Except in the deluded minds of the far left, there is no doubt there were WMD in Iraq. I had a relative who was an Army Intel Colonel whose job it was to examine and inventory the captured stockpiles. He later became ill and died as a result of his exposure to some of the toxic agents. We also have satellite photos of truckloads of WMD being transported to Syria.

Also, I used to have a co-worker who was in the hospital for a while. One of his male nurses was a former Special Forces medic who confirmed that there were stockpiles of WMD that were captured and destroyed by SF units (U.S and British) during the conflict.

They found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Funny how the definition, especially among the right wing-ding crowd, has now shifted ever-lower to include 10 old, depleted mustard gas artillery shells. The only way those could be WMD is if thousands lined up to be beat to death with them.
While it was expected they'd find something -- what with Reagan and Pappy Bush sending Saddam all those chemical precursors--they found nothing but scraps. What little remnants of chemical weapons were found do not, in the least, at all, meet the US Military's definition of WMD.

I guess you slept through that lesson, DJohn.

The first hint you were on to yet another brain-dead Rwing article -- the one you linked--is when the hack starts trying to fluff the article up with a half-truth about the Iraq Liberation Act -- typical Rwing mush, but out of place.
The second hint is when he starts yammering about the liberal media hiding this from you. If there were truly WMD found in Iraq, every half-witted Republican pol in Congress would have been shouting it with their hair on fire for emphasis. They didn't, and haven't since those Wikileak docs came out last year.

It would add some fun if you'll offer your theory of why this story didn't get to them...or why they can't speak out...especially since there's not much in the area of base-generated dipshittery they won't pop off about. They're leavin' ya hangin', dude....whyfore?

Better you stick with the theory the WMD were sent to Syria, and Bush didn't tell Americans or do anything because (insert absurd idea here).

If you'd reconsider your rejection of the Theory of Evolution, you might offer that the WMD sprouted legs, like tadpoles...and walked to Syria.

PS--you should read the original article that was spun into this months-old Rwing shrillfest...it's far less...strident...than yours.

Paul-This just proves that you know very little about the manufacture of chemical weapons. Once you have the compound manufactured you are in business. It's the R&D phase that takes a while. I'm sure we did give some of this to Saddam for use against Iran. No doubt.

However, it takes VERY little biological compound to poison a water supply. All you need is a few ounces and nature takes it from there. Would Saddam poison his own water supply? You bet he would if he knew we would be using that water.

Like I said I didn't expect anyone to jump up and down about this. Not even the GOP wants to go back there now with all that we have to do these days it's irrelevant. It does not good to bring things up from the past Administration. Obama does that enough for all of us.

I expected this to get buried and it was. Nobody is talking about it because WikiLeaks is BAAAD. We can't be on the side of Assange and his ilk. Let sleeping dogs lie.

My guess is we'll find out sooner or later where all this stuff went and who has it now.

DJohn
That was an awesome and eye opening link.

The worst human rights abuses of Hussein's tenure took place during the genocidal al-Anfal Campaign (1986-1989), in which Hussein's administration called for the extermination of every living thing--human or animal--in certain regions of the Kurdish north. All told, some 182,000 people--men, women, and children--were slaughtered, many through use of chemical weapons. The Halabja poison gas massacre of 1988 alone killed over 5,000 people.

Saddam’s favorite WMD of choice was poison gas. Saddam Hussein used WMD and the liberals in America would not acknowledge that. The liberals were bent on their political agenda against Bush, the liberals said to hell with the Truth of Saddam gassing people and literally committing atrocities.

One way or the other, the Truth will always get out.

But alas, the Pentagon says the gassing that killed those 182K Kurds never happened. They do say there was one incident where Iraqi and Iranian troops were exchanging chemical artillery and, most likely Iranian shells caused many civilian deaths, but the 182K gassed is pure urban legend. We looked for, but never found those supposed mass graves.
I patiently await the day either one of you guys trips over a fact, then acknowledges it. But the gnashing over fantasies is fun to watch.

We had to invade Iraq because Al Qaeda could have gotten chemical weapons from their sworn enemy Saddam...even though a chemistry student could mix them up in a plastic garbage can, like the Aum cult did to launch a Sarin attack in Tokyo.
Despite the Bush claims of a massive secret effort, nothing was found...but a few depleted shells. Look! It's the WMD! The ones that weren't slip-slided into Syria...where Bush couldn't do anything because...well...because. BUT ONE DAY THE TRUTH WILL BE KNOWN!!!

Thanks for the laughs, guys.

I'm with you, DJohn.

I am ever amazed at how arrogant the Left is in their arguments. Why is it they speak so condescendingly and as if they are the only ones who know the truth and everyone else is an idiot? Of course, they would say that is because everyone else IS an idiot.

