The US Report featured an analysis about WikiLeaks’ publication of official military documents disclosing weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. I wrote my column on November 9. Big media is just now discovering the significance and it’s obvious the political fact based on a lie—there were no WMDs in Iraq—was part of an overall, continuing assassination of US leadership.
But there's more to this story than WikiLeaks.
I focused not only on the WikiLeaks disclosure but on the tie-in to the Oil for Food scandal the United Nations (in my opinion) enabled.
Wired Magazine admitted WMDs were in Iraq and US troops continued to find them. Columnist Noah Shachtman wrote: “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.”
Shachtman is no neocon—he downplayed the findings. Progressives attacked him anyway for divulging the truth. If you really want to have some fun, read the angry comments progs posted because they just couldn’t bear seeing a fellow prog tell an unwelcome truth.
In my November column, I summed up why I think anti-war sentiment was flamed so intensely—there were billions at stake, hinging on letting Saddam continue business as usual. The UN turned a blind eye, paying lip service only to the issue. Crooks made millions.
Former president George W. Bush writes about the Iraq problem at length in his memoir ‘Decision Points.’
Bush reminds us of the context. A unanimous UN Security Council resolution spelled out serious consequences if Saddam continued to defy inspections to verify he did not have WMDs. The US had contacted Arab nations to discuss the idea of a place for Saddam’s exile. Bush said he gave Saddam and his sons “a final forty-eight hours to avoid war.” [pg. 224]
Moreover in 1998 President Bill Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act—“To support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein…” [pg.228]
Clinton had put a bandaid on the situation. Bush wrote, “By early 2001, Saddam Hussein was waging a low-grade war against the United States. In 1999 and 2000, his forces had fired seven hundred times at our pilots patrolling the no-fly zones.” [pg. 228]
On Jan. 27, 2000, The New York Times ran an editorial about Iraq WMDs with the following statement: “The further the
world gets from the gulf war, the more it seems willing to let Mr. Hussein revive his deadly weapons projects.”
If you backtrack through news coverage of the times, it’s obvious no one knew what Saddam had. We did know he had used chemical weapons on his own people.
Am I glad we went to war? No. But I understand Bush’s decision. Furthermore, I believe the UN should pay reparations to the U.S., for de facto complicity in the bilking of the Oil for Food program and for damages the U.S. has sustained by doing the job we pay a fortune to the UN to do.
UN double standard: US taxpayers to fund...rehab hanging gardens
The US didn't wreck Iraq's famous hanging gardens--they were mostly destroyed by villagers. But the US is coughing up nearly a billion dollars via an earmark to restore them. (The US Report)
The Final Volcker Oil for Food Report
The Heritage Foundation assesses the scandal and the corruption. (Web Memo #913, The Heritage Foundation)
WikiLeaks on Iraqi WMD
Commentary at Red State
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Dec. 13, 2010)