CBS Marks Iraq War Anniversary by Hitting Bush Administration on WMD Intel
On Sunday's 60 Minutes on CBS, correspondent Bob Simon noted the eighth anniversary of the war in Iraq by describing how "questions still remain as to why the United States launched the war in the first place. The Bush administration said it was because of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. But there were no such weapons."
In the segment that followed, Simon interviewed Rafid Alwan – also know by his code-name 'Curve Ball' – a former Iraqi chemical engineer who claimed the Hussein regime was pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Before the interview Simon implored viewers to "ponder how anyone could ever have believed one word he [Alwan] said." After the interview, Simon concluded that the Bush administration had fallen for "one of the deadliest con jobs in history" by listening to Alwan and going to war in Iraq.
Simon framed the segment as a story of the Bush administration being so desperate to go to war with Iraq that it was willing to listen to any source: "Tyler Drumheller was the CIA's European Division chief at the time. He says when doubts were raised inside the agency over Curve Ball, the skeptics were shouted down....Curve Ball had already provided what the Bush administration needed to beat the war drums against Saddam Hussein."
Simon failed to make any mention of the conflict nearing its end or of the successful 2007 troop surge.
Below are portions of the March 13 60 Minutes segment. Read the full story here.
7:05PM ET
BOB SIMON: Next Saturday will mark the eighth anniversary of America's invasion of Iraq. And after all this time, questions still remain as to why the United States launched the war in the first place. The Bush administration said it was because of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. But there were no such weapons.
So how did U.S. intelligence get it so wrong? Incredibly, it was all because of one man – an Iraqi defector code-named 'Curve Ball' – who spun a web of lies which convinced America's top spies. His allegations became the crown jewel of the case Colin Powell made to the United Nations before the war.
Three years ago we told you part of this story. But we were missing one crucial element: Curve Ball himself. We couldn't find him. Well, finally, we did. So tonight, we're going to introduce you to the man and ask you to ponder how anyone could ever have believed one word he said.
(...)
SIMON: Tyler Drumheller was the CIA's European Division chief at the time. He says when doubts were raised inside the agency over Curve Ball, the skeptics were shouted down.
TYLER DRUMHELLER: There were meetings that were so angry and so violent. You know, people cursing at each other, and yelling, 'How dare you question us?'"
SIMON: Curve Ball had already provided what the Bush administration needed to beat the war drums against Saddam Hussein.
CHARLES DUELFER [LEADER OF UN INSPECTIONS TEAM IN IRAQ]: He offered the best rationale for the course of action that the White House elected to take. The fundamental argument on weapons of mass destruction did pivot on this guy, Curve Ball.
SIMON: To make that argument before the world, President Bush selected the most trusted man in his administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell. Could Secretary Powell have given his speech to the United Nations that he did give if there hadn't been a Curve Ball?
DRUMHELLER: I don't think so. There would have been nothing else to talk about, except things that had been talked about a million times before.
COLIN POWELL: What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
SIMON: On Feb. 5, 2003, Powell stated with no qualifications that Saddam Hussein had mobile biological weapons. The only source for that? A man no American had ever questioned, Curve Ball.
(...)
[RAFID ALWAN (AKA CURVE BALL) WALKS OUT OF INTERVIEW]
SIMON: And with that Rafid Alwan, the man who pulled off one of the deadliest con jobs in history, disappeared back into the shadows.
— Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
wmd's were found - but even
Submitted by TruthMonger on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 1:41pm.
wmd's were found - but even if they were not it was still prudent to go in there and find out - but no - liberals must remain relevent somehow i guess The president does not have the luxury of 20/20 hindsite either - like a smug lib doesCongratulations Jimmy Carter!
guess these don't count
Submitted by dmacleo on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 1:47pm.
yellow cake, barrels of chem weapons, tooling to rebuild chem weapon factories... guess wmd ONLY means a specific type of nuke. idiots.Whoa there Hoss
Submitted by ricklail on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 1:50pm.
i think Clinton talked about this before GWB. Look at all the Demorats that were fooled too. We know he used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Why do you want to forget that part of it Bobby boy?
The Bushies need to be held accountable
Submitted by Tomorama on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 2:00pm.
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...Isaw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
Bob Simon is a liar
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 1:59pm.
WMDs were found all over Iraq.
And had we not dilly-dallied around and moved in sooner, we would have found even more.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Yes, 60 minutes is shameless..........but that is no surprise
Submitted by merly1 on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 2:03pm.
