Skip to main content

Revisionist History 101: Bush Was Right About Iraq WMD!

Perhaps the most movingly pitiful exercise in American politics is the periodic attempt by Iraq War advocates to grasp at new developments that might somehow vindicate their disastrous, criminal support of that endeavor. The latest attempt came yesterday, when The New York Times published an explosive new story on American soldiers who were wounded while handling corroded munitions extracted […]

BAIJI, IRAQ - APRIL 28: U.S. Army First Lt. Valerie Phipps, 27, of Sherwood, Arkansas points out chemical charts inside a mobile laboratory April 28, 2003 in the outskirts of Baiji in northern Iraq. Preliminary tests done the previous day on the first of about a dozen 55 gallon drums found at the site show that Sarin and mustard gas may be stored inside them. Samples taken from the barrels by a U.S. Army division team will provide more conclusive results available within 24 to 72 hours. (Photo by Marco Di Lauro/Getty Images)

Perhaps the most movingly pitiful exercise in American politics is the periodic attempt by Iraq War advocates to grasp at new developments that might somehow vindicate their disastrous, criminal support of that endeavor.

The latest attempt came yesterday, when The New York Times published an explosive new story on American soldiers who were wounded while handling corroded munitions extracted from Saddam Hussein’s inactive chemical weapons program. The Iraq Study Group has long documented the existence of these decrepit and corroded weapons stocks in Iraq, something which has precisely nothing to do with the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” claims purveyed by war supporters.

Given this readily available information, one would think that people would focus on the human tragedy exposed by this story and not use it as an attempt to revise history. But, sadly, one would be wrong:

Despite the fact that the article repeatedly points out that none of its revelations validate the claims made to justify the war, it has still been seized upon by hawks as some kind of retroactive justification. This is not just ahistorical; it evinces an absolutely staggering ignorance of the realities of American involvement in Iraq.

The inconvenient truth is that the U.S. was aware of the existence of such weapons at the Al Muthanna site as far back as 1991. Why? Because Al Muthanna was the site where the UN ordered Saddam Hussein to dispose of his declared chemical munitions in the first place. Those weapons that could not safely be destroyed were sealed and left to decay on their own, which they did. The site was neither “active” nor “clandestine” – it was a declared munitions dump being used to hold the corroded weapons which Western powers themselves had in most cases helped Saddam procure.

The fact that people thoroughly invested in supporting the war apparently had no idea about this is in many ways emblematic of their complete cluelessness about the country which they helped destroy.

ISIS militants very recently came into control of the Al-Muthanna site, a development which would never have come about were it not for the chaos wrought by the Iraq War. Strangely enough, this event was not similarly seized upon by war advocates as a glorious vindication of Bush’s WMD claims.

Photo: Marco Di Lauro/Getty Images

IT’S EVEN WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT.

What we’re seeing right now from Donald Trump is a full-on authoritarian takeover of the U.S. government. 

This is not hyperbole.

Court orders are being ignored. MAGA loyalists have been put in charge of the military and federal law enforcement agencies. The Department of Government Efficiency has stripped Congress of its power of the purse. News outlets that challenge Trump have been banished or put under investigation.

Yet far too many are still covering Trump’s assault on democracy like politics as usual, with flattering headlines describing Trump as “unconventional,” “testing the boundaries,” and “aggressively flexing power.” 

The Intercept has long covered authoritarian governments, billionaire oligarchs, and backsliding democracies around the world. We understand the challenge we face in Trump and the vital importance of press freedom in defending democracy.

We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us?

Donate

IT’S BEEN A DEVASTATING year for journalism — the worst in modern U.S. history.

We have a president with utter contempt for truth aggressively using the government’s full powers to dismantle the free press. Corporate news outlets have cowered, becoming accessories in Trump’s project to create a post-truth America. Right-wing billionaires have pounced, buying up media organizations and rebuilding the information environment to their liking.

In this most perilous moment for democracy, The Intercept is fighting back. But to do so effectively, we need to grow.

That’s where you come in. Will you help us expand our reporting capacity in time to hit the ground running in 2026?

We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us?

Donate

I’M BEN MUESSIG, The Intercept’s editor-in-chief. It’s been a devastating year for journalism — the worst in modern U.S. history.

We have a president with utter contempt for truth aggressively using the government’s full powers to dismantle the free press. Corporate news outlets have cowered, becoming accessories in Trump’s project to create a post-truth America. Right-wing billionaires have pounced, buying up media organizations and rebuilding the information environment to their liking.

In this most perilous moment for democracy, The Intercept is fighting back. But to do so effectively, we need to grow.

That’s where you come in. Will you help us expand our reporting capacity in time to hit the ground running in 2026?

We’re independent of corporate interests. Will you help us?

Donate

Latest Stories

Join The Conversation