My, My It Seems Wikileaks Also Show That All Those Intelligence Agencies Were Right

[Kathianne]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010...ising-results/

Most anyone that was on the boards back then, know this stuff, but here's hoping the left is as open to this tact, as the 'torture' bandwagon.

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

* By Noah Shachtman
* October 23, 2010

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.

But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. 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.

In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.

Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”

Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”

...


Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010...#ixzz13IJA3clG

[Noir]

Odd the Americans milatary didn't make more of this.

In any end, I dont know exactly what lines you guys were feed so I can't really comment on that, however the UK government told us that 45 minutes after Saddam hitting a button WMDs would be raining down over London. Doent seem the Wiki leaks support that in any way.

[Kathianne]

and another 'unfortunate truth':

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a..._lancet_scare/

WikiLeaks nails the wild Lancet scare

Andrew Bolt
Sunday, October 24, 2010 at 07:17am


I’m not sure it’s what WikiLeaks intended, but its latest leaks reveal that the infamous Lancet paper which claimed the US-led liberation of Iraq cost the lives of 655,000 Iraqis in fact exaggerated the death toll by at least 600 per cent:

The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq (over six years). These include 66,081 “civilians,” 23,984 “enemy” insurgents, 15,196 “host nation” (Iraqi government forces), and 3,771 “friendly” (coalition) forces. Some 60 percent of the total is civilian deaths.

And that’s leaving aside the argument about who actually killed the Iraqis, and whether more would have died under Saddam. Note also that this death toll is less than the number of people murdered in South Africa over the same period, and that even allowing for population differences, Iraq’s death toll is now lower.

Settle back and see if that’s how the ABC and Fairfax report these latest leaks.

Needless to say, lots of links.

[BoogyMan]

Odd the Americans milatary didn't make more of this.

In any end, I dont know exactly what lines you guys were feed so I can't really comment on that, however the UK government told us that 45 minutes after Saddam hitting a button WMDs would be raining down over London. Doent seem the Wiki leaks support that in any way.

Got any references for that claim? I don't remember that one.

[Gaffer]

Odd the Americans milatary didn't make more of this.

In any end, I dont know exactly what lines you guys were feed so I can't really comment on that, however the UK government told us that 45 minutes after Saddam hitting a button WMDs would be raining down over London. Doent seem the Wiki leaks support that in any way.

The MSM didn't report that stuff because it was counter productive to what they wanted the general populous to believe. It was left out of the news on purpose. Making Bush look bad was their primary concern. I knew about these finds because I read independent reporters blogs who were reporting from the field. The news was out there. The media was just ignoring it.

[darin]

...and the Bush administration failed to highlight Truths. While the Media failed to report, the Army failed to speak loud enough about the WMD finds.

[NightTrain]

Saddam used his WMDs previously, it was a documented fact. He'd used them against Iranians and against rebellious Iraqis, that was why we established the 'No Fly Zone'.

I never did understand why, given that the entire world knew he'd used them already, liberals would run around after the fact and blithely claim he never had them in the first place.

[Noir]

Got any references for that claim? I don't remember that one.

Indeedy, it seems time has played with my memory (I was 12 at the time) the claim was Britons could be attacked in 45mins.

Heres the full timeline, it was at the core of the drive to get public support for the war

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3466005.stm

[NightTrain]

I never heard about Britain being threatened by them... however there was a lot of talk about coalition troops about to invade on the borders being attacked with WMDs via scud missile delivery.

All Saddam had to deliver WMDs were his primitive scud missiles which didn't have the range or guidance systems to reach more than a few hundred miles.

The scud sites and mobile scuds were top priority with the first air strikes inland to protect troops and Israel - didn't get all of them, but most were taken out before they could launch.

[DragonStryk72]

I never heard about Britain being threatened by them... however there was a lot of talk about coalition troops about to invade on the borders being attacked with WMDs via scud missile delivery.