Here are things that curveball did NOT have to fake or present: 1. America was at odds with Saddam perpetually from 1991-2003 2. Saddam defintely was harboring a who's who of terrorists--Nidal, Abbas, Yasin, etc 3. Saddam WAS the world leader who openly embraced paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers! Indeed, Bush's 2003 SOTU speech struck the perfect balance in Clintonesque triangulation with his chorus of "He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it. " Did Powell go too far at the UN? Probably....but his much, much larger blunder was ending the ground war way to early in 1991-----oddly 60 minutes wants to part of that story. I wonder why ;o)60 Minutes' dishonesty
Submitted by Arminius on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 3:01pm.
Of course, WMD was not the only reason we removed Saddam from power. In the book "Colossus," Niall Ferguson outlined five main reasons:1. Iraq had consistently failed to comply with UNSC resolutions and might—no one could of course be sure, precisely because of Iraqi noncooperation—have retained or recovered the capability to use or to export chemical or biological weapons.
2. Saddam was a bloody tyrant who had committed crimes against hu-manity, if not outright genocide.
3. The overthrow of Saddam might help to break the gridlock of the Middle East peace process by sending an unequivocal signal of hostility to any regime that defied the United States—pour encourager les autres, as much as to get rid of Saddam himself.
4. Creating a democratic Iraq might also begin a wholesale “transformation of the Middle East” (in the words of Condoleezza Rice), with Iraq once again setting an example for the other Arab states.
5. Controlling Iraq might create alternative bases for U.S. troops in the Middle East, allowing them to leave Saudi Arabia (and thereby meeting at least one of the radical Islamists’ demands.)
All five of those reasons were and remain legitimate.
60 Minutes is also dishonest when they portray Curveball's information as the main source of intelligence regarding WMD. Simon appears to forget that Bill Clinton kept sanctions on Iraq during his entire administration, signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, and launched a preemptive on Iraq in December 1998. All of this was done because Clinton said Iraq had WMD and all of this was done BEFORE Curveball defected.
60 minutes - WMD.. what a bunch of c--p
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 3:02pm.
The only source? Ah come on here. How about the "President of the World," Bill Clinton (complements of Chris Matthews and the fine folks over at MSNBC).
Now make a note here Bob Simon. We all know that there was mostly nothing but agreement prior to the start of the Iraq War in March of 2003 on the issue of WMD's on both sides of the isle, but let's not forget that there was also much agreement offered up months later - from this source (other notables speaking out would also include John Edwards and former Clinton Sec. William Cohen.) I note that this is quite an edited excerpt; however, the message here is dead on Clinton's view (my bold):
Let's be clear here. President Bush made the clear decision to go to war in Iraq to rid the earth of Saddam Huessein, a mad man who'd already cost the world close to 2 million souls; however, it was also President Bush who "inherited," the evidence of WMD's and the view that Saddam was a threat to the US and it's allies and to the peace of the world, from his predecessor, Bill Clinton.
Gary..so it was all Clinton's fault?
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:21pm.
You have informed us just in the past few days that Bush inherited 9/11, inherited intelligence failures and impediments, inherited the dot.com bubble, inherited the housing bubble, inherited a lousy economy, inherited the evidence of WMDs, inherited the menace of Saddam Hussein...
Don't misunderstand, I am fully aware of, and fully reject, the "Blame Bush" syndrome, but you seem especially determined to replace it with a "Bush is Blameless" mantra. At some point, on some level, Bush must be assigned some responsibility of his own.
Jer
Jer..
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:40pm.
I never suggested it (other than the Monica job) was all Clinton's fault. That one, he can hang his head (her head) on. I'm still looking forward to a national mainstream media person while interviewing Bill Clinton, to ask him a few questions. They could be about Blood Diamonds, where the 100K bodies were in Kosovo are; why he turned his back on Rwanda, on the DR Congo, on Sierra Leone, on the Ivory Coast, on the HIV/Aids pandemic in Africa; how he felt about the dot.com bubble and it's collapse which led to the 2001 recession and the re-appearance of massive annual budget deficits; how he felt about creating the fuel for the housing bubble, etc. It's not just about the "blame Bush" syndrome, you see - it's even more about the other side of the stick as well. As always, NB is about media bias. (;~/ garyClinton and Rwanda...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 6:02pm.
Well I know that Clinton has expressed his personal regrets concerning inaction with respect to Rwanda. However, I seriously doubt that the massive and prolonged intervention which would have been required could have garnered the public and political support necessary to sustain it. There is no way the profoundly Clinton-hostile GOP-controlled Congress would have co-operated.
