Fist off WHAB, that wikileaks based article is the author interpretation of what he found in the wikileaks docs, not citing of the actual docs or even links to ‘em for reader verification. Lets exaime the wording:
But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.
“and uncover weapons of mass destruction”
Nice claim but nowhere in that article did it say WMDS were actually found, Nowhere.
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.
Notice he said “initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence..” but nowhere did he show or even say that on deeper look it did either. Innuendo.
Remments is not WMDs the Bush admin was referring to.
In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.
How is this tied to Saddam or even large enough quantity to be considered for MASS destruction? It doesn’t. Red herring.
Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to
look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”
Tampered with post invasion? How is this tied to Saddam WMDs? It doesn’t. Red herring.
Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”
Chem lab, chem cache. What? What chems? What were they used for, to make fiberglass, to make bombs to fight the invaders with, what?
What does what the “insurgents” are doing to fight their perceived invaders have to with Saddam or evidence of alleged WMDs?
Nada.
Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”
Simply not WMDs or evidence of a WMDs prior to the war. This as the author noted earlier just remnants of what is left from gulf war one.
Goes on such vain ..
But the more salient issue may be how insurgents and Islamic extremists (possibly with the help of Iran) attempted to use these lethal and exotic arms. As Spencer noted earlier, a January 2006 war log claims that “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons were smuggled in from Iran.
His “salient” point is about post war activities. 2006? Iran? Insurgents and extremist that never existed under Saddam’s regime?
What does this have to with Saddam or Iraq having WMD or even evidence of it?
Not a thing and that his ending salient point? Sheesh.
Still waiting for his claim that wikileaks docs showing “U.S. troops continued to … uncover
weapons of mass destruction”. Never listed where the docs say that or they even imply it, just vague innuendoes from the author.
,
as if they already had their ducks in row.
