This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

WikiLeaks docs prove Saddam had WMD, threats remain

Wednesday, April 20, 2011


WikiLeaks’ latest publication of Iraq war documents contains a lot of information that most reasonable people would prefer remained unknown, such as the names of Iraqi informants who will now be hunted for helping the U.S.

And although the anti-war left welcomed the release of the documents, they would probably cringe at one of the most significant finds of this latest crop of reports: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

“By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” Wired magazine’s Danger Room reports. “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.”

That is, there definitively were weapons of mass destruction and elements of a WMD program in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq when U.S.-led coalition troops entered the country to depose Hussein.

Predictably, the liberal media did their best to either ignore the story–like the New York Times and Washington Post did–or spin it. It’s not an easy choice to make, since ignoring the story makes you look out of the loop and hurts your reputation as an informative publication, yet spinning the story means actively attempting to confuse and mislead your readers. CBS News chose the latter.

Post Continues on

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.


    Always knew it.

    • J R Williams

      Folks, I remember seeing aerial photos (just one time) of 18-wheelers backing up to warehouses, and then driving north towards Syria. That was when Saddam required a prior notice before allowing the weapons inspectors to enter any of his warehouses. What do you think were in those trucks? Certainly not watermelons.

    • Nicole

      I’ll agree with that! Saddam had SO much time to get rid of what ever he had!

  • DaNangMe

    Intel was convincing enough for a number of well known anti-American,anti-war Dem.Congressmen to vote in favor of invasion of Iraq.John Kerry&Hillary Clinton(e.g.)By the way, WMD encompasses far more than nuclear weapons and their components.Some reports of chemical weapons found in ammo dumps were spun as not being significant enough to qualify for mass destruction.However,eradication of some dumps triggered detonation of some previously undetected chemicals that were subsequently harmful to our troops,yet the mainstream media refused to classify these as WMD’s.

  • Mike Bixby

    Eod teams and contractors have been destroying vast amounts of weapons for years and are not finished by a long shot. I was told of one depots daily goal of 250 tons destroyed 7 days a week. Thats just one of many locations. Those are the facts. How come we don’t hear this from our media and government.

  • Michael J. Marsalek

    The WikiLeaks documents prove absolutely nothing about Saddam Hussein’s WMD. George W. Bush swore he had irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein had WMD and if such evidence ever existed, it would have been made public by now. If the WMD actually still existed in Iraq at the time of the U.S. invasion, they would have been discovered by now.

    • broccoliobama


      You are a typical lib denying the fact that there were WMD’s. In spite of the attempts from the media to shut it down, there WERE reports coming through consistently that detailed some of the finds. Gas shells that had the potential to kill approx 800,00 people were found. What’s the matter………if it can’t kill a million, it’s not a WMD?


      It’s a fact that Dave Gaubatz found weapons of mass distruction as the first civilian in Iraq. His information was provided throught the proper channels, yet they refused to make this information public. They were there, Saddam did his merciless killings, and was finally killed, as he should have been for what he did to his people. Many are aware that Iran removed tons of these weapons, and still have them. Wake up people, you can’t believe everything you read or hear on the news. Check out the man that found them and reported his findings. I believe him, just as you should.

    • Hank

      Oh the poor Iraqi people. BooHoo. Just look at how grateful they all are now.

      Thge current Libyan crisis is a direct descendant of the War in Iraq. Bush even said that the real reason they went to war was to create a Democratic Revolution across the Middle East. Well, he succeeded. To bad the so called Democracies look like they are going to end up even worse than the ‘awful’ dictatorships Bush set out to topple. What Carter did to Iran by doing next to nothing, Bush did to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East by doing something. Either way, the interventionist policies, no matter how ‘noble’ or ‘democratic’ or ‘moral’ always have unintended consequences that are much worse than the situations that the interventionists claim to have solved.

