Iraq: No WMDs
"We Know Where The Weapons Are"

October 14 2004
Counterbias.com
Scott C. Smith

At a June 10th press conference following the G8 summit, President George W. Bush was asked by a reporter about the hunt for WMDs in Iraq:

I wonder if you can share with the American people your conclusions, based on what you've learned over the past 15 months, sir, as to whether those weapons were -- existed and they were hidden, were they destroyed, were they somehow spirited out of the country, or perhaps they weren't there before the war, and whether you had a chance to share this with your G8 partners?

Bush:
Right, no -- Bob, it's a good question. I don't know -- I haven't reached a final conclusion yet because the inspectors -- inspection teams aren't back yet. I do know that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to make weapons. I do know he's a dangerous person. I know he used weapons against his own people and against the neighborhood. But we'll wait until Charlie gets back with the final report, and then I'll be glad to report.

The Charlie in question is Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq.

Charlie is back, and the WMD report has been released.

There were no WMDs in Iraq.

None.

George W. Bush and his incompetent administration have killed 1,080 brave American soldiers and left thousands more injured for life, not to mention the thousands of Iraqi civilians that have been killed, in a hunt for weapons that never existed. In fact, contrary to conservative claims, 12 years of sanctions in Iraq diminished Saddam Hussein's ability to produce weapons. The sanctions were working. We didn't need to go to war. There was no threat by Saddam Hussein.

And now, young men and women have paid the price for the mistakes of the Bush administration. Paid with blood and limbs torn from bodies and paralysis and brain damage, young lives destroyed because Bush and his team were so anxious to take us to war that they would do anything to dream up an excuse to use military force.

How is it possible that one president could be impeached for lying about his affair with an intern, while another is not even held accountable for decisions he made, based on bad intelligence, that resulted in the loss of so much life?

Bush and his team were so certain about Iraq’s weapons. They laid out their case to the entire world, no doubts in their minds about which weapons Saddam Hussein possessed and their quantities. On October 7, 2002, Bush spoke in Cincinnati, Ohio, where he told the audience, “Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations... we've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.”

None of it true. 

In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Bush again told the world that Saddam Hussein was a threat because of the weapons he possessed: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”  Not true. “Evidence from intelligence sources…reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.” Still not true, as there were no “hidden” weapons.

Bush then sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to the U.N. Security Council on February 5, 2003, to spell out in great detail the scores of weapons in Saddam’s arsenal and his willingness to use those weapons, or to provide those weapons to terrorists. Powell said, of our claims about Iraq weapons, “My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”  No, Mr. Powell, what you told the world were assertions, and not facts.

With faulty intelligence as the basis for our invasion, we attacked Iraq the next month.  Weeks passed with no weapons found, although we were certain we would find the weapons.  On March 30, 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appeared on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos and said, “We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

Well, as we now know, there were no weapons in Tikrit or north somewhat of Baghdad.

What an incredible betrayal of our trust. And instead of admitting any wrongdoing, the Bush administration simply changed the reason we went to war: we were hunting terrorists.

Now, in military hospitals, thousands of young men and women are paying for Bush’s mistake, as they learn to use prosthetic limbs or wheelchairs from being paralyzed, while enduring hours of painful rehabilitation.

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,” Bill Clinton said on January 26, 1998, and that statement nearly brought about the end of Clinton’s presidency.  Yet a lie that has been paid for in blood has met with little criticism by Republicans, who are eager to prolong the bloody conflict in Iraq as long as possible.  The Bush administration so far has refused to take any responsibility for the colossal failures in intelligence that sent young men and women off to war.  Harry Truman had a sign on his desk when he was president: “The Buck Stops Here.”  Bush has replaced the sign with a new one: “There is no buck.” Or maybe it should read “Blame Clinton.”