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 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Mar 21, 2006
American companies that assisted with WMD to Iraq...


Is that knowingly supplied assistance to WMD programs?

It is easy to say an inspector seen a Hewlett Packard computer with a UNISYS program that can be purchased on the internet located within a facility.

Kodak and DuPont both sell chemicals used in photo processing or oil refining that can also be used in a Chemical WMD program. The press refuses to claim the 40,000 gallons of PCP (major component of Nerve Gas) found buried 30 miles North of Baghdad as WMD. Is a company that sells 500 gallons PCP to six Iraqi farm equipment stores (certified by the UN food for oil program for crop protection) being blamed if the Iraqi government confiscates it?

Rockwell and Honeywell both produce commercial aircraft parts that may easily be used in a Rocket program. Yet when a brand new modified for extra range Silkworm missile built in China (violating sanctions) slams into a Kuwaiti shopping mall, no one screams WMD.

I'm not claiming that US companies didn't build facilities (buildings can change usage) or companies didn't find their components in WMD systems. But lets look at what items they where and how they where ordered. Saddam in the 1980s had not tried to assassinate US Presidents (like he did in the 90's) and was about to lose a war with a country vowing to spread Islamic revolution with the ultimate goal of "Destroying America". Iraq was not on an international watch list in the 80s. Why would a company be barred from selling dual use equipment?
on Mar 21, 2006
lee,,,you make some valid points ,,,one problem,,,most of your analysis is based on "flat world" principles which have only really taken off in the last 10 years,,,and really the last 5 or 6. in the 80's ,, companies weren't nearly as internationally diverse...but still some things to consider ,,,thanks:)

i do think that your perspective and belief that none of these companies would ever sell things they knew were being used for weapons...is a bit naive...but that's my opinion. and it's kind of pointless for either of us to debate such speculative opinions and all,,,,i appreciate your viewpoint tho:)
on Mar 21, 2006
one problem,,,most of your analysis is based on "flat world" principles which have only really taken off in the last 10 years


No the problem is RUPE is a DUPE for the One worlders.
on Mar 21, 2006
No the problem is RUPE is a DUPE for the One worlders


who woulda guessed one of those metal ratchet noisemakers could be employed as a computer input device?
on Mar 21, 2006
i appreciate your viewpoint tho:)


Thanks Sean

But I’m not so naïve to say that the US didn’t aid Saddam in the past and that some companies didn’t look the other way. Hyin sight is 20/20 and the Per-9/11 mentality was different then. But as you said it is pointless to debate this.

The US was giving Satellite photos, and Intel to Saddam after he started to loose the war to Iran. The Rumsfeld picture IMO was more for show in order to have a more mental effect on the Grand Iateola and his other supplier USSR. Heck, we even sunk half the Iranian navy in one day for him too. But to give Bio/Chemical weapons to Iraq, against every foreign agreement and military policy, is just against common since. Why would we stoop to that level when Saddam could easily get them from the USSR for a few promises to throw some support their way?

To show how we even played both sides, we traded arms with Iran when it looked like they were losing too.
on Mar 22, 2006

excuse me???? why do i need to do that?


You made a claim. Isn't it customary to back up a claim when asked?



if you are interested in knowing that,,,,do your own research.


I did. What I have learned contradicts your claim. That's why I asked you to provide more information.

(And while we are at it; please provide fewer commas. I don't know what effect you want to create,,,,but it looks ridiculous.)
on Mar 22, 2006
Hussein didn't have any significant amount of WMDs. The problem with the whole "Bush Lied" conspiracy, is according to Hussein's generals they understood that there was a substantial stockpile ready to defend Iraq with right up to a couple of months before the war. When he called them in and told them everyone was shocked.

So, if European intelligence agencies thought they had them, and Hussein's own generals thought they had them, I find it pretty shallow and politically motivated when people blame Bush for not knowing he didn't have them...
on Mar 22, 2006
that's kind of a false bar of measure,,,the orig. "document" is prob electronic, not paper....but that's only speculation


And you'd be 100% percent wrong! This is from your very own quoted link


Michael Smith, the journalist who first reported on the Downing Street Memo, has said that he protected the identity of his source by photocopying the original and returning the original document to the source. The document was retyped from the photocopy, and the photocopy destroyed. This has led some to question the document's authenticity, but no official source has questioned it, and it has been unofficially confirmed to various news organizations, including the Washington Post, NBC, The Sunday Times and the LA Times. Several other documents obtained by Smith, and treated similarly (see below), were confirmed as genuine by the UK Foreign Office.[35] The retyping process certainly opens up the possibility of errors or mischief. It will be impossible to authenticate the contents of the copy by physical means. Because of this, the retyped copy would not be admissible in any court.


The reason I said it makes me wonder is quoted below, which btw is also from your link:


Also on 8 June, USA Today printed an article by their senior assignment editor for foreign news, Jim Cox, saying with respect to the memo, "We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source… There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing."
on Mar 22, 2006
who woulda guessed one of those metal ratchet noisemakers could be employed as a computer input device?


I thought that was your brand of mouse.
3 Pages1 2 3