All Saddam had to deliver WMDs were his primitive scud missiles which didn't have the range or guidance systems to reach more than a few hundred miles.

The scud sites and mobile scuds were top priority with the first air strikes inland to protect troops and Israel - didn't get all of them, but most were taken out before they could launch.

And I do remember an article a few years back where they had found a chem lab, but it was from the Gulf War, and had been buried out in the desert as part of the disarmament.

[revelarts]

"Remnants" of a chemical lab, A bunker "tampered with", a few canisters and few guys with some chemicals in their house you say?


Enough to go to war over?

Not quite the potential "mushroom cloud" Bush and Rice warned us about. Or high tech Mobile BIO TRUCKS units General Powell talked about.

"TONS of VX"
"Large Stock PILES Chem and BIO"
"THREAT to AMERICA"
"CHEMICAL WARHEADS"
"26000 Liters of ANTHRAX"
"UNACCOUNTED FOR SAREN GAS"
"Capability to rapidly Create More Bio Weapon QUICKLY"
"Hidden in Large Groves of Palm Trees"
"aluminum tubes"
"Uranium From Africa"
"Hidden Weapons of MASS Destruction"
"MUSHROOM CLOUD!!!"
"WAR IS THE ONLY OPTION TO DISARM SADDAM HUSSEIN."

So we go to war and then what do they say?

"OH, they Will be found, over a period of time."

BUSH: "Where are those weapons of Mass Destruction. not over here, no Not over here. they've got to be around here somewhere... OH Well. ...chortle chortle "


One of the 1st set of post i added when I joined the board was about who Saddam got the chemical weapons in the 1st place, (U.S. Arms and chemical companies) and how Major Doug Rockke tells how he and his men were assigned in the 1st gulf war to find and remove all of it. Major Rokke says his men did a through job. He admits that a very small amount of it may have gotten by him. But not enough to go to war over. Fox news years ago did run several pieces on finding few cans of really OLD chem weapons. So old that they weren't even useful. About as deadly as many of the products in our kitchen cabinets.

BUT NONE OF THE ITEMS MENTION IN THE LEAKS COMES CLOSE to the claims of "MASSIVE STOCKPILES" and Hidden Bunkers of Bio and Chem manufacturing we were told about.

A few chem labs in a house?
A few canisters?

Is that what you believed they would find after all of the things we were told to gin us up go to war?

I wish someone would give me an honest answer to that.

Truth is neither Left or Right by the way.

[revelarts]

The Lancet Story is interesting. I wonder who's responsible for doing that? that needs to be Exposed thoroughly as well.
Lies on the Left Lies on the right. It's just to much work to find the truth these days.

[Kathianne]

The Lancet Story is interesting. I wonder who's responsible for doing that? that needs to be Exposed thoroughly as well.
Lies on the Left Lies on the right. It's just to much work to find the truth these days.

Soros. The Lancet too was proven wrong nearly immediately, just under and mis-reported. By the time of the following, it just didn't matter.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3177653.ece

January 13, 2008
Anti-war Soros funded Iraq study
Brendan Montague

A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.

The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.

New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003...

[PostmodernProphet]

Indeedy, it seems time has played with my memory (I was 12 at the time) the claim was Britons could be attacked in 45mins.

Heres the full timeline, it was at the core of the drive to get public support for the war

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3466005.stm

/shrugs....if you've read your link you already know that claim came from the British press, not the British government......the government was talking about attacks in Iraq......

[Noir]

/shrugs....if you've read your link you already know that claim came from the British press, not the British government......the government was talking about attacks in Iraq......

No, the JIC report was talking about British Bases in cyprus being attacked, and it went on to say that Saddam was only a year away from having nuclear weapons.

From the report...“They [missiles] could be used with conventional, chemical or biological warheads and are capable of reaching a number of countries in the region including Cyprus.

“He has constructed a new engine test stand for the development of missiles capable of reaching the UK sovereign base areas in Cyprus.”