Jer
goodness Jer..
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 6:44pm.
.. feel like I'm chasing a never ending segue track.
if Bush could get the support of the vast majority in Congress to support his invasion of Iraq, why the blank, could not Clinton act on Rwanda, DR Congo, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Darfur, Checyna, HIV/Aids in Africa etc? Goodness we had an economy then - and a happy press that would have supported him in most any endeavor.
As Clinton expressed his so called regret; in which he infamously stated, "Never Again," the much larger than Rwanda conflict, next door in the DR Congo was flaring up. Depending on which report you read.. some 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 million human beings died in that carryover from the Rwandan genocide by the end of the Clinton era. This would be the largest loss of life resulting in any single conflict since the end of WW II.
For this NYTimes contributing writer, James Traub would lay out the revisionist history to be followed to the tee by our national mainstream media, for the remainder of time:
What a ____ing lie. The world from 1997 through the end of 2000 was a horror.
And this sort of stuff was going on.. Return to the Congo -Genocide (120,000 people) in the Eastern Congo in Feb. 1997. Shhh . this is not good for the Clinton legacy. (;~/ gary
Hey Gary:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 6:50pm.
Give 'em an embedded graphic.
You're our last line of defense, man!
hey Sick o'
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 7:07pm.
Hey man, I linked a video of horrible genocide and human suffering that not a soul in our national media had any interest in - all for the need to protect "The World's President - Bill Clinton," and you want a silly graphic? There's a time and a place.. will research and will be back for another day. cheers, ('~> gary
Jer .. to be fair
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:55pm.
Clinton inherited the Feb., 2003 WTC bombing.
Had Bush inherited that one, I suspect ( I don't know, but I suspect) he would have been clawing to tear down the wall between Justice and Intelligence, rather than making it taller.
Someone in the press might have asked Bill Clinton about that - perhaps a few hundred times?Clinton also inherited a recovering growing economy.
Might have been interesting, if at some point along the way, a national media which has on hundreds (thousands?) of occasions noted (incorrectly) that Clinton left a roaring economy (silly paper surpluses, etc.) to Bush - that Bush promptly destroyed by passing the Bush tax cuts (why not call them stimulus?), would have noted - or asked him, "So, President Clinton. How will history look at your legacy - after all when you came into office you'd inherited a recovering growing national economy, but left office in the midst of an historic crash and crumbling economy?"
Imagine such!
(;~/ gary
Jer
Submitted by Arminius on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 1:53am.
Sticking to the topic of this thread, the Clinton administration left office in January 2001 still claiming that Saddam had WMD and, thus, was "a clear and present danger at all times." Madeleine Albright in her farewell speech at the State Department explicitly said that her administration was passing along the problem of Saddam Hussein to the Bush administration and that her successor, Colin Powell, had assured her that that the new administration would maintain pressure of Saddam to destroy his WMD. Now, given all of that, why would you take issue with anyone pointing out, accurately, that Bush inherited the problem of Saddam's WMD? Sources: http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010801.htm http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1011102.htmBush himself said we did not find WMD
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 3:05pm.
So did Arie Fleischer, Donald Rumseld and Karl Rove and Condi Rice. Are these folks lying about not finding WMD as well?They said they did not find
Submitted by bassndude on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 3:14pm.
They said they did not find the all the WMD's that they had intel on. One of the sources said lately that he intentionally lied about some of the WMD's. But keep in mind the several tons of yellow cake they removed, and the centrifuge parts they also found. Now that may not be WMD's per se, however, they have but one purpose.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Actually Bush said
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 3:20pm.
That one his greatest regrets was faulty intel and the fact we did not find WMD. I believe the yellowcake was there legally and we knew about before invading I am not saying Bush lied. Everyone including the democrats were fooled and I don't blame Bush for invading. However anyone that says people are lying about not finding WMD, we need to include the majority of the Bush administration."Everyone including the
Submitted by Smartypants on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 4:23pm.
"Everyone including the democrats were fooled and I don't blame Bush for invading..." And yet it is the constant and consistent message from the left that Bush did indeed mislead on the issue of WMDs in Iraq. Further, the message from much of the media and Dems is that it was only Bush who said that Iraq had WMDs. Sure, it was Bush's decision to invade Iraq, but he had the vote of Congress to do so as well. Yet, Bush took virtually all of the hit, as if he made up the whole WMD argument on his own. I bet if you took a random street poll, most people to this day believe Bush concocted the idea of WMDs in Iraq, because the liberal press has been spinning this story now for almost a decade.Bush has set a very high bar
Submitted by TruthMonger on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:28pm.
