The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.The extraordinary arms purchase plan, known as Operation Avarice, began in 2005 and continued into 2006, and the American military deemed it a nonproliferation success. It led to the United States’ acquiring and destroying at least 400 Borak rockets, one of the internationally condemned chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government manufactured in the 1980s but that were not accounted for by United Nations inspections mandated after the 1991 Persian Gulf war...A New York Times investigation published in October found that the military had recovered thousands of old chemical warheads and shells in Iraq and that Americans and Iraqis had been wounded by them, but the government kept much of this information secret, from the public and troops alike...In confidential declarations in the 1990s to the United Nations, Iraq gave shifting production numbers, up to 18,500. It also claimed to have destroyed its remaining stock before international inspectors arrived after the Persian Gulf war.No clear evidence ever surfaced to support Iraq’s claim, which meant that questions about whether Boraks remained were “carried forward as one of the big uncertainties,” said Charles A. Duelfer, a senior United Nations inspector at the time who later led the C.I.A.’s Iraq Survey Group. There was “a big gap in the information,” he said.
I've referenced the Duelfer Report more than once on this blog.
What's the left's story now that their own mouthpiece, the NYT, shows that Saddam did have unaccounted for chemical and biological weapons?
6 comments:
My comment is I wish he were still in power. Iraq would be a better place.
Personally … I believe it was an ill-advised war, and I think their might have been a touch of revenge inherent in it. But, all the facts you stated, with which I don't disagree … none of them trump the real one: Saddam WANTED us to believe he had them, and he had used them before, so it was a logical belief . He screwed up. So even assuming the premise that Bush lied …which I DON'T believe -- still Saddam's fault
An interesting side note, and one I'm more curious about … was Kuwait stealing Iraq's oil before they were invaded … and did H.W. give Hussein a nod and a wink to invade? I don't know, and that's purely hypothetical … but it does make sense, even if it's completely untrue.
Iraq would be a better place if President Bush were still President, too. Looks like both countries have gone downhill since 2009.
As far as Kuwait stealing Iraq's oil--I remember reading about that possibility at the time but don't know. I can't believe Bush 41 would indicate to Saddam that he could invade Kuwait, and then turn around and condemn the invasion and organize a counter-invasion. That's the stuff of conspiracy theories. I do recall that our ambassador to Iraq might have given Saddam a non-committal answer to questions that indicated he was thinking of invading Kuwait.
On the other hand, he also told King--was it Fahd back then?--that Fahd should just take Qatar while Saddam took Kuwait.
He was a bad guy, a crazy guy, and anyone who thinks Iraq was better off with him is just nuts. He was a Hitler and he had to go.
Darren, it's not only Iraq that's gone down since 2009. Libya is in chaos, Egypt, if all goes well, will have a semblance of stability thanks to the military coup, Syria is still unstable and Afghanistan is falling apart. I only thought the RNC could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as badly as this. Leave it to B Hussein Obama to set the new record.
Is there any worse job than being one of Obama's spokespeople? Jay Carney must be the happiest man in the world right now. Josh Earnest is probably hitting him up for Job leads … and I apologize for not knowing their names, but the two women who have been shilling for defense have totally been set up for failure. Then there's Susan Rice and Eric Holder … but they are in a different category, because I think the actually believe the tripe they spew. But, at least, Obama had the sense to replace Holder with a very talented country singer ...
The media bears a great deal of blame for this. Not a single entity bothered to check up their stories. They bought the Democrat party line based on little more than their hatred for Vietnam and their desire to push an agenda. Having witnessed 9/11 first hand, you'd think they would be more aggressive in their approach to national defense. Instead they took the liberal view and chose to negotiate with cultures that are trapped in a toxic Medieval mindset with absolutely no intention or desire to change.
Post a Comment