You are here: Home » General » Nope. No WMDs At All in Iraq
There really weren’t any WMDs in Iraq.
This laboratory here was just an aspirin factory, or maybe an ice cream shop.
Because who can resist a big double-scoop of Anthrax Brickle?
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
You call a lab with manuals and books weapons of mass destruction? By that definition there are weapons of mass destruction in most science labs at major universities across North America and Europe. Should Bush attack all of those as well?
Well, it wasn't as much the books and manuals but what was in the books and manuals – you know, the stuff he wasn't supposed to have (and the stuff we're consistently told he didn't have).
So now the USA is justified in invading a country because of what they have in their books and manuals?
I don't remember being consistently told that Iraq didn't have books and manuals on weapons and warfare. At one time I WAS consistently told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that they were a threat to the USA, and that the US government had proof of the existence of these weapons. Subsequently, none of these weapons have been found. You're really stretching it to include a lab with some books and manuals.
Maybe someone should invade the US for having offensive written material lying about (Hustler).
I think you missed the part of the argument that said that Iraq not only had WMDs but the means to produce more. The books, manuals, and the laboratory in which they were found constitute the latter. On balance, I'd consider the means to produce more WMDs more dangerous in the long term than the WMD themselves.
I don't believe that I've missed any part of the argument, but it seems I must have missed that part of the news story that said that WMDs were discovered. What the story said was that they found a lab with some manuals and books as well as some chemicals (it didn't say what the chemicals were). So, no WMDs. No delivery system. Squat. Means to produce more? Of what? In what quantity? There's uranium in the ground in Northern Canada. Is that proof that the Canadian government has nukes?
You're stretching this particular news report to suit your own prejudices.
By the way…who gets to decide that having weapons of mass destruction is a wrong thing, worthy of invasion? After all, Russia has them. So does Israel. So does North Korea. Hey, the good ole USA has some too, and is actually the only country to have actually used the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. So, from where comes the moral imperative to decide that Iraq's "supposed" WMDs make them liable to being invaded, especially by the country that seems to have supplied them with WMD materials and supplies for quite some time? The reality, as we all know, is that none of this matters. The US is bigger, stronger, more advanced, and can do as it wishes. The US can decide what is "right". But that doesn't make it so, and it would be refreshing if Bush would just tell the truth about his motivations. He does what he does because he can. God and morality have nothing to do with it.
Gerry, that's nonsense. We've seen at least two cases (and I vaguely remember one or two others) where troops found chemical weapons or chemical weapons traces in Iraq already. We have received intelligence reports about groups of trucks leaving Iraq into Syria (and thence into the Bekaa Valley) that we've not even begun to pursue (much to our discredit) between the time Resolution 1441 was passed and the time we re-entered Iraq, and we hve intelligence reports from a dozen countries and the UN itself saying that the weapons existed. Further, Resolution 1441 (approved unanimously by the UNSC) stipulated as a matter of fact that Iraq possessed WMDs in violation of other UN resolutions and as such was in "material breach" of those resolutions. That was not a matter for speculation in the international community until the point at which the US and other menbers of the Coalition decided to enter Iraq to enforce the UN's decision.
Your criticism of the US as the "arbiter" of who gets WMDs and who doesn't is not only unwarranted, but factually incorrect. In the case of Iraq, the decision that it should not have WMDs came from the United Nations itself. The UN demanded that Iraq fully disclose its weapons and WMD production systems. The UN put deadlines on that disclosure. The UN promised "serious consequences" if such deadlines weren't meant. The UN gave member nations all the legitimacy they required to levy those "serious consequences". If that's not quite convincing enough for you, you may remember that one of the conditions of the Gulf War cease-fire was the Iraq disclose and have destroyed their WMDs and WMD programs (among other things, such as not shooting at aircraft in the No-Fly Zone, which they did every single day aftre the cease-fire). Since Iraq was in breach of the cease-fire, they were subject to the resumption of hostilities from the first breach onward. Any member of the first Coalition was not only able, but entirely justified, in taking action on that point alone.
I appreciate how strongly-held your opinion is, but it is not based on facts. You accuse me of stretching facts to suit my predjudices, but I do at least frame my ideas based on what actually happened.
I saw Bush on TV admit that the WMDs that "we all thought were there" not actually be there. We know that the UN did not back the US invasion, despite your posturing about their resolutions. No matter how long you look, and how much you twist the slightest evidence, the US invaded another country without just cause, basically a knee-jerk reaction to 911, and it appears more and more, without proper preparation as well.
I realize that the issue is grayer than the "rights" and "lefts" would have it appear, but you calling this little news item up as proof of WMDs is stretching it a bit too far.
I'll give you credit though, for a level-headed response to my post. Most of the right-wing blogs would have replied with much simpler and more colorful language.
"We know that the UN did not back the US invasion, despite your posturing about their resolutions. "
I"m not sure how much more backing you would ask out of the UN. It seems to me that a unanimous resolution that affirmed that Iraq was in material breach of its other resolutions, set specific deadlines to have certain goals met, and mandated "serious consequences" if those deadlines weren't met certainly appears to be backing enough. It's hardly the fault of the President nor the other members of the Coalition that certain members of the UN decided that it did not mean what it very clearly said. "I'm sorry, I was just kidding about that resolution", isn't much of a withdrawal of UN "backing", especally when we've now learned that most of those who backed out of their words were being bribed considerably to do so.
Using a unanimously-approved UN resolution is not "posturing". It is exactly the "global test" that John Kerry demanded we meet before we take action against tyrants and murderers. He set the goalposts for the Democrats. You're just deciding after the fact to move them.
And you're right. The WMDs that the world expected to be there were not there. It is not entirely honest to then surmise that they were never there. It's posturing of the most dishonest sort to entirely discount the possibility that they were, in fact, there but were moved in the many months leading up to the re-invasion of Iraq. To my knowledge, this is not something we've actively explored, despite intelligence (from our own CIA and elsewhere) that suggests this might be so. This is where I've criticized the President before and I still do.
The reason I brought this news item up is because it is yet another piece of evidence that puts paid to the "Iraq never was doing anything with WMDs" argument.