Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« France and regime change | Main | National Aboriginal Day »

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Bush lied people died retraction inevitable

Yeah right eh? Breaking news via Instapundit but the buzz is spreading:

This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false.

We have found over 500 weapons of mass destruction. And in fact have found that there are additional weapons of mass — chemical weapons, still in the country, that need to be recovered.

And so, I would suggest that this is a very important look-back. We’ve been focused and continue to focus on what we need to do moving forward, but it is important for the American public to understand that these weapons did in fact exist, were present in the country, and were in fact and continue to be a threat to us.

The MSM will probably give more play to Saddam’s newly announced hunger strike.

Posted by Darcey on June 21, 2006 in International Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bush lied people died retraction inevitable:


Somehow I can't see John Kerry and John Murtha asking the President for forgiveness.

Posted by: Scott | 2006-06-21 7:18:06 PM

Did I miss any apologies from the left ? I was away from the MSM for most of the day...

Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-06-21 8:25:03 PM

I don't know if anybody has been following this but several documents discovered in Iraq during the liberation were posted on a government website. A fox news man is in the process of translating them to english and they show connections between the taliban and Saddam. Here's a link:


Posted by: Andrew | 2006-06-21 8:45:46 PM

If the MSM gives this ANY play, I would be shocked.

The leftnuts are just going to say things like "well, those aren't the WMD we were talking about", or "They couldn't be used" or some other nonsense.

They'll never admit they were wrong. But you can be sure that if you offered to take one of these "harmless" canisters and drop one off at their home, they wouldn't take you up on it.

Posted by: Dean | 2006-06-21 8:51:16 PM

Jon Stewart recently had the chief of air defence from the Iraq air force on, hyping his new book.

“How do you know the weapons of mass destruction are now in Syria,’’ Stewart asked.

“Because the pilots who flew it there told me,’’ replied the air force commander.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-21 9:09:12 PM

Jon Stewart recently had the chief of air defence from the Iraq air force on, hyping his new book.

“How do you know the weapons of mass destruction are now in Syria,’’ Stewart asked.

“Because the pilots who flew it there told me,’’ replied the air force commander.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-21 9:09:35 PM

My prediction for Murtha & Kerry: stuck on stupid. June 22nd, 2006: "We found WMD, job well done. Now it's time for the troops to come home."

Posted by: pdq332 | 2006-06-21 9:50:14 PM

Saddam was a ruthless dictator who murdered thousands, attacked three countries and destabilized the entire middle east - it's no wonder the 'leftnuts' love him.

Now that the Syrian dictator has Saddam's WMD's the leftnuts are probably in love with him too.

Posted by: philanthropist | 2006-06-21 10:01:12 PM

The only mainstream news agency that seems to be reporting this is FOXNEWS. It's a shame that unless people watch FOX, they won't know about this. The other agencies are just flat out ignoring the annoucement. Our own CBC, the only source of news for some rural areas isn't even reporting it. Damn communist censors. If they don't like it they don't report it.

Posted by: Andrew | 2006-06-22 6:01:58 AM

If they found WMD's starting in 2003, why would they keep silent about it and let the opposition pummel them during an election year? That makes no sense.

Reread the story, they found the depleted residue of chemical weapons, left over from when the USA gave them to Saddam.

Posted by: NoSmokingGun | 2006-06-22 8:21:33 AM

Did you ever stop to think that their motivations go beyond politics? If they blew the lid on the chemical weapons you could guarantee the rest of them would be out of the country in no time and into the hands of terrorists who could then use them to perform attacks. Some decent people would rather put their political careers on the line to save lives unlike you pinko commies who would take advantage of any political opportunities.

Posted by: Andrew | 2006-06-22 9:00:35 AM


The US didn't give Saddam chemical weapons because the US doesn't have chemical weapons. The chems came from Germany (equipment and engineering and not the chemicals themselves,) the French, the Russians and the Chinese.

The US didn't sell them much (except SAMs) but did give them logistical support, CIA intel, and other non-hardware support during their war with Iran.

Notice the Iraqi army under saddam was driving Russian tanks, firing Chinese made AK47's and using old Russian Scuds and Migs? There were no M16's, no Abrams tanks, no f18's...

But don't let the facts stand in the way...

Posted by: Warwick | 2006-06-22 9:07:18 AM

This insistence that the US was Saddam's major arms supplier is really in bad faith. Here's a link to the Stockhold International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), who did a graph of countries transferring arms to Iraq from 1970 to 2004 (you'll need PDF). The US barely figures at all -- the major suppliers were Russia, France, China, throughout that time. It's no surprise that this data -- assembled by a Swedish Peace Studies group, no less -- is utterly ignored by the MSM and the Left, who just keep repeating lies about how the US was Saddam's sponsor. He was a Soviet client for most of his regime, until the USSR collapsed, and no, we didn't put him in power in the first place either.

Posted by: Lisa | 2006-06-22 9:43:28 AM

NSG: "If they found WMD's starting in 2003, why would they keep silent about it and let the opposition pummel them during an election year? That makes no sense."

You are correct, it makes no sense if your goal is to win an election. However, if this information has value to the enemy (for example, it might have helped lead terrorists and insurgents to other residual weapons) and you are trying to win a war it makes perfect sense to keep sensitive information secret.

This is a perfect example of why many people don't trust the Democrat party on a whole with national security: they are not sure the Democrats take it seriously enough, especially if a little leak of classified information suits their short-term political purposes. Republicans, as a party, seem to understand better that national security is more important than winning an election as any cost.

"If I could write my own epitaph and if I had to choose between saying, 'Here lies an unimportant President,' or 'Here lies one who contributed to saving freedom at a moment of great peril,' I would prefer the latter." - Wendell Willkie (Republican candidate 1940)

"I would rather lose the presidency and win the war than the reverse." - Thomas Dewey (Republican candidate 1944)

Posted by: submandave | 2006-06-22 10:30:20 AM

Really, Bush couldn't reveal the "WMDs" for strategic reasons!? This is the greatest thread ever. You are all twisting and squirming so much to avoid reality:

1. America gave Saddam weapons, including the ability to make chemical weapons. In fact, the CIA has provided Saddam with financial support ever since he was a youth in Egypt.

2. No WMD's have been found in Iraq -- they were destroyed long ago just as the UN reported.

3. The mainstream media are not widely reporting this "find" because it is not newsworthy; no WMDs were found and to suggest otherwise would be dishonest. Unlike some partisans, the media doesn't want to come out of this with egg on their face.

Okay, proceed to spin away. I will check back in a year or two to giggle incredulously at the depth of your delusions.

Posted by: When You're Wrong | 2006-06-22 8:08:56 PM


May I suggest reading The Bomb in my Garden by Mahdi Obeidi. It's available on amazon.com.

In his book, Mr. Obeidi reveals how he was asked by Saddam Hussein to hide plans for the nuclear project he was working on ... well, in his garden.

And, I also mentioned the former Iraqi air force commander who has written a book detailing how much of the weapons of mass destruction were airlifted to Syria.

But then, when you're wrong, facts are such a nuisance.

Every credible intelligence agency in the world, including France and Germany, outlined Saddam's accumulation of WMD's.

Apparently, freedom is so repulsive to you that you would have rather lived in a Baathist socialist republic based on one of Saddam's role models (as he readily admits) Adolf Hitler.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-23 12:08:26 AM

Wrong, I would rather the US had not used tax dollars to support Saddam and his regime over decades. Where were your cries for freedom then?

All the hearsay in the world means nothing, no matter what book it is printed in. If your books are such credible sources, rather than wishful thinking, Tony Snow would be speaking up insisting such things were true. But it does not happen because the White House does not want to embarrass itself further and lose more credibility.

We know Saddam had weapons in the past, that is no secret. The only secret appears to be that he had none near the end of his regime, and even then it is a secret only from partisan big-government Bush conservatives.

Posted by: SpinSpin | 2006-06-23 7:40:31 AM

Andrew, Lisa, submandave, and so many others,

Thank you for possessing-investigating the facts and/or extrapolating to the informed opinion which so obviously supports our united effort to end the institutionalized evil of the Islamo-Fascists projected through the tyrannical Arab dictatorships which support them.

These nutty notions that America was supporting or thereby creating Sadaams, et al is a calumny.

In every age, nations must attempt to deal with one another as things are, in attempts to influence things as we wish them to be.

As a kid I attended one of the great big public universities in America. 50,000 students on the main campus, with another campus in the same State, PLUS FIVE (5) additional campuses around the world, in developing countries (one in Nigeria and another in Thailand, I didn't bother to know where the others were).

There were all kinds of "kids" from foreign countries who attended school on the main American campus when I went to school.

In graduate school one of my friends was an Arab guy (and so I knew "all" the Arabs from all over the Middle East) and another guy who I helped, sort of tutored, in school was an Indian (from India), and there were a bunch of these beautiful girls from Thailand (dressed in all sorts of bolts of cloth wound around them) with a real strict chaperone always hovering around (I remember taking one of those girls out for an ice cream cone, it was planned like we were eloping).

There was no PROPAGANDA pressure cooker where they went into an underground chamber at noon only to reemerge at midnight.

They were just regular young people, some from very modest circumstances, some from evidently much better economic situations.

The program was just to get LOTS of young people educated here and to go back to their countries and help make things better there.

As idealistic (and brilliant) then, as I am certain that the basic American foreign policy is today.

How in Hell could we get hurt if the people of some foreign country become healthier, weathier, wiser, etc.?

That is the PLAN.

And if as many of them as possible got to know us, by living-studying-working in America, and they went back home, then they would know just exactly the story about America seen with their own eyes.

These folks posting here who like to pretend that America is up to all sorts of Machiavellian plots and plans to "steal their oil" have evidently been "educated" in movie theaters.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-06-23 9:02:38 AM


"The chemical weapons that have been recovered by US forces in Iraq were all made before the 1991 Gulf War and were too degraded for their intended use, US intelligence officials said.

They said all chemical weapons found since 2003 were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and they had no evidence Saddam was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons after that."

I guess we know which side was right on this debate and which side jumped the gun -- Again.

(That would be the Bush-loving "conservative" apologists who don't just ignore big deficits and out of control government growth but also the facts about Iraq.)

Posted by: Surprise! You're Wrong. | 2006-06-23 10:48:41 AM

I love how he forgot to mention the rest of the article that stated that the weapons would still be dangerous regardless of their age. Serin and mustard-filled canisters don't become soft with old age like old people.

Posted by: Andrew | 2006-06-23 12:13:56 PM

You are right about one thing, weapons *are* usually dangerous. And I guess we invaded to stop a few rotting canisters of mustard (which US intelligence labels no threat) from falling into the hands of the terrorists we created through a massive civilian body-count? Come on, you can do better than that.

I didn't "forget" the rest of the article, I linked to it in hopes that you would read the entire piece.

Of course I fully expected you to see the same result no matter what you read: that the war was necessary, justified, and not built on lies. Open your eyes.

Posted by: Thomas | 2006-06-23 1:26:56 PM

How about you open your eyes before the Mullahs bring the war to Canada and gouge them out the same way they gouged the American soldier's eyes. I'd rather fight them in their back yard than on my front lawn. They're hostile people and will fight us anywhere. They don't care if it is there or here.

Posted by: Andrew | 2006-06-23 1:39:08 PM

Next time I'm getting crushed in an argument I'm going to revert to yelling about the scary Arabs who want to gouge my eyes out. Cap it all off with a vow never to surrender. Congrats!!

Posted by: there are mullahs in my front lawn? | 2006-06-23 1:48:45 PM

Typical leftist response. You've lived too long under the Nanny State that you don't understand real life. Radical Muslims are called that for a reason. They don't want to be your friend. Yeah, you show your disrespect for the fallen American soldiers who had their eyes gouged, heart cut out and genitals cut off and put in their mouth. But according to you, that's not scary. According to you that's a peaceful acceptable thing to do. They aren't the least bit aggressive right? My goodness, animals don't even do that.

Posted by: Andrew | 2006-06-23 1:55:00 PM

Don't feed the troll.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-06-23 1:58:03 PM

How is that search for the WMDs? Good. Or have we moved on to general outrage?

Posted by: radical muslims are called radical muslims because they are radical | 2006-06-23 2:03:49 PM

Avoid the troll. *Just don't look, just don't look* tralalalalalala

Posted by: Andrew | 2006-06-23 2:10:46 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.