"Saddam's Forgotten WMD Confession"

[Gen Stonewall]

Article

Saddam's Forgotten WMD Confession

The elite media continues to insist that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. attacked in March, citing the scant evidence of any actual weapons finds by U.S. arms inspector David Kay.

But if it's true that Saddam Hussein was actually innocent on the WMD charge, then why did he confess in 1998 that his country had amassed huge stockpiles of highly toxic weaponized poisons - along with the delivery systems to take them beyond Iraq's borders.

That's right - lost in the debate over why U.S. weapons inspectors have yet to uncover the Iraqi version of the Manhattan Project is this salient factoid: Not only did Saddam's regime admit to possessing thousands of tons of lethal chemical and biological agents - Baghdad gave a detailed inventory of their WMD arsenal to the United Nations.

This week's Weekly Standard revisits Baghdad's 1998 WMD mea culpa - complete with a laundry list of the frightening weapons that the press continues to suggest were a figment of the Bush administration's imagination.

Just before Iraq kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, Saddam admitted he had:

? At least 3.9 tons of deadly VX nerve gas, along with 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.

? 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.

? 8,500 liters of anthrax.

? 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.

? 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

? 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.

? 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.

? 25 missile warheads containing germ agents, including anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum.

Again, the above arsenal is NOT what U.S. or European intelligence suspected Baghdad had. These are the WMD's that Saddam himself admitted he had.

It's also worth noting that the overwhelming majority of the WMDs Saddam confessed to went completely undetected by U.N. weapons inspectors who combed Iraq for 12 years.

Still, thanks to the media's five-month-long campaign to discredit the Iraq war - not to mention the horrible job done by the White House public relations team - most Americans have no idea that questions about whether Iraq was in recent possession of WMD's have already been answered - and answered by no less an authority than Saddam Hussein himself.

The Bush Administration would have known about these stockpiles, and remember that the primary reason for going to war was Saddam's failure to provide proof that he had destroyed these weapons.

On the other hand you could argue that no good evidence exists that Saddam showed an immediate desire to kill us, but when a country is so clearly in violation of UN mandates, specifically ones that are designed to protect the security of the world's nations, what are we supposed to do: ask nicely and hope that Saddam would destroy the weapons?

Obviously we are having trouble finding the weapons now, but there's a real possibility that Saddam secretly shipped them off to other countries during the most recent UN inspection. (Do you wonder why the inspectors had such a hard time searching every location they wanted to search?)

Please comment, and give reputable facts.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Have you considered the possibility that Saddam exaggerated his stockpiles to make himself seem more formadible than he was? If he had these agents, it seems unlikely he would have sent off the very thing that could have made his removal very costly indeed.


I fully expected he had WMDs, and was suprised we found nothing. These weapons have great propaganda value, and could act as a deterrent to other countries considering attacking him. Saddam would not have believed attacking anyone else would have gotten him anything. He found that out in '91. Regardless of what he said he had, he would have known he would be attacked in return. Saddam was not an anti American idealist. He was a coward seeking to make himself look more threatening than he was. Obviously a bad strategy.

That does not let Bush off the hook for ignoring evidence that said this was a bluff. This is an obvious strategy, elementary in fact.

 

[Bowfinger]

Funny how the neo-"conservatives" call Hussein a liar about everything but this. Wonder why that is?

Stonewall, you also repeat the disinformation that the U.N. inspectors had a "hard time" searching every place they wanted. While they encountered some hurdles, especially at first, they were given access to every site they wanted to inspect.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Funny how the neo-"conservatives" call Hussein a liar about everything but this. Wonder why that is?

Stonewall, you also repeat the disinformation that the U.N. inspectors had a "hard time" searching every place they wanted. While they encountered some hurdles, especially at first, they were given access to every site they wanted to inspect.

Gee I dunno. If a man has something pointy in his coat pocket pointed at you and says "give me your money or I'll shoot you", what do you assume?

Of course in this analogy, you'd have seen the man shoot someone before with the gun...

