Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 9 years ago

Will leftists have to change their rhetoric about WMD after the latest release of classified documents?

http://www.examiner.com/public-safety-in-national/...

Wikileaks: WMD program existed in Iraq prior to US invasion

"The release by Julian Assange's web site Wikileaks of classified documents reveals that U.S. military intelligence discovered chemical weapons labs, encountered insurgents who were specialists in the creation of toxins, and uncovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

How does this compare to statements by Bill Clinton in 1998?

“Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors…

“Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

”The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. "

Speech from the Oval Office by President William Clinton, explaining his attack on Iraq

reported by The Associated Press

Wednesday, December 16, 1998

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/spec...

Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc

Youtube thumbnail

President Clinton orders attack on Iraq in 1998

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15...

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

"WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today. "

So there is complete agreement. There were WMD in Iraq.

Apparently it's a lie only if George W. Bush says it.

21 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago
    Best answer

    After the 1st Gulf war, as part of a ceasefire(not a peace) agreement, United Nations passed 21 mandates stated that if Saddam violated any of those mandates, he would be facing a military action and depose the government. He failed to comply with 19 out of 21 mandates which makes it legal for UN to invade anytime they want. Remember that Saddam HAD used WMD in the past on his own people, the kurds, on Iran during the 8-year Iran-Iraq War. He also had launched dozens of SCUD missiles at Israel during the 1st Gulf War. He also kept firing UN aircraft many times in no-fly-zones in the 90s. That's also a violation of these mandates. But the UN voted not to go into iraq in the 90s because several countries like France(oil), Germany(engineering), and Russia(Arm and weapon deals) have economic ties with Iraq. These countries want their money but not the US and UK. It also came to light that UN, Kofi Annan, his son, France, and Russia were violating the agreements on the oil for food program and making billions off the Iraqis. The UN did not want us to go in there because their little scheme would be exposed and the flow of money would stop. The UN is a corrupt, ineffective, and a useless organization. Bush Jr didn't start the war, it was LEGALLY still ongoing in a period of cease fire for as long as Saddam complied with UN requirements, he didn't for a period of 12 years. How come so many people especially the answerers here forgets this? Congress authorizes and approved the invasion and idiots still thinks bush jr started an illegal war. George Bush 1 started the war against Iraq, Clinton continued it and Bush 2 ended it. Those are LEGAL facts which can't be debated. After 9/11, there were also an intelligence from the CIA(USA), Canada, Spain, Britain, and Japan that Saddam was building a new and deadly WMDS. We also got an Intel that Saddam was harboring Al-Qaeda in Iraq. It found it was not after we invaded. When everyone thinks of WMDs, its means NUKES ONLY. WRONG ANSWER. It's missing two other categories: Chemical and Biological weapons are part of the WMDS.

    In February 2003, Saddam was given one final chance for 60 days to allows UN to inspect or given a military action. Saddam said no so the US and UK volunteered to invade Iraq and remove him from power. When we got in we found out he never created a new and big bad weapons our intel gave us. Read Saddam's interrogation transcripts. He admits to bluffing about the weapons, NOT beacuse of fear of us but because of IRAN. He was scared that Iran would use this weakness to take advantage of him because Iraq was weak due to the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. We have not found massive stockpiles of WMD but enough has been found to be a concern. To say that "none" has been found is blatantly false: After we defeated the Iraqi army in a few months, we found 294 yellow cakes, 500 chemical weapons, and 344 biological weapons. So yes we found WMDs but not the nukes.

    @NDMA: Do some research. We never gave Iraq Gases and Chemical Weapons. France and Russia are the ones that provides poison gases to Saddam while we gave them weapons. They also help them build a nuclear factuality. Nice revisionist history.

    @tribeca_belle You're a bit off. We found WMDs but we haven't found any nukes. Munitions are required to use on for chemical gases. It was poorly kept and Saddam was supposed to get rid of them in the 90s. But he didn't. We also found 550 tons of yellow cakes. Yellow cake uranium can be used for nuclear reactors for power, they're also the material used for nuclear warheads. For that reason saddam was also banned from having that. it takes a lot in terms of both technology and money to turn yellowcake into a weapons grade material, the fact that iraq didnt currently have that technology doesnt really prove anything, especially considering that iraq was trying to get nuclear weapons as early as the late 1970s. The reactor Saddam purchased from France at that time was destroyed during operation desert storm though and they weren't able to get a new one since. Saddam said that the purpose of buying that reactor was to get the first step in producing an Arab atomic bomb. He never had the chance though. Also Canada got over 500 tons of yellowcake from Iraq to help pay for their effort helping in Iraq. It was in a Canadian newspaper a while back. Shows you how biased people are that we trust for valid info. Most reasonably intelligent people knew that WMD was found(we never find any nukes), but just not reported by the lamestreet media so the ignorant people could bash the US over it. Thereby promoting the corrupt agenda we all find ourselves in now.

  • 9 years ago

    That doesn't say anything about the Iraqi government and chemical weapons. The General Georges Sada story is old.

    The Bush administration had it right before 9/11 changed everything.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOMGyxIaBxE

    Youtube thumbnail

    This is revisionist history at it's finest:

    "In February 2003, Saddam was given one final chance for 60 days to allows UN to inspect or given a military action. Saddam said no ..."

    Hey genius, he let the weapons inspectors in. We invaded anyway.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvDe7Z-ykDo

    Youtube thumbnail

  • NDMA
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Yep, Iraq had WMD's in the 1980's and 1990's.. The US knows this because the US Sold them to Iraq.

    Of course after the First Gulf War UN Inspectors supervised the locating and decommissioning of those weapons. As result Iraq no longer had WMDs from 1999 when the Inspectors finished their work and beyond... Now when did Bush invade Iraq to get rid of those NO LONGER EXISTING WMD's?

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    I think everyone knows that Iraq once had a robust WMD program - it's common knowledge that they gassed the Kurds. The question going into the war, though, is how much they still had in 2003 and was it a real threat or not?

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    They spit, they yelled, they screamed in please,

    While Ol' Georgie searched for the grand ol' WMD's.

    But little did they know, of what lay hidden,

    In the past of a country, now once ridden.

    Just like a cucumber at a sorority house,

    There are WMD's to be found, as many as a spouse.

    Sincerely,

    The Right Honourable Lord Chapman,

    Principality of Sealand

  • 9 years ago

    No. The issue was whether there were WMDs when Bush decided to invade. There weren't any. Even Bush did a comedy routine looking for the missing WMDs under White House furniture. It wasn't very funny. You are deluded.

  • 9 years ago

    Yes, but we need to declare war on Welfare, Obama will spend more on Welfare in 2010 alone, than Bush spent on the Iraq War during his entire term of 8 years````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    With a media complex completely tilted towards the left its a simple matter of telling a lie long enough until it becomes the truth.

    We the sheeple.

  • 9 years ago

    No WMD were found in Iraq...other that some stuff buried and long forgotten left over from the Iran/Iraq war

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    America has a Woman of Mass Destruction eying the White House - Sarah Palin

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.