Don't want to be a Bible thumper here, but somewhere in that book there's a verse that says, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." If the shoe fits.....

paulj
You say, “But alas, the Pentagon says the gassing that killed those 182K Kurds never happened. They do say there was one incident where Iraqi and Iranian troops were exchanging chemical artillery and, most likely Iranian shells caused many civilian deaths, but the 182K gassed is pure urban legend. We looked for, but never found those supposed mass graves.”

You must be Saddam’s cousin, or something. The pictures of Kurds lying in the streets from a chemical weapons attack are very evident. The war between Iran and Iraq consisted of a chemical weapons war. Saddam used them against Iran. He used WMD.

I find it odd that you would take the side of Saddam Hussein, when the perpetrator of the genocide is in question. My opinion is that Saddam hated the Kurds and absolutely would have gassed them, as evidenced by his other atrocities committed against his own people. I would also say and admit that it is possible that Iran gassed them. The Saddam atrocities, committed against his own people, lead me to believe he was animal enough to do it. Nothing says he did not have the capabilities. If Iran had them, so did Saddam.

Halabja poison gas attack:
The Halabja attack has been recognized as a separate event from the Anfal Genocide that was also conducted against the Kurdish people by the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi High Criminal Court recognized the Halabja massacre as an act of genocide on March 1, 2010, a decision welcomed by the Kurdistan Regional Government. The attack was also condemned as a crime against humanity by the Parliament of Canada.

The five-hour attack began early in the evening of March 16, 1988, following a series of indiscriminate conventional (rocket and napalm) attacks, when Iraqi MiG and Mirage aircraft began dropping chemical bombs on Halabja's residential areas, far from the besieged Iraqi army base on the outskirts of the town. According to regional Kurdish rebel commanders, Iraqi aircraft conducted up to 14 bombings in sorties of seven to eight planes each; helicopters coordinating the operation were also seen. Eyewitnesses told of clouds of smoke billowing upward "white, black and then yellow"', rising as a column about 150 feet in the air.
Survivors said the gas at first smelled of sweet apples; they said people died in a number of ways, suggesting a combination of toxic chemicals (some of the victims "just dropped dead" while others "died of laughing"; while still others took a few minutes to die, first "burning and blistering" or coughing up green vomit). It is believed that Iraqi forces used multiple chemical agents during the attack, including mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX; some sources have also pointed to the blood agent hydrogen cyanide (most of the wounded taken to hospitals in the Iranian capital Tehran were suffering from mustard gas exposure).

Paulj, I am sorry to see that you would rather defend an animal such as Saddam Hussein in order to disprove an American and minimalize an atrocity against innocent people. There may be no complete proof, except for the fact that many men, women and children died at the hands of WMD. Saddam’s evil history against his own people gives him the motive to use these chemical weapons, yet you jump straight to his defense. You truly are a deluded and misinformed liberal progressive, willing to use anything to disprove a conservative American.

There were thousands of men, women and children’s souls who died a ghastly death those days, with the pictures to prove it. Why don’t you burn the memory of the images of those people into that pea brain of yours and try to defend Saddam Hussein.

Paulj, you say, “Thanks for the laughs, guys.”
Sorry to see you think this is something to laugh about.

Go ahead and walk straight up to their graves, laugh and tell them it was not Saddam Hussein. Paulj, you really are an evil SOB.

Planner,
Yes, if you don't like facts, complain about how they are presented. Ah, the arrogance of defeating hyped-up lies! How dare anyone ridicule mendacity! How about John 8:32?

But yes, anyone who publicly advances untruths without bothering to check the facts is an idiot. Whining isn't a very impressive defense. You could try...educating yourself?

Tommy T,
If you'll read the whole Wiki article you copied from, you'll find the Pentagon disputes that story. That they dispute it, and say it was most likely Iranian gas that did the killing is easy to find on the internet. Even you could find it if you could get beyond wanting to believe what you want to believe.
Then, like the low IQ airhead you are, you equate the truth with a defense of Saddam. I realize you do that because you're very weak-minded, and at least borderline insane, and that you're a sucker for anything sent by e-mail. 100 years ago, you'd have been and excitable Bolshevik...80 years ago you'd have been a loyal Brownshirt. You're just that type -- your limited grasp of intelligence is always overwhelmed by your excitable nature and open invitation to let others fill your head. In a way I understand that...it's easier to let others do your thinking for you.
However, you should choose smarter people to do your thinking for you. Here on OS, as it would be anywhere the average IQ exceeds 90...you're a joke.

Paulj
Seeing as you were the one to bring up scripture, Do you know what the Truth, being spoken about in John 8:32, is? Sadly, you have eyes, but will never see. You have ears, but will never hear.