Why War in Iraq?


Jan 20, 2006
Many people have debated this before but I hope to clarify a few issue about weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq and that Iraq, while not responsible for 9/11, did have a relationship with Al Quida.

Declassified Portion of NGIC report in PDF format about approximately 500 munitions being discovered in Iraq containing degraded mustard or sarin nerve gas agent. Link

Fox News Story about the 500 WMDs being discovered in Iraq since 2003. Link.

Excerpt: "The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," Santorum read from the document.

"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee."

"Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."

Washington Post article about how media is ignoring earlier reporting about the threat posed by Saddam.
Excerpt: "It Wasn't Just Miller's Story"
"The Judith Miller-Valerie Plame-Scooter Libby imbroglio is being reduced to a simple narrative about the origins of the Iraq war. Miller, the story goes, was an anti-Saddam Hussein, weapons-of-mass-destruction-hunting zealot and was either an eager participant or an unwitting dupe in a campaign by Bush administration officials and Iraqi exiles to justify the invasion. The New York Times now characterizes the affair as "just one skirmish in the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq." Miller may be "best known for her role in a series of Times articles in 2002 and 2003 that strongly suggested Saddam Hussein already had or was acquiring an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction." According to the Times's critique, she credulously reported information passed on by "a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on 'regime change' in Iraq," which was then "eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq." Many critics outside the Times suggest that Miller's eagerness to publish the Bush administration's line was the primary reason Americans went to war. The Times itself is edging closer to this version of events.

There is a big problem with this simple narrative. It is that the Times, along with The Post and other news organizations, ran many alarming stories about Iraq's weapons programs before the election of George W. Bush. A quick search through the Times archives before 2001 produces such headlines as "Iraq Has Network of Outside Help on Arms, Experts Say"(November 1998), "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan"(August 1998), "Iraq Suspected of Secret Germ War Effort" (February 2000), "Signs of Iraqi Arms Buildup Bedevil U.S. Administration" (February 2000), "Flight Tests Show Iraq Has Resumed a Missile Program" (July 2000). (A somewhat shorter list can be compiled from The Post's archives, including a September 1998 headline: "Iraqi Work Toward A-Bomb Reported.") The Times stories were written by Barbara Crossette, Tim Weiner and Steven Lee Myers; Miller shared a byline on one."

ABC News article about a Bin