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:
So WMD were, in fact, found in Iraq. Unfortunately, 'Bush Wasn't Lying' is not an especially catchy slogan … http://t.co/iYaZdrT3l0
— Philip Terzian (@PhilipTerzian) October 15, 2014
.@BenjySarlin Can we also agree that those who mocked any statement that there were WMD's in Iraq in '03 & '04 were/are wrong?
— Brad Dayspring (@BDayspring) October 15, 2014
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
Aren’t there some places where people are still getting their legs blown off by land mines we left when we helped them out? Aren’t those WMD’s? Maybe ISIS could help pick those up for us.
Actually we were told that the UN destroyed all the old WMD between 1992-1998. Hans Blix said his inventory lists did not match up with what he found. I guess this proves the UN failed to find all Saddams WMDs
Globullists of all $tripes $imply Make $hit UP!
Vice News says IS “might be using Saddam’s chemical weapons”
https://news.vice.com/article/the-islamic-state-may-be-using-saddams-chemical-weapons-against-the-kurds?utm_source=vicenewstwitter
I’m trying to think of an ‘objective’ retort to your ‘subjective’ opinions Maz … but none come to me right now.
*I read that extensively detailed ‘well-balanced’ NYT article yesterday … and thought the same thing!
Saddam Hussein did have a nuclear weapons program. Anyone interested can read more about that in Kurt Pitzer’s book “Bomb In My Garden.”
I am sure there are more munitions left over from WW1 in Europe today, which would classify as weapons of mass destruction (chemical), alot more than what you could eventually find in Iraq.
Actually, there are. There are teams of people who do nothing but go around WWI battlefields and dispose of vintage chemical munitions. Some of them have been killed, many injured.
http://dailym.ai/1wd9hVG
There is yet another reason why none of this serves to vindicate the Bush administration’s claims of WMD. Think back to that unfortunate speech Colin Powell gave before the United Nations making the case for invading Iraq. Chemical weapons were mentioned, sure, but the salient point of that speech — the thing that ultimately ‘closed the deal,’ if you will — was the belief that Saddam Hussein either had, or was in the process of developing, a nuclear weapon. Remember all the talk about “aluminum tubes” and “yellow cake uranium?” All of that was about making the case that if the U.S. didn’t stop Saddam Hussein, like yesterday,the next thing anybody knew he would have a nuclear weapon, and then Who Knew What Would Happen? Likewise, Condoleeza Rice’s infamous comment, to wit, “We don’t want to wait until a smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud,” was ALL about scaring the public, both here and abroad, of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein. Chemical weapons were mentioned, but were decidedly secondary in the case the Bush administration made.
In addition, Conservatives can hardly claim vindication for Bush when the Pentagon, for five years under Bush and two under Obama, repeatedly denied the very existence of these weapons, even as U.S. soldiers were being injured by them after they had been instructed to destroy them and having been kept in the dar as to the nature of what they were handling. There is simply no way the Bush administration comes out of this looking any less guilty of war crimes than it has already looked.
Several European Countries have Nuclear weapons. UK & France that I know of. They, especially France, are slated to be dominated by Muslims fairly soon. Demographics trumps everything. So what will Muslims in control of Nuclear Weapons do with them? Nothing? Anything? What?
Pakistan has nukes. So does India. The only nation that has deliberately used them on folks is the USA! USA! USA!…the most dangerous rogue nation on earth.
From a strict force balance/deterrence equation, nothing. But it does increase the risk of an accidental launch based on technical failure, launch on warning protocols, and false alarms. That’s just statistics.
Important to note that chemical weapons only qualify as WMD when used against civilian populations, and even then their use is problematic due to the complexities of weather, wind, etc. Used against prepared and protected troops they are almost completely ineffective. This is why most nations are phasing them out, not because they are “inhumane” but because they suck. Artillery is orders of magnitude more effective at killing. Most famously there is the somewhat inaccurate meme that NK could “take out” Seoul in few hours with artillery alone.
I can’t help but wonder if the world will soon see a new type of high explosives, I can sort of imagine it could be a type of firepower equal a multistage thermonuclear device, spurred by advances in physics and nanotechnolgy.
What would all the international deals for disarmament come to mean then if governments were to develop or come to develop new types of weapons of mass destruction? It makes me wonder if anything-to-do-with-anything-nuclear-weapons-disarmament-deals also include a ban or restriction on research and development of futuristic munitions of devastating power.
As Maz says, the vast mass of these antique munitions were so degraded — that about the only way to kill somebody with one. would be to toss one in their bathroom window. Maybe.
It took the New York Times five pages to say that, bill … but you had to read between the lines./
Hi!
Thank you!
And a big HI back! :)
I getting really excited (and stressed) about our Greenwald speaking event in Ottawa too. Just over a week to go. My god!
Justin Raimondo from Antiwar.com highlights how the US itself having Weapons of Mass Destruction is more than a bit unnerving:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/10/14/american-foreign-policy-still-crazy-after-all-these-years/
The Government will continue its PR & propaganda campaign using the following tactics as quoted by Joseph Goebbels during the 1930’s & 1940’s.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” AND
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”
Yes, though Goebbels was one seriously demented dude, he was a brilliant spin doctor and propagandist. To illustrate how spot-on his views on The Big Lie were – and still are – just take a look at some of this morning’s comments. It appears the War Machine is again pushing the “Sadam had WMD” Big Lie and will probably continue to push it, despite the inconvenient but easy-to-get-around “things” called facts.