 

[kage69]

While they encountered some hurdles, especially at first, they were given access to every site they wanted to inspect.

As I recall, not without giving the Iraqi Defense Ministry prior notice and having to wait for approval to search certain locations, although to be honest I don't think that applied to ALL of the locations. Wasn't inspection of Saddam's palaces also a big deal almost up to 'the end'?
I'm sorry, but after seeing that one UNSCOM team being physcially barred from leaving some grounds after showing up unannounced and finding classified documents, well, it just seems like Saddam's people really were hiding something and it wasn't all just a simple ruse.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Funny how the neo-"conservatives" call Hussein a liar about everything but this. Wonder why that is?

Stonewall, you also repeat the disinformation that the U.N. inspectors had a "hard time" searching every place they wanted. While they encountered some hurdles, especially at first, they were given access to every site they wanted to inspect.

Gee I dunno. If a man has something pointy in his coat pocket pointed at you and says "give me your money or I'll shoot you", what do you assume?

Of course in this analogy, you'd have seen the man shoot someone before with the gun...

Except the better analogy would be a man who shot someone twelve years ago, five years ago suggested he still had a gun, and is in his own yard today, wearing a coat with pockets. Even though you can see no evidence of a weapon now, you kill him and his family and a other innocent people in the area anyway because he has oil in the basement and it distracts the public from the fact that you still can't find the 9/11 murderer.

 

[Sternfan]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Funny how the neo-"conservatives" call Hussein a liar about everything but this. Wonder why that is?

Stonewall, you also repeat the disinformation that the U.N. inspectors had a "hard time" searching every place they wanted. While they encountered some hurdles, especially at first, they were given access to every site they wanted to inspect.

So I guess wiping out 5000 Kurds in a single day is not proof. The History channel shows there dead bodies on a regular basis, Dead woman holding dead children laying in the streets with there mouths wide open. I know I need more proof then just finding all the bodies. How about you?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Sternfan

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Funny how the neo-"conservatives" call Hussein a liar about everything but this. Wonder why that is?

Stonewall, you also repeat the disinformation that the U.N. inspectors had a "hard time" searching every place they wanted. While they encountered some hurdles, especially at first, they were given access to every site they wanted to inspect.

So I guess wiping out 5000 Kurds in a single day is not proof. The History channel shows there dead bodies on a regular basis, Dead woman holding dead children laying in the streets with there mouths wide open. I know I need more proof then just finding all the bodies. How about you?

Your point? It was a rebellion, would you expect any other government to play nice?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Sternfan

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Funny how the neo-"conservatives" call Hussein a liar about everything but this. Wonder why that is?

Stonewall, you also repeat the disinformation that the U.N. inspectors had a "hard time" searching every place they wanted. While they encountered some hurdles, especially at first, they were given access to every site they wanted to inspect.

So I guess wiping out 5000 Kurds in a single day is not proof. The History channel shows there dead bodies on a regular basis, Dead woman holding dead children laying in the streets with there mouths wide open. I know I need more proof then just finding all the bodies. How about you?

Very sad indeed. Now this is a threat to the US how?

Perhaps you ought to consider that the president said that the 800,000 macheted in Africa was none of our business.

No, Bush wanted Saddam, and it did not matter why. Any reason was good enough, even if that reason had to be untrue.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Sternfan

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Funny how the neo-"conservatives" call Hussein a liar about everything but this. Wonder why that is?

Stonewall, you also repeat the disinformation that the U.N. inspectors had a "hard time" searching every place they wanted. While they encountered some hurdles, especially at first, they were given access to every site they wanted to inspect.

So I guess wiping out 5000 Kurds in a single day is not proof. The History channel shows there dead bodies on a regular basis, Dead woman holding dead children laying in the streets with there mouths wide open. I know I need more proof then just finding all the bodies. How about you?

Not really sure, but do you think 15 years has any kind of bearing on the subject?

Hey HoP, get in here and straighten this guy out about the definition of 'proof'.