    • John Detwiler

      Michael, You are another person with your head in the sand. If you think that the liberal media gives the republican any credibility, then you had better quit reading the news. They are nortorious for not printing anything that will benifit the Right. Why do you think they are all going broke. Which is about time, in fact way past the time. But as long as they have people like you they will struggle along.

    • Ron

      The leftmedia is dying in the marketplace of ideas. But in true Soviet fashion, the DemocRATS are now proposing bailing out the leftmedia.

    • Arleen

      Are you kidding me??? They were masters at hiding evidence!! The good old media, and who knows who else, chose not to be on Bush’s side! Maybe he wasn’t such a “bad” president after all….

    • wasadoc

      Arleen, we all know that it was “Bush’s fault”. I mean obama has told us so, since day 1.

    • Paul

      How hopelessly naive: “if such evidence ever existed it would have been made public by now”. In case you didn’t read the article closely – it HAS been made public. By Wiki-Leaks. Unfortunately you don’t seem to believe in the accuracy of source documents. Instead it would seem you would only believe it if someone made it public through, what, standard news channels? How quaint. To think that the media is free and un-biased, and has no agenda to actually SHAPE instead of report the news. or maybe it’s not quaint, and you are one who is also out to destroy this country and remove the freedoms from its people – the ones who built this country.

    • azwayne

      Not when they don’t fit NWO and Bilderberg desires, they control totally government including presidents, media, parties. American’s better learn to stand up and demand FACTS.

    • Los

      Of course you dont hear about it – Because the source of WMD was a supply of yellow cake plutonium numb nut – and that yellow cake found its way to Iran via Afghanistan just after the Ruskies left — The plutonium was traced to a afghan check point and at this spot simply vanished — and my job was to see that it was confiscated and put into US Military hands. Michael were you there? Or are you talking out of your ass?

    • Hank

      An interesting tale…BUT I CALL BULL SHIT!

    • Thomas Martin

      michael j marsalek, The trouble with you is the fact you cannot see, problem is you’ve got your head up your liberal ass.

      There were weapons of mass destruction there and saddam hussein died trying to protect the counries that he sent them too.

      He was probably kin to you, one crazy liberal.

    • Hank

      Personally I would rather be related to Saddam than a leftist.

    • John

      The WikiLeaks documents have proven that there are thousands of classified bits of information that the media never covers.

      The government to this day still will not release classified data back from WWI.

      They have their reasons that we may not understand, for the same reason we may not fully understand why our superiors at work make decsions.

      The government is to make decsions based upon what is best for the nation as a whole, not based upon what every group or individual wants.

      Which also applies to the decsion maker in your job and family.

  • Michael Papich

    The leftist media has lied about this repeatedly. Saddam had used WMD before and he WOULD have used them again.

  • TowTruck

    This is and always has been… a no brainer. There are years of evidence from independant photographers and videographers of the use and aftermath of WMD’s by Hussein on villages in Iraq. Now… the most interesting point is this… most of those photographers and videographers lean inherently left. They’re out there capturing proof of abuse of people and environment to support their views and their causes. So how is it that the left absolutely insists that there were never any WMD’s?

  • Larry

    And everyone forgets that Muamar Qaddaffi gave up his NUCLEAR WMD’s because he saw what was going on in Iraq and he “was afraid”. Translation for liberals- “That cowboy means business!” Haven’t heard the MSM say anything to remind anyone. Does anybody want to speculate what would happen if Qaddaffi still had nukes?

    • Hank

      I wish Qaddafi had nukes. He could kick those faggot eurotrash and NATO-Commies ASS!

      And show Obama, our own Islamic Dictator that, while he was scared of the cowboy, he was not scared of Jimmy Carters ‘Little Black Boy.’

      If Qaddafi had nukes, it would be no threat to us. No more so than Pakistan or Russia.

  • Richard

    Hell we KNEW he had WMD’s for many years, the chemicals he gassed his own people with were WMD and they had attempted to obtain nukes. When the Isrealis bombed the nuke plant in Iraq in what 1973 wasn’t that his attempt to obtain nukes? This is a stupid discussion started by the lame stream media and the dumbocraps.

  • Am2sweet

    With the way things can be hidden easily simply by not being reported is child’s play. The government could have found enough weapons to take out 5 countries but that doesn’t mean they wanted the general public to know about it. If you aren’t there you don’t know what’s really going on. You only have someone else’s word for it and they could lie about it. Oh, wait, the mainstream media doesn’t lie??? Belive that and I have a sandhill to sell you.

    • Hank

      So you trust our government more than the Media?

      I say they are both equally full of shit. Whether there were WMD or not is irrelevant. Neither the media nor the government wants anyone to know for sure exactly what went on. They both thrive off of the confusion and arguments. They were playimng good cop-bad cop with the citizens of the United States, and many fell for it, including most people here. Even if there were WMD, which is more than likely, that is never the issue and waas not the real reason for invasion. It was all a farce. If you don’t think the antio-war media and the pro-war government were not in cahoots the entire duration of the war, and are not owned by the same internationalist scum, then you are naive.

      The entire focus on any of the superficial aspects (including WMD) of the War is nothing more than a distraction.

      As evidenced by how readily some people knee-jerk on this issue, the distraction worked very well, and its intended after-affects are still lingering.

      I stand on record saying, “Yes, there were WMD! Yes, there was Genocide! Yes, Saddam was a scumbag and a tyrant!” But then I will add, “Who cares?”

      John Quincy Adams said ‘Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….

      [America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.’

      It is characteristic of the interventionists in the establishment to always have a ‘Hitler’ to defeat. It is good for ‘business’. Even if they don’t get reelected, they are focused on what lies beyond the horizon. Not the next for years, but the next four decades. 40 years of Mid East turmoil put to rest for a year or two, only for it to erupt again for another 40 years. That is what is going on right now in Libya and Syria.

  • RJJ

    One can store enough WMD chemicals to take out millions of people in a delivery van. How difficult is that to hide inside a mountain or a hole in the ground. Can’t wait to hear the spin the Demoncrats and the press (redundant) will throw at this one.

    • http://www/ Daniel Seigler

      easy, they will IGNORE the information totally. It will NEVER come up.

    • J R Williams

      Hell, how many fighter jets did he hide by burying them in the desert?

    • American

      JR, a reliable Army Col. I know was looking for those jets in the underground hangers and when they got there they we’re gone. Where are they? Syria.Other weapons disappeared too.
      Somebody has them.

  • David

    There IS proof that WMD did indeed exist in Iraq. General Sada who now lives in the U.S. (you see his name occasionally in the news) and reported directly to Sadam, wrote a book called “Sadam” In it he describes the WMD’s they had, how they got them out of Iraq and who has them. Why we never followed up with what he said I don’t know.

  • http://www/ Daniel Seigler

    so long as those WMD were not used against the Geographic United States of America, the United States Military had no authority to ATTACK a sovereign Nation. The rhetoric that he HAD them and was gonna use them is like saying “my neighbor has a gun. I better ATTACK him before he uses it on me.”

    • RJJ

      Have you never seen photos of the dead Kurds lying in the streets of their Northern Iraq villages? Satan Saddam delivered the WMD gas by air. Exploding bombs above ground and letting the wind do the rest. The estimated number of deaths is 100,000 !!!
      But don’t take our word for it, Goggle the following: “Kurds murdered by Saddam Hussein.”

    • Hank

      Daniel is still correct in spite of your pathetic emotionially chargewd excuse-filled plea. You sound like Woodrow Wilson. You know, the Brain-Father of the United Nations?

    • Ceasefire Notes

      Actually, it does matter even though those WMDs were not used against the US. This is beside the simple fact that.

      1. He had them.
      2. He HAD used them, more than once.

      Your analogy falls through, because this isn’t the situation of a sane neighbor with a gun being the target before he can choose to use it. If you had this kind of relation with your neighbor, there would be restraining orders and the desire to have one or both move.

      You see, after Desert Storm, we were under a ceasefire with Iraq. Unlike a peace accord, a ceasefire is an agreed cessation of hostilities only so long as certain conditions are met, but the combatants technically remain in a state of war. Once the conditions cease to be met, active hostilities may be resumed at any time for the simple reason that the ceasefire has beem violated.

      Some of the conditions of the ceasefire with Iraq included the disposal of the WMDs and regular inspections of the weapons programs to make sure than it stayed that way.

      As soon as those conditions were violated, we were technically at war with Iraq again, whether we chose to pursue that or not. (Bush could have flattened Iraq without getting any declaration of war, and it would have been perfectly legal.

      In spite of the terms of the ceasefire, what did we find?

      1. Hussein was pulling serious shenanigans on the weapons programs and inspections. Among other things, undisclosed materials being shipped away from facilities (and frequently out of country) immediately before inspections, and inspections were never permitted the way they were supposed to be allowed.

      2. Iraq did not dispose of their WMDs. As a rule, they stored, hit, and concealed them.

      3. There was good evidence to suggest that Iraq was pursuing even FURTHER WMD development. This included the beliefs of the intelligence communities from our allies, that STILL believe that to be true years later.

      That is just a few things. Include that he had used wMDs in the past, the neighbor in your example would have to have a history of shooting neighbors and his own family members and having a legal order requiring he have no weapons in his house, and even that is not extreme enough.

      Anyway, the fact that he had WMDs specifically was legal and legitimate basis to attack even lacking a specific attack on the US.

    • Hank

      THe analogy is actually perfect. Who are you to say what represents sane behaviour or insane behaviour? Do you have any ‘experts’ to back you up? If you do, who are they to say what is ‘sanity’ on the world stage? Even if a legitmate case could be made for Saddam or Iraq to be considered ‘insane’, Daniel’s analogy still holds water.

      If we have an insane neighbor with a gun, even HE still has 2nd Amendment Rights. You, as his neighbor, in a free society, still have the right to move away, or be on your guard, or to go out of your way NOT to provoke him. But, until he personbally threatens you, gun in hand, you can’t do jack shit about it, and rightly so. If you are under the impression that we were somehow threatened by Saddam, gun in hand, I could maybe see where you are coming from. But, the fact remains, he never threatened us, and that if he would have, none but a warmonger would have taken him seriously, and even then, it is a front, a pretext, an excuse to pick a fight that can easily be won. If Saddam had WMD and was as nasty as is alleged of him, why didn’t he use them when invaded? It must be either that he did not have him (although he probably did), or that he was sane enogh not to use them.

      It must be concluded that even if Saddam had WMD, and even if he was a little senile and cranky, a tad flamboyant, self-aggrandized, and with an inferiority complex, that he was sane enough, and that his nation was sovereign enough for self-determination, including the possession, maintanance, and in certain cirumstances, utilization of WMD.

  • Ed Rodriguez

    The biggest threat to America is the WMD of immigration by muslims and all the other scum from all nations. The drug dealers are just part of our governments trade agreement with Latin America. That’s why they will not defend our borders. The drug trade was transfered to Colombia by our government just before we left Vietnam. Drugs are the best weapon Liberals have to DUMB DOWN the free world and make it easier for them to take over countries. Ask yourself “Am I a weak link or a strong one”. If you use drugs you are definatly a weak one. America is one of the drug dealers largest market place. Without us they would be on Food Stamps and driving bicycles or edsels.

    • Whackajig

      Ed……….. an Edsel is worth far more than the Yugo you drive, if both are in the same condition.

  • Ed Rodriguez

    If you agree with obama and his programs you are one of the components of his WMD that he plans on unleashing on America. It will be detonated with the help of our government. It’s the “Economic Bomb” that will destroy all your savings and jobs.It is due to go off before 2012 if his re-election is going bad. The Democrats and Republicans have failed us in protecting our country. The TEA PARTY is trying to find the “FEW GOOD MEN or WOMEN” who will save America. The TEA PARTY needs you!.


    There were confirmed stories by eyewitnes the MSM ignored that indicated the Russkies were involved in carting away as many valuble WMD’s as they could get out of Iraq at the time and they were photographed by plane and ground people going over the iranian border…..the libs made hay on keeping this info under wraps and bush simply said little to nothing to disprove them.

  • John

    The WikiLeaks documents have proven that there are thousands of classified bits of information that the media never covers.

    The government to this day still will not release classified data back from WWI.

    They have their reasons that we may not understand, for the same reason we may not fully understand why our superiors at work make decsions.

    The government is to make decisions based upon what is best for the nation as a whole, not based upon what every group or individual wants.

    Which also applies to the decision maker in your job and family.

  • Gaye

    Of course they had WMD, their own kept telling us that they had it, even Saddam’s right hand man told us but our left wing fools and the media had another agenda and told us lies..

    Bush told them that they were coming to inspect for 18 months, WHY???
    Then what they didn’t hide fast enough they snuck out in Ambulances, etc.. some say it was hidden under the inspectors noses.
    One has to wonder why the UN and America are not protecting the people in places like Africa where whites and non Muslims are being destroyed in the many thousands every year. They are going through just what the people in Iraq have gone through, yet nothing is done to stop it, WHY??? and what about the Timor people the Buddhists, Indians etc etc who also went through the same at the hands of Muslims, always at the hands of Muslims..

  • Hank

    Who cares. Better that Saddam had WMD’s than we start a costly decade long war, the result of which has strengthened Iran, the real threat, and given al-Qaeda a battleground. Bush and his father stabbed Saddam in the back the same exact way Obama did to Mubarak and Qaddafi.

    Pakistan is far more radicalized today than Saddam aver was, and they have REAL WMD’s. If having WMD’s is all it takes for us to go to war with someone, than why not invade Pakistan?

    Because the Iraq War was started for ulterior motives, and as I am sure you will all agree, it was not the oil.

    It is irrelevent as to who had WMD’s. Nor is it our business. How can some conservatives decry the UN (child molesters all), but then turn around and approve of the invasion of Iraq because they defied the UN? The only violation the Iraqi’s commited, and that supposedly justified the war, were the breaking of UN rules. Well, I say that the UN can take their regulations and stipulations and treaties and shove them. Anyone wthat does not accept that premise is no conservative at all.

    • Allan

      and the 1.2 million Saddam exterminated?

    • Hank

      How about Pinochet dickhead?

      Did I know those alleged 1.2 million he ‘exterminated’? No.

      Most of them were probably shiites. Good ridance. The Kurds are no angels either.

      Where does it say in the Constitution that the US is responsible for those alleged 1.2 million?

      You are just a liberal, my friend. A Wilsonian idealist and a fool. Don’t let your emotions get the best of you.

  • Hank

    The world would be a better place with Saddam. He could have kept the Iranians in check far better than any of our most recent ‘leaders’. Iran was the real threat. Saddam was a sideshow and a distraction. Certain people in our own government and in American Think Tanks and Policy Organizations wanted to remove Saddam to Ramp up tension in the Mid East, because they thrive off of it. No other explanation fits better with the facts and the resultant situation of the war.

    George Washington said avoid foreign entanglements. Anyone that does not know why he said that or that can’t see how it applies today is fooling themself. They are complacent fools, blindly following the blind.

  • Hank

    I apologize in advance for this. Probably just wasting my time.

    Islam is horrid, but most Muslims are as lapsed as most ‘Christians’. It is human nature. They just want to live out normal and peaceful lives like you or I. That does not mean that we just blindly trust them, but last time I checked, most muslims, even the ones that support radical groups in poll numbers, themselves, do not give aid financially to the radicals or blow themselves up. There are three primary movements in the Middle East. Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism and Pan-Turkism. The first two both utilize the tactic of Terror, but the first one is only interested in independence from the West, whereas the other wants to destroy the West. No doubt, there is some overlap, some likely would want to do both. Most Pan-Arabs are Muslims (though a considerable portion are Christian, Secular, or in Yemen: Jewish even), but are greatly at odds with Pan-Muslims (who include Sunni radicals and most Shia, who are often times not Arabs, but Persians). Sunni are generally secualr Muslims (not atheists), and except for the case of the Wahabi and their followers, are not anti-Western, and in fact try their best to emulate the West, though sometimes only superficailly (Saddam, Moammar, Mubarak were all Pan-Arabs and sometimes used Terror as a means to an end, but they were never in cahoots with the Wahabi or the Shia). Many Sunni see the Wahabi as Sunni’s-turned-Shia, which to them is heresy in Islam. WHy do you think Osama and the Saudi Royal Family are no longer friends? To be sure, the Saudi’s tolerate Wahabism, but this is mainly beacuse Wahabism is a force to be reckoned with, and the Royal Family is on thin ice as it is.

    The Turks and some of the folks in the Former Soviet Union are Pan-Turks. They are opposed to Pan-Islam, but they agree with Iran that the Kurds are a nuisance. The Pan-Arabs also do. That is why Pan-Arab Saddam Hussein brutally repressed them. The Kurds are neither Arabs nor Turks nor entirely Muslims, and they do not conform to any one of those molds. You may have pity on them, but they are Rabble-Rousers in their own right. They were like a less Hardcor version of the Chechens (who have only recently embraced true Pan-Islamism, and formerly were only out for Chechen independence.

    Many Palestinians, even within Hamas and Fatah are not Muslims, but Christians. How can this be? It is because the Palestinians are Pan-Arabs, not Pan-Islamists.

    The Pakistani’s are with the Iranian Shia, but only moderately, because they are also opur ally. Plus they have to tread lightly with their Nukes and India’s Nukes.

    The Taliban were not a memeber of any one of the gruops until provoked by our Invavsion. The connection between them and al-Qaeda was real nonetheless. they were not ideaologically aligned, and in fact distrusted each other very much. THey only aligned beacuse they had a mutaul foe, Russia. Now that their relations were eroding, what did we do? Instead of just sending in some ops to take out al-Qaeda, we invaded and sealed the tenuous bond between the two groups.

    The aparent good relations between the Iranian Shia and the Sunni Islamic world is entrirely forced (kind of like you and your annoying liberal brother-in-law that you would love to just throttle and punch, but you don’t because you are afraid of the consequences). Yes, they mutually distrust the West, but the main reason they sort-of get along at times is because they are afraid of the consequences (ie nukes, Egyptian or Libyan type revolutions, UN repercussions, US sanctions and wars, etc.)

    If we left the Middle East today, and focued on ourselves, and if we communicated that we would not intervene unless a nuke was dropped, what would happen? Would Iran take over the entire Middle East? No, that is a pipe dream and fear tactic of the Weekly Standard Trotskyites, who would love to maintain a permanent Military presence in the Mid East, to distract you at home, all allegedly in order to ‘make the world safe for [social] democracy’. What would happen is the the less radical Sunni’s would band together within Pan-Arabism, and throw out the Rabble-Rousers, be they Kurds, Shia, or Wahabi! The only obstacle would be Pakistan, with Nukes , but they would be afraid to use them, for fear of India and us, Iraq, which is now a Shia-Controlled Hell-Hole instead of a Sunni-Controlled Regime, thanks to Bush and Wolfowitz.

    There would never have been an Egyptian revolution or Syrian Riots or Jordanian protests or Libya kinetic military action if the Neocons didnt get the ball rolling! In fact, ‘Democratic’ Revolutions across the Mid-East was their stated goal in ousting Saddam and changing the guard in Iraq. Hindsight 20-20 shows even them, that they were foolish to invade Iraq, though they would never admit it. I guarantee you that if you look into the percentage of Shia among the Rebels in Africa and the Mid-East, it is a higher proportion than the overall population. THe Muslim Brotherhood is Sunni, but they are in bed with Iran and the protesters. Why? Because the Wahabism embraced by the Brotherhood has more in common with Shiism, Twelvers, Pan-Islamism, al-Qaeda (also ‘Sunni’) and the current Proletarian Revolutions than they do with the mainstream Sunni and Pan-Arabs, who are cuddly kittens by comparison.

    Qaddafi and Saddam were Stalinists-Lite, but with less killing (because they share religion and race with most of their ‘subjects’, and beacuse the ‘International Community’ would likely object).

    The Shia and Wahabi, on the other hand, are Trotskyites-Heavy. They have way moire in common with the Neocons than you would think.

    Stalin was just a RUSSIAN Communist with a diseased mind and a bad temper.

    Trotsky, on the other hand, was a WORLD-WIDE Communist, who was cool and calculating, but somehow got outsmarted by Stalin.

    Of the two, Trotsky was the worse.

    It is all very much more complicated than what I have said, but two things you can take away from it are:

    One, Don’t believe the Media, Left or so-called ‘Right’,


    Two, Baathism and Mustard Gas never looked so good, when compared to the alternative as much as I hate to put it that way!


  • stephen russell

    Wheres the WMDs?
    Who has them or had them?
    any data on where stored in Iraq or moved prior War?
    Is Al Quedda involved?
    What WMDs IE nuclear, biological, both?

    • Hank

      All legitimate questions that no one can answer.

  • Crashaxe

    Well we all knew this, they have satalite
    photos of them moving them to the Bekaa valley in Syria, heck Bush gave them 6 months or so to move them before he ordered the invasion, and they found traces of the chemicals in a semi trailer that was used as a lab when they were in Iraq.
    The weapons are still out there in the hands of the Syrians and soon the mainac will have them!

  • Crashaxe

    Well they went through Syria and actually the Bekaa Valley is in Lebanon.

  • C6ron

    We all knew Iraq had WMD’s, I still have a copy of a British Dossier that Saddam himself drew up after the first Gulf War stating exactly what he had, how much and where everything was! All of this in Saddam Hussein’s own words after he was ousted from Kuwait!

    For naive people (almost all the left) to think that we just invaded Iraq on a whim is ridicules. One day Hussein would have used these WMD’s and only God knows how many more hundreds of thousands of people would have died!!!

    Maybe this guy Hank is right, we will never know. With the current Politicians in office we are in deeper then anyone would want to believe. Now we are in a 3rd War in the middle east and regardless of what Obumma says we WILL have boots on the ground in Libya and he will not be able to blame Bush on this War, he owns this one as well as the economy, lack of jobs, high fuel prices and the list keeps on going………

    God help us all, we truly do need it right about now!

    Vietnam Veteran, Grunt, Pointman and proud of it.
    “Live Free or Die”
    “Freedom is not Free” many have paid the ultimate price so we could debate this, or as I see it just argue about it! Sad but true! 2012 CAN NOT COME FAST ENOUGH FOR ME!!!

    • Hank

      Whim or not. WMD’s or not. Genocide or not. Islamo-Fascism or not. Still an unnecessary, expensive, and distracting war with no Constitutional Mandate.

    • Red

      Where was the consttutinal mandate for Korea, Viet Nam, or Libya? There has been no declaration of war since WWII.

  • http://outlookexpress Edwin

    Sure someone could find the films of the dead Kurds laying all over after being killed by Dr. death with WMD chemicals. It is absurd that anyone would say that they didn’t exist. He may not have had nuclear weapons at the time but it is very evident that he had chemical weapons and used them.

    • Hank

      Kurds are no more or less Islamic extremists as many other groups in the mideast. The genocide was just another item in a long list of pretexts for the Trotskite Neocons.