But, as many of you probably already know, Goebbels was a student and great admirer of Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward L. Bernays, who is often referred to as “The Original Spin Doctor,” and “Father of Public Relations.” An inconvenient and ironic fact for Goebbels was that Bernays was Jewish.
If I can figure out how to turn the following web address into a live link, here’s a NYTimes article on Bernays, one of the main wizards behind the 20th century curtain (I guess you can just copy/paste or just find it, if link doesn’t work):
First Among Flacks.
I just read the NY Times article. The shells weren’t just in one facility. They were scattered around. Some of the bomb disposal techs got exposed to it. In an effort to classify the existence of these chemical weapons (not sure why since it would seem to help justify the war), the techs never received proper treatment and were sent right back into the field without proper treatment. Also they never received any medals for their injuries (which they probably would have received if injured while disposing of conventional IEDs).
The bigger issue is that now ISIS controls these facilities. The NYT article repeatedly points out that the weapons were from before the 1991 war. So Saddam’s Iraq hadn’t actually violated the treaty. But regardless, we never disposed of all of the weapons while we were in control and now they are seemingly in ISIS hands.
I’m not sure if its the case that ISIS is in control of the weapons, although they do control the site. Those weapons that couldn’t be degraded to the point of inoperability (although they are still dangerous to their handlers) were sealed up (details of how this was done in the ISG report).
Just to refresh your memory: Saddam Hussein was directly linked to the 9/11 terror attacks. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were clearly having frequent conversations with each other that were very well documented at the time–obviously you did not study the history of the whole thing before you wrote this article. Your article just winds up shooting itself in the foot by hammering home the obvious: Bush was right all along that Saddam Hussein inextricably and undeniably had enormous mounds of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) and that alarmed all citizens of the United States to unanimously declare war on Iraq in the name of keeping all of us here at home safe. Sorry.
I hope this was a joke.
Yes it’s a joke that will wind up being a nationally understood truth to all middle school students in history class in the year 2030.
Haha alright, I just had to make sure!
Over people of conscience’s dead bodies.The warmonger liars aren’t brave or honorable people.They will cut and run at the first real domestic resistance to their stealing of American wealth and letting our troops be used as neocapitalist thugs,with absolutely no payoff to the common American.
“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.”
The problem is that the predominance of the national press insisted that there were NO chemical weapons in Iraq in its effort to discredit the Bush administration.
This is a slap in the face of those who insisted that Hussein had either destroyed his chemical weapons or turned them over to the UN for accountability.
Further, these chemical munitions, some 5000 units, where disposed of OUTSIDE the Al Muthanna site and NOT accounted for by the UN inspectors….per the NYT.
This “validation” of GWBush isnt about his “justification” for war……its about the lack of intellectual honesty in this nations media.
The mistake that Saddam Hussein made was not to step down and let his loyal Christian deputy Aziz take over for some time. That way he could have averted the war altogether. Had that happened Bush would have been forced to back down. But Saddam was let down by his own ego and by his two worthless sons who presumed they were dynastic princes. As an example, compare with the case of Iran where demonization of the leader there has virtually stopped once Ahmedinejad left office. Bush would have found it impossible to muster domestic support with a Iraqi Christian head of state.
Buhs never had popular support and what ‘support’ he had was based on lies. Not just about WMD either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq
And still they lie.
Hey, we’re back in 2003…when the media was BANGING THE WAR DRUM. I guess that you were born after that.
“the predominance of the national press insisted that there were NO chemical weapons in Iraq” [citation needed]
Revisionism and the subject of chemical weapons aside for a moment, America has WMDs, Israel has WMDs, Pakistan has WMDs, in fact many countries do.
Or is this like with Iran (who don’t appear to want them, incidentally) – only ‘approved by the US’ nations may have them?
Russia has loads of them. How come they’re “allowed to”? Why does the US only attack people who currently have lesser defense? Seems a bit convenient.
Bullies always pick on little guys they feel confident that they can beat up.
Northwoods, it follows that Bush knew dam well that Iraq had no WMD. A coward would never take such a risk.
Cluelessness or willful ignorance? To admit that they were wrong is, unfortunately, asking too much. They’re too invested in being right for the sake of their own inflated egos than they are in what’s best for everyone else. For the most part, they are a bunch of narcissistic hacks.
Though it’s never brought up once that the r1b 5-eyes plus entity has more wmd than anyone on earth and it’s really the only group that’s committed mass genocides, even instigating genocides in other regions.
Can we please have an international intervention to relieve our genocidal intel from all of it’s wmd’s and it’s completely unacknowledged softwar-wmd’s.
It’s really a ridiculous enforced narrative. It’s like little 1st graders at a public school.
“Still the man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”
The absolute only thing these bastards like to hear is the tinkle of coin,as all other things are superfluous to evil scum.