a choice, I'll take the word of the UN and the Iraqis over a pedophile..
 
TSR said:
Well then, former pres. Bush should never have admitted there were no wmd's in Iraq. At least thats what he said in the interview I saw.

over the years since the Iraq war I have seen a fair amount of evidence to conclude that there was WMDs in Iraq..

this little comment ""in 2009,... two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities" is just one such bit of that evidence..

even the final reports listed things such as yellow-cake, and the bunkers full of the high explosive required to make a nuke..

so why was the final conclusion in the mind of so many and the media Iraqi WMDs didn't exist?

I don't know.. that is one question I can't answer can't even fathom a guess..

looking at the this one "fact" """in 2009,... two bunkers with filled and unfilled chemical weapons munitions, some precursors, as well as five former chemical weapons production facilities"

Would you say Iraq possessed chemical weapons?
 
Is Alex Jones right that there were no WMDs in Iraq?

If he isn't right, show me, but you would be going contrary to the mainstream. It is still mainstream that there were no WMDs in Iraq, is it not?
 
lightninboy said:
Is Alex Jones right that there were no WMDs in Iraq?

If he isn't right, show me, but you would be going contrary to the mainstream. It is still mainstream that there were no WMDs in Iraq, is it not?
Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
Thursday, June 22, 2006


WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."


He added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.

"The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," Santorum read from the document.

"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."

Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.

He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.

"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.

Hoekstra and Santorum lamented that Americans were given the impression after a 16-month search conducted by the Iraq Survey Group that the evidence of continuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction was insignificant. But the National Ground Intelligence Center took up where the ISG left off when it completed its report in November 2004, and in the process of collecting intelligence for the purpose of force protection for soldiers and sailors still on the ground in Iraq, has shown that the weapons inspections were incomplete, they and others have said.

"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.

"It is significant. Perhaps, the administration just, they think they weathered the debate over WMD being found there immediately and don't want to return to it again because things are otherwise going better for them, and then, I think, there's mindless resistance to releasing any classified documents from Iraq," Barnes said.

The release of the declassified materials comes as the Senate debates Democratic proposals to create a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq. The debate has had the effect of creating disunity among Democrats, a majority of whom shrunk Wednesday from an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts to have troops to be completely withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of next year.

At the same time, congressional Republicans have stayed highly united, rallying around a White House that has seen successes in the last couple weeks, first with the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then the completion of the formation of Iraq's Cabinet and then the announcement Tuesday that another key Al Qaeda in Iraq leader, "religious emir" Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, was also killed in a U.S. airstrike.

Santorum pointed out that during Wednesday's debate, several Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue.

"This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.

As a result of this new information, under the aegis of his chairmanship, Hoekstra said he is going to ask for more reporting by the various intelligence agencies about weapons of mass destruction.

"We are working on the declassification of the report. We are going to do a thorough search of what additional reports exist in the intelligence community. And we are going to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war," Hoekstra said.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

The answer to why the MSM says there was no WMD in Iraq can most likely be explained by the fact they will believe any story the Dems spew as long as it was meant to destroy a Republican. :wink: This is proven by the fact that they continue to call Bush a liar over WMD when the Dems were the ones that said Saddam had them and something had to be done about it during the Clinton Administration and continued right into the Bush Administration. But according to MSM BUSH LIED. :roll:
 
lightninboy said:
Steve said:
given a choice, I'll take the word of the UN and the Iraqis over a pedophile..
You have no proof the dope is not degraded to toxic waste, do you?

it really depends on what is stored and how it is stored,..

some last an incredible time with no storage and have been banned for that reason..
Organochlorines don't break down easily and can remain in the environment for a long time.

if stored properly, the loss of potency is less then 1.4% per year. but I think your own answer says it best.. even if it was grossly decayed it is still a "toxic waste" that would still kill thousands if dispersed.

as for going against the norm..

it is hard to discount what you see first hand, and even harder when it effects your health.

as many on here know I spend alot of hours at this site.. until recently..

over the last ten years I have been sent to a few dozen specialist in over exposure to toxins. they have all basically had to treat the symptoms without determining the cause, until last month. The VA sent me to a specialist in nerve damage.

it wasn't a diagnosis I had expected, but I also wasn't shocked..
If any of my friends wanted to know I would give them the specifics,

along with finding the cause, the doctor was able to even determine which chemical was the cause, so yes, I can honestly say Saddam had chemical weapons.. Either that or the lab technician at a civilian hospital looking at a random bone tissue sample is part of the coverup as well..

what are the odds of that?
 
Study Concludes That Bush Lied, People Died
January 23, 2008
This study released by the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism reviews statements made by President Bush and his administration members prior to the war in Iraq and concludes that, since many of those statements turned out to be wrong, we were led into war under "false pretenses." Or, basically, that we were lied into war.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/study_concludes_that_bush_lied_people_died/


Bush Lied. People Died.
Mar 11, 2008
The latest report showing that Mister Bush lied to get us into Iraq will be released by the Pentagon tomorrow, but the intrepid reporters at the McClatchy Washington bureau got advance notice from unnamed sources yesterday in a story lost beneath coverage of a wayward governor.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/03/11/474431/-Bush-Lied-People-Died


This just in: Bush lied, people died
June 05, 2008
People will sometimes point out that that bumperstickers oversimplify complicated issues (no kidding). But it appears the bumpersticker "Bush lied, people died" actually understates the case.

http://brewcitybrawler.typepad.com/brew_city_brawler/2008/06/this-just-in-bush-lied-people-died.html


Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled U.S. on Iraq
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
May 28, 2008
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by President Bush and aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052703679.html?hpid=topnews


Bush Lied, People Died: All Hat and No Cattle
Jim Caddell, The Unrepentant Liberal, June 12, 2003
If you followed the news reports before and after the conquest of Iraq, you may have noticed a distinct difference in tone. The administration began to play down weapons of mass destruction and began emphasizing the "liberation" of Iraq. However, after talking about WMD until the whole country was sick of hearing about them, questions were bound to be asked. The contrast between the administration's stance before and after Baghdad's fall is striking:
Connect the dots. The administration is lying to us to drum up a war. We can speculate about their motives, but their intent is obvious.

http://www.opednews.com/caddell_bush_lied.htm
 
I know some of those bunkers degraded into toxic waste and who's to say they aren't all degraded into toxic waste?

And why weren't they found sooner? Where are those bunkers? You don't really know where they are and really if they really exist.

What evidence do we have of WMDs that is substantiated by the U.S. government and not just one branch of the media and is not merely hearsay?

I suspect we'll never have the U.S. government and the MSM agreeing there were WMDs in Iraq because it likes to waiver from one side of the story to the other.
 
lightninboy said:
I know some of those bunkers degraded into toxic waste and who's to say they aren't all degraded into toxic waste?

And why weren't they found sooner? Where are those bunkers? You don't really know where they are and really if they really exist.

What evidence do we have of WMDs that is substantiated by the U.S. government and not just one branch of the media and is not merely hearsay?

I suspect we'll never have the U.S. government and the MSM agreeing there were WMDs in Iraq because it likes to waiver from one side of the story to the other.

You have sniffed way to many contrails or maybe just Alexs rearend
 
lightninboy said:
I know some of those bunkers degraded into toxic waste and who's to say they aren't all degraded into toxic waste?

And why weren't they found sooner? Where are those bunkers? You don't really know where they are and really if they really exist.

What evidence do we have of WMDs that is substantiated by the U.S. government and not just one branch of the media and is not merely hearsay?

I suspect we'll never have the U.S. government and the MSM agreeing there were WMDs in Iraq because it likes to waiver from one side of the story to the other.

Let see.. I showed you actual proof.. yet you doubt..

now you know the chemical weapons in the bunkers were degraded... :?
 

Latest posts

Top