Bush has set a very high bar for what he considers WMD - wmd material was found and actual older wmd's were found but they were not regarded as wmd again because Bush set the bar so high you would almost have to find a nuke missile on the launch pad fueling up to take off any minute and again as mentioned above wmd was not the only reason for removing hussein - but the media couldn't smear Bush on any of those reasonsCongratulations Jimmy Carter!
Why stop there?
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 3:08pm.
Using the same logic, FDR waitied two years longer than he should have to get involved in WW2 and as a direct result millions died who didn't have to.Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
c5then:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 4:48pm.
Mr. Roosevelt realized before a great many other people that we were going to go to war with the Axis Powers. But the President of the United States can't declare war. I don't think it is correct to state Mr. Roosevelt waited two years. There was not only considerab leresistence to becoming involved in that war, there was active support for Germany.apologist angle duly noted
Submitted by TruthMonger on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:29pm.
apologist angle duly notedCongratulations Jimmy Carter!
Call it apologist or
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:40pm.
whatever angle you wish, as long as you call it "correct".Jer
the buck stops with roosevelt
Submitted by TruthMonger on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 6:20pm.
the buck stops with rooseveltCongratulations Jimmy Carter!
"Truth"Monger:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 9:33pm.
Mr. Roosevelt was President - he wasn't Dictator. It was the right wing, conservatives in this country (Henry Ford, Charles Lindburgh, et. al.) who supported Germany and opposed American intervention in a "European" war.In fairness, j. frank...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 10:28pm.
There were many on the left who were also sympathetic with Germany, and opposition to intervention was the sentiment of the overwhelming majority of Americans regardless of their political persuasian.Jer
WWII
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 11:03pm.
My father was about 13 in 1939. He told the story once of how he and his friends would hang out (for want of a better term) in a buddy's barn and discuss if and when the U.S. would enter the war, and which side they would enter on. After the severe loss of human life in WWI and the Great Depression Americans weren't anxious about entering a European war, that, on it's surface was about land. I don't believe the public was aware of the Final Solution.Radical1979:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 1:23pm.
I agree with you. It's important to study history - and particularly important to study it in the light of the knowledge available at the time.It is also important to try and view history ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 1:03am.
with an understanding of the societal mores present within the time frame being studied.
MD
jfrank - a president is
Submitted by TruthMonger on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 11:16pm.
jfrank - a president is responsible for everything that happens during his administration. for example not only has Bush been held acccountable for getting us into the Iraq war - he's been held responsible for almost every bad thing happening in the world since he was first elected...Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
When Bill Cohen speaks...
Submitted by Tomorama on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 3:53pm.
Shawn, think about what Bill Cohen wrote in 2003, I say they are somewhere, Syria perhaps?
I don't think those unabated trucks had Tasty Cakes in them, talk about the biggest con in history, THIS IS IT.
I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons,.I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
Tomorama...re "Bill Cohen speaks"
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 4:36pm.
A few months ago when you [I think it was you} posted this quote, I tried to locate the source but only found a bunch of references to it made by bloggers and commenters, none of whom linked its origin.
I'm not saying Cohen never said it or wrote it--I assume he did--but I'm still interested in reviewing the original remarks for context, etc. Can you help?
Jer
Jer .. Tomorama. On Cohen's view
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:17pm.
I spent my 5 minutes - time is up - ha! I did find that Walter Kagen, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who wrote a monthly column for the Washington Post noted Cohen's view in this June 8th, 2003 column, A plot to Deceive?
That looks to be within a month of the deed.
(;~. gary
Thanks, Gary....
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:34pm.
Actually Boudin had linked Kagan's article for me when this issue arose previously. I'm still interested in the source of the excerpted quote. I did a google search on that prior occasion and gave up after about an hour, having found multiple references but no original authority.
Jer
Jer.. on Cohen
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:44pm.
I can't find the transcript, either - but I'm guessing perhaps that it was on the Wolf Blitzer Report on April 4, 2003. There are references to the 4th, and Wolf introduced that Cohen would be on, here.
(;~> gary
Appreciate it, Gary...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 6:08pm.
That's probably the occasion. You got a lot farther a lot quicker than I did when I was looking.Jer
60 Minutes is simplistic
Submitted by Free Thinker on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 3:58pm.
60 Minutes is simplistic journalism geared for simplistic minds. There were 17 reasons listed for going into Iraq at a dangerous time when the President didn't have the luxury of looking back 10 years to armchair qb. I haven't seen the show, but I suspect that 60 Minutes doesn't even address any of the other issues and rationale of the time in their narrow story. At some point the left is going to have to move on and credit Bush for his actions and quit trying to rewrite history.It's funny, liberals like to
Submitted by Smartypants on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 4:31pm.
It's funny, liberals like to think of themselves as "nuanced" and deep minded intellectuals. Yet, they use the most simplistic of logic for the purpose of bashing the former president. The entire Iraq issue is now looked at in a vacume, as if WMDs were the only focus of the Bush Administration, and that the entire conflict was all on Bush. Yet, we had multiple UN Resolutions being openly ignored and laughed at by Hussein. We had the Iraq military shooting at UN planes over the "no fly zone". We had a report out of Britain that Saddam Hussein was pursuing uranium in Africa, a story the British have never backed away from. We had GW Bush sitting at the leader of the free world in the aftermath of 9/11, with everyone (especially liberals) imploring him to never let anything like that happen again. Some even blamed him for letting it happen the first time. Liberals set up impossible scenarios whenever there is a Republican president. With Bush, it was all about stopping another terrorist attack at all cost. Yet, they opposed virtually everything he did to accomplish just that. They bragged about "killing the Patriot Act," they opposed surveillance of overseas calls to known terrorists; they bitterly opposed Guantanamo facility; etc. GW Bush was never going to do anything right to the left.The Actuality.
Submitted by Ashrak on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 4:35pm.
The finding of roughly 500 binary chemical munitions, which Saddam had declared and then claimed were long destroyed, constitute the possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Even though media ignores all the other reasons, which were laid out for all to see in the Joint Resolution for Use of Force and puts the focus on WMD, they lost that argument also.
What the heck do the lefties think Clinton was talking about and so sure of? Binary munitions!
To be sure, what went to Syria and an explanation of what the oil pumping there aside from the Oil For Food program still needs to be explained.
Thanks for that,
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 5:30pm.
Ashrak. I'd been looking for articles about the weapons that were mentioned previously, but didn't recall they were the binary type of nerve gas weapons. Bill C. and the rest of the dem leadership knew about it, they were only too happy to run to a microphone any time they could find one, to expound on what they knew about Hussein's WMD's. And, to explain to us out in fly-over country how much the Euro's, Russians and even the Chinese and Indians agreed with them.Saddam used WMD's
Submitted by scarebear83 on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 6:40pm.
Do people forget that WMD's *were* used at one point by Saddam? Sure it was back in '88 but they were used nonetheless. By the time the U.S. decided to look into it I'm sure he got rid of some of the evidence.
WMD not found by the Media but by everyone else.
Submitted by Avitar on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 8:45pm.
1) Six weaponized strains of germs,
2) Five hundred and Fifty tons of yellow cake Uranium ready for enrichment. (Enough to make hundreds of nuclear devices or dozens of big bombs.)
3) Two hundred barrels of chemical agents.
4) Thousands of empty artillery shells ready for filling. .
5) Chemical Ali's Aerosols dispersing rigs for delivery of Chemical agents by helicopter.
Add it up and you have a known child pornographer caught with professional video equipment, factory grade video duplication equipment, S&M sets stocked with whips and chains and candid pictures of every child in town along with records of their daily routines.
But 60 Minutes wants to see the finished film complete with title credits before they will admit that cop on the beat George W. Bush was right.
Hi Avitar
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 9:01pm.
Like I was saying earlier I believe the yellowcake was there legally and we knew abou it prior to invasion. I realize that the media says we did not find WMD, but how many republicans currently in the Congress say we found WMD? If we did find WMD, surely someone except for Rick Santorium must have spoken out.Reposting an oldie of mine
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 03/14/2011 - 8:54pm.
The facts are, Saddam Hussein's Iraq had and used Chemical weapon against the Iranians, Kurds, and Marsh Arabs; attacked 6 nations (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, and Bahrain); violated the terms of the Gulf War surrender, planned the assasination of a former U.S. President, collaborated with and harbored terrorists; and was – according to The New York Times - one year away from building and Atomic Bomb before he was finally overthrown.
None of the clever arguments I have heard to date have done anything to make the Cyclosarin, Mustard Gas, Sarin, Tabun, VX gas, and (tons of) Uranium go away. And the UN has even admited that the "old" WMD found was not degraded.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/forums/topic-discussion/invasion-iraq-still-right-thing-do#ixzz1Gcpn1oHk
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال