From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
there's one slight problem tho...
Published on March 20, 2006 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Politics
Over the past 3 years, The "WMD" debate has raged on. Before the war, I doubted the administration's claims (as did 160 or so congressmen). I was told by more than one congressional staffer "you don't know...they have evidence we haven't seen that PROVES everything" before we invaded Iraq.

After the invasion, as our occupation commenced, I was told "we will find them." Then, after a couple of years finally the belated admissions by the President and other true believers in Washington that there were no WMD's in Iraq as previously reported. The WMD arguement never held much water to anyone who engages in critical thinking. It only served the overly nationalistic audience the Bush administration was trying to enrage. It just didn't stand to logic that all these things were going on when only months before 9/11 all reports suggested sanctions and "boxing Saddam in" was very effective in eliminating any threat from Iraq. It was obvious to someone who had watched the debate since 1990 that the "neocons" pushed on everyone to the point that making boisterous anti-saddam speeches were in vogue to even the most liberal politician in the 1990's. Iraq became a way any politician could "look tough" while offending no one who mattered, or voted.

But in right wing circles, where pundits come to play and spin, there was another explanation to what happened to the WMD's.

They went to Syria. Saddam boxed em all up before we came and sent truckloads of weapons undetected over the Syrian border. This is what pundits on the right whisper to each other when hearing disturbing news that there were no WMD's in Iraq. Their explanation allows them to not admit anything.

There's only one problem with that position. !st off, does anyone think Syria wants to be invaded for "holding some stuff" for Saddam Hussein? Syria may be a country who doesn't like us, but they're not stupid. Plus, we did indeed find WMD's in Iraq shortly after the occupation began. So none of the weapons were moved. How do I know? Here's how...

I spoke to a former Marine, Dustin Harmer. Dustin served with an engineering support division that went out and actually dug up land where reports said the WMD's would be found. And in many cases, they were.

One slight problem...they all had a stamp on them...each and every tube full of Ricin, Mustard Gas and all those nasty things everyone has been talkin bout for years now. The stamp was simple, but incriminating. They were all property of the USA.

As Dustin put it, "We found em all over the place. But every time, they had US markings on them and we were told that we saw nothing here."

He also explained that most of em were not actually usable. Most of the WMD's found were simply too old to be used. They had been essentially "thrown away" by the Iraqi leaders people.

How did we find them? From the U.N. reports that Saddam provided. These documents showed how the old weapons, provided by the USA were disposed of when they became too old to use. Remember those papers? The literal thousands of pages that our administration was somehow able to read in under 12 hours and conclusively determine that they were a lie. Hmmmmmmm...

Now, maybe it seems that those documents recording the WMD's, which were used to find them (by our troops post invasion instead of by inspectors in leiu of an invasion) were more accurate than our administration wanted anyone to believe pre-war.

Fact is that the only weapons Saddam had were the ones that Donald Rumsfeld himself facilitated in the 1980's when Iraq was fighting Iran.

No weapons were sent to Syria. Think about it. We had Iraq (and Syria) under satellite surveillence for a very long time before we invaded. We had photos of trucks all over Iraq and claimed we knew what every one contained inside. Yet, no one has any pictures of anything crossing the baren desert (which would kind of stand out, don't ya think?) Let alone bunches of trucks caravanning to Syria full of WMD's. The reason for that is that it never happened, despite what a bunch of delusional neocon followers want to believe.

Of course, it's obvious that no amount of evidence will ever convince some to publicly change their mind. But most of us know the truth. And with more eyewitness accounts like this about what really happened over there, even more will know.

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Mar 21, 2006
So then according to "you", General Sada (who was Saddam's #2 man) doesn't know what he's talking about when he says the WMD's went to Syria?

Link
on Mar 21, 2006
What I find interesting in this fantastic story is that Dustin Hammer is saying things that, if true, would certainly be Top Secret. I'm no military expert but this just doesn't seem like the kind of news our military would allow anyone to tell.
on Mar 21, 2006
I think the funniest thing here is that if the US "did" give Saddam WMD as believed in this article, then why would the US invade Iraq to find them and then cover them up and say they found nothing? Does that make sense to anyone?

Why would I plant a gun, registered to me, on a guy I hate and then tell the police he has a gun but then I would find it and say I guess he didn't have anything atfer all?

And you say you are not a conspiracy theorist?
on Mar 21, 2006
,,,trolling,,,guy,,,by making your 1st line of your 1st post a personal attack on my site,,,was trolling.

2nd off,,,agree or disagree with me,,,i could care less...but don't tell me i don't have a source that i accurately reported on, when i did,,,and you didn't check anything out....when i asked you to,,,you came back by insulting me by forcing your homoerotic fantasies on me....that's trolling.

all i did was write an article,,,i never attacked you...it's sorry that you can't debate anything without just being a hate monger and attack hack.

have a nice day guy,,,i'm thru w/ you and your b.s. ... i don't feed hate whenever it rears it's ugly head.

obviously, you impress yourself...i hope that provides for a wonderful life for ya.

as far as insulting me, my backround, education, etc....that is what exposes your total lack of credibility...and i don't need to bother with your ass anymore.
on Mar 21, 2006

i'm not sure to whom you're referring as 'we'. you certainly didn't address anything.

Do you want me to cut and paste Ted's response?

on Mar 21, 2006

have a nice day guy,,,i'm thru w/ you and your b.s. ... i don't feed hate whenever it rears it's ugly head.

Through with me, or your lies.  FACT: Russia supplied Iraq, not the US.  We gave them Intel during the Iran Iraq war.  FACT:  My source, easily googliable out ranks yours. FACT:  You have none.

Finally, no one is hating anyone here.  As far as I can tell.  So my Very first statement (notice the smiley) was not an attack on you or your site, but on the content of your article.  And if your articles cannot take criticism, I suggest you make the audience yourself so you dont have to worry about any.

on Mar 21, 2006
for the record,,,here's a list of American companies that assisted with WMD to Iraq...

List of American firms that assisted Iraq¹s WMD program
A = nuclear; K = chemical; B = biological; R = rockets (missiles)

1. Honeywell (R,K)
2. Spektra Physics (K)
3. Semetex (R)
4. TI Coating (A,K)
5. UNISYS (A,K)
6. Sperry Corp. (R,K)
7. Tektronix (R,A)
8. Rockwell (K)
9. Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10. Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11. Hewlett Packard (A.R,K)
12. Dupont (A)
13. Eastman Kodak (R)
14. American Type Culture Collection (
15. Alcolac International (C)
16. Consarc (A)
17. Carl Zeis -U.Ss (K)
18. Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19. Electronic Assiciates (R)
20. International Computer Systems
21. Bechtel (K)
22. EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. (R)
23. Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24. Axel Electronics Inc. (A)

**From the Research Unit for Political Economy, Bombay, India
http://www.rupe-india.org/
on Mar 21, 2006

**From the Research Unit for Political Economy, Bombay, India
http://www.rupe-india.org/           

So much for unbiased sources: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-1583670939-1

But I did notte none said the US government, and last I checked, they dont run businesses.

on Mar 21, 2006
oh geez,,,let's not get into the rumsfeld - hussein meetings....ok,,,here ya go ,,,

First brought to the attention of the House of Commons by Labour MP Peter Kilfoyle on 26 February 2003, the Riegle Report details the findings of Senate hearings chaired by Senator Donald Riegle in 1994. The report confirms that when US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was a member of the President’s General Advisory Committee on Arms Control in the 1980s, biological materials were being exported to Iraq under licence from the US Department of Commerce. These included botulinum toxin and anthrax, later identified as major components in the Iraqi biological warfare programme.

on Mar 21, 2006

First brought to the attention of the House of Commons by Labour MP Peter Kilfoyle on 26 February 2003, the Riegle Report details the findings of Senate hearings chaired by Senator Donald Riegle in 1994. The report confirms that when US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was a member of the President’s General Advisory Committee on Arms Control in the 1980s, biological materials were being exported to Iraq under licence from the US Department of Commerce. These included botulinum toxin and anthrax, later identified as major components in the Iraqi biological warfare programme.

Ah yes, the now discredited downing street memos.  Lame, very lame.

on Mar 21, 2006
Although some elements of the US media have portrayed the document as faked or fraudulent, no official sources have questioned its accuracy or disputed its authenticity, despite being questioned directly about it on numerous occasions. Both UK and US officials have since either refused to affirm or deny its content, or else have tacitly validated its authenticity (as when Tony Blair replied to a press conference question by saying "That memo was written before we went to the UN.")


from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

on Mar 21, 2006
Although some elements of the US media have portrayed the document as faked or fraudulent, no official sources have questioned its accuracy or disputed its authenticity, despite being questioned directly about it on numerous occasions. Both UK and US officials have since either refused to affirm or deny its content, or else have tacitly validated its authenticity (as when Tony Blair replied to a press conference question by saying "That memo was written before we went to the UN.")


That much is true. However.... have you noticed that "no one" has "ever" produced the original document? Kind of makes me wonder.
on Mar 21, 2006
that's kind of a false bar of measure,,,the orig. "document" is prob electronic, not paper....but that's only speculation

and "kind of makes me wonder" and the previous red herring "orig. doc." demand are hardly evidence against it's validity.

on Mar 21, 2006

for the record,,,here's a list of American companies that assisted with WMD to Iraq...


For the record, what did they sell?

And don't tell me "rockets" or "material". Tell me what exactly and how much of it.
on Mar 21, 2006
"tell me what exactly and how much of it."

excuse me???? why do i need to do that? if you are interested in knowing that,,,,do your own research.

if your motive is "disproving " something,,,it is a red herring....if you have something that disputes this,,,share with us,,,otherwise demanding research that might not be "at my fingertips" is just a scarecrow arguement,,,c'mon,,,you can do better than that. i have sourced and footnoted what i found,,,it is not my burden to meet your "nth-degree" demands...i have no prob. w/ disputing my writings, but dispute it with contradictory facts,,,not by artificially raising my bar....this isn't court, and i'm not on trial.

have a nice day leauki:)
3 Pages1 2 3