portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

imperialism & war

There were never any WMDs

I have a new definition for the abbreviation WMD, instead of "weapons of mass destruction":

"W's Mass Deception."
'proof is in the receipts'
'proof is in the receipts'
The news points to this: There were never any WMD

Date published: 7/12/2003

In response to the recent letters from George Vanek and particularly Kathleen Redden in support of President Bush's war in Iraq, yes, those of us who question the war do watch the news ["There's been enough bleating from ungrateful Bush-haters," "Only foolish deny Saddam's regime had WMD," July 8].

We know that the nuclear weapons components buried in an Iraqi scientist's back yard had been there since the early 1990s. This is an imminent threat? And there is no evidence whatsoever that any visits to Iraq by al-Qaida members had anything to do with Sept. 11.

The Bush administration has acknowledged that false statements were made in the State of the Union Address regarding Iraq's attempted purchase of nuclear materials.

I have a new definition for the abbreviation WMD, instead of "weapons of mass destruction": "W's Mass Deception."

Karen Payne

Colonial Beach

Date published: 7/12/2003

homepage: homepage: http://www.freelancestar.com/News/FLS/2003/072003/07122003/1032978
address: address: Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star

That's beside the point 12.Jul.2003 23:33


WMD or no WMD, the US is at war with Militant Islam, wherever it comes from. It doesn't matter. That's just splitting hairs.

'Snaggle HAS NO POINT. 12.Jul.2003 23:56


"at war with Militant Islam"

--please explain how the secular Ba'ath regime of Saddam Hussein and its invasion by US forces constitutes "war with Militant Islam" . . .

a ruse 13.Jul.2003 09:17

by any other name

"That's just splitting hairs."

The "hairs" have names. Some of them are the names of innocent Iraqui children, others are the names of U. S. soldiers... yours- or mine- friends, neighbors, brothers, or sons.

At the present rate, by the time the Rumsfeld-projected 10-year occupation of Iraq is finished, that will be more "hairs" just on our side of the part, than were "split" on 9-11.

I could expect dehumanizing the other side- that's pretty highly contagious, unfortunately... but is it really that easy to dehumanize even your own?

amusing 13.Jul.2003 12:14


go to www.google.com and type in "weapons of mass destruction" (no quotes) and then hit "I'm feeling lucky".

Google 13.Jul.2003 14:20


That Google thing IS funny!

I didn't say US is right to be there, or that the US is doing it the right way. All I said was is that the US is at war with Militant Islam, wherever it comes from. I was neither condoning nor criticizing.

Perhaps I should have said "US is at war with Militant Islam, real or perceived, wherever it comes from."

It doesn't really matter if WMDs are found. They did, of course, exist. We gave Iraq a long time to get rid of them.

When I was a kid, if I had some kind of "contraband" out in my room and I could hear my mother coming down the hall, I hid the contraband or threw it out the window. Know what I mean?

'Snaggle' STILL HAS NO POINT. 13.Jul.2003 14:24


"Perhaps I should have said "US is at war with Militant Islam, real or perceived, wherever it comes from." It doesn't really matter if WMDs are found."

--WHY do you make this comment with reference to Iraq?

please explain how the secular Ba'ath regime of Saddam Hussein and its invasion and occupation by US forces constitutes "war with Militant Islam".

snaggle misses the point yet again 13.Jul.2003 14:31


What xx pointed out was that we are not at war with "militant islam" since Hussein's regime were moderate Muslims and secularists, not fundamentalists and militants. You are obviously so clueless to the history of the region it seems pointless to even try to point out these very simple basic facts. Do everyone a favor and turn off your tv and read some history before just regurgitating what tv has spoon-fed you to believe. As for the existence of WMD, well, they existed before the inspections and sanctions. The problem is, the inspections and sanctions seemed to have done away with them all in the 90's. In which case, what is the purpose of the invasion again? I mean, other than the obvious securing of the oil fields, to be run by Dick Cheney's colleagues in Halliburton, the profits of which to be funneled in into Bush and Cheney's friends and associates in Bechtel, Halliburton, and the rest. Has tv caused people to forget that this war was predicated as a pre-emptive strike against a nation that could harm us. And if there were no WMD, which there obviously aren't or they would have been found and presented means that what we did was nothing more than an invasion and occupation of a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world.

No WMDs? 14.Jul.2003 00:36


If there were no WMDs, then why didn't Saddam welcome the inspectors with open arms and end the sanctions ASAP? After all, he did forgo $150 billion in oil revenues in those 12 years. Or did he do that just for giggles?

open arms 14.Jul.2003 00:51


I seem to remember that Saddam Hussein welcomed the unconditional return of the inspectors who were free to visit any and all sites whenever they wished. That meets my definition of open arms. Are people's attention spans really that short that they cannot remember what happened 4 months ago? Because if so, that is really sad (and this isn't the first time I've seen people make this claim on this site).

Also 14.Jul.2003 01:56


No doubt Hussein's government was weary of the inspections regime. But does that prove the existence of WMD? Of course not.

That notion is roughly the same as the idea that "only the criminals have something to hide."

Mr. Hussein and his government had legitimate concerns about the inspections. The United Nations and the United States were not just demanding access to suspected weapons sites. They were demanding access to every single public building in the nation. Ministerial headquarters, presidential palaces, etc. All with no warning. That's the equivalent of a foreign nation asking permission to pop-in at the White House, Pentagon, Justice Department and CIA Langley Headquarters without any formal warning.

Many of the countries leading these inspections -- the United States, Britain, etc -- were not friendly governments.

The Ba'ath Party Government was involved in numerous legal activities they would rightfully want to hide from such governments. Troop deployments, military readiness, etc.

Further, The United States had come right out and encouraged the assasination of Mr. Hussein. And then there's the policy of the Israeli government. And the Iranians. And whatever else. Because of that, Mr. Hussein personal whereabouts were a matter of state security. Allowing inspectors to visit any Iraqi site, at any time, could clearly have jeoporadized his personal security.

In 1998, the Iraqi government threw-out UN inspectors not to reconstitute their weapons programs, but rather as an act of defiance of the perennial economic sanctions strangling the country. It was the official position of the Iraqi government in 1998 that the weapons were gone, and the inspectors were merely spying on the country. Iraq demanded some concession from the UN -- some loosening of the economic strangehold -- in exchange for continued cooperation with the inspectors. When none was given, they forced the inspectors out. (And President Clinton began a popularity-boosting Tomahawk Cruise Missile assault).

Most verifiable evidence given by this government and the British government has been proven false. The latest UN inspections team has wondered publicly why the United States and British governments expected to find WMD in Iraq when they told them they weren't there.

This latest Niger Uranium episode has been telling -- we already knew the evidence was faked -- but the administration's response has shown the lengths this administration is willing to go to manipulate the evidence.

The mincing of words is incredible. Our government knows the Iraqi-Niger Uranium story to be false. But we still cite it, using the precise language "The British government tells us..." That statement is then factually correct, because the British government did tell us that. (Despite its falseness). Then, other Administration figures -- Mr. Rumsfeld, Ms. Rice, Mr. Fleischer -- cite the President. "As the President has said..." That too, it factually correct. The President did say that, when he cited the British government. Yet all the while, all of these individuals know the claims not to be true. (Either that, or they're incompetent, which is just as bad.)

This is not the first time this scandal has appeared. Months before war, the exact same scadal scenario occured with the Aluminum tubing fiasco. Our own government -- the Energy Department, DIA -- informed the National Security Council and Vice President's office the tubing most likely could not be used for such purposes. Yet the President still cited the evidence.

Seymour Hersh wrote of all of this months and months ago.

Anyway, I've gotten way off track. The main point I was trying to make is that when a foreign government asks permission to visit your most secret sites unannounced, the natural inclination is to not allow it, whether or not you're guilty of the charges made against you.

Still, as others have pointed out, Iraq did eventually allow UN inspectors into the country -- with complete access to everything. (Upon which the inspectors found nothing, except borderline banned missiles and old, impotent mustard gas shells, which had long since passed their shelf life).

This ex post facto humanitarian jusification is all fine and well, but it can hardly excuse the Administration from their deliberate deception and lies which misled our congress and people to war.

Incentive 14.Jul.2003 09:03


"Still, as others have pointed out, Iraq did eventually allow UN inspectors into the country "

The US military on the border and a new unanimous UN resolution may have been a little incentive...

'Eddie'-- 14.Jul.2003 10:57


"If there were no WMDs"

--there AREN'T any.

Yeah, but Saddam Hussein gassed his own people!!! 14.Jul.2003 11:18


Well I guess in your opinion Iraq is damned no matter what they do.

Certainly they weren't going to let the inspectors in out of the goodness of their hearts, for the reasons I listed. Further, the decision had already been made to goto war, and the inspections process would only be used for one of two purposes:

a) to find evidence to support the war, which had already been decided upon, or
b) to find information to help in the prosecution of the war.

The Iraqi Government eventually let the inspectors in as a PR stunt. But as everyone around the world knows, you don't send 120,000 soldiers halfway around the world, let them sit there for 6 months and then bring them home. Our military adventure was going ahead, despite the conclusions of UNMOVIC.

Yes, the invasion/occupation-force sitting at the border forced Mr. Hussein's hand with the inspectors. But the key point is that the inspectors didn't find anything to justifiy the war. (But they did destroy conventional weapons, such as the al-Samoud II missiles which would have been fairly useful to Mr. Hussein's military during the war).

I think you should get the picture of Saddam Hussein as the bogeyman out of your mind. American Presidents and American Politics have slided further and further into unaccountability on this point. While Mr. Hussein was once just a despot, now he's regarded as a maniacal, crazy despot of the worst kind -- a man who can't be bargained with. Strange how almost overnight between '90 and '91 Mr. Hussein went from important ally, meeting with western leaders, to crazy man.

Nothing 14.Jul.2003 14:41


Nothing the Weed administration said has proved out to be true. George I ignored humans rights violations by the Chinease government simply because It was politically expedient. The first Weed had a chance to help the Kurdish people but failed. Is there a pattern here?
The Weed roots are deep, and will require great effort to dig out.
The bonfire must burn long
and must be hot
so that no trace remains.

obviously 14.Jul.2003 14:56


This administration has studied the work of Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels quite extensively. Of course, what could the united states expect from its recruitment of Nazi war criminals after world war 2 if not to learn a few things from them.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it."
- Joseph Goebbels

"If we have the power, we'll never give it up again unless we're carried out of our offices as corpses".
- Joseph Goebbels

"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State."
- Joseph Goebbels

"Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play."
- Joseph Goebbels

"[T]he rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitive. In the long run basic results in influencing public opinion will be achieved only by the man who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms and who has the courage to keep forever repeating them in this simplified form, despite the objections of the intellectuals."
- Joseph Goebbels

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
- Joseph Goebbels

"The masses need something that will give them a thrill of horror."
- Joseph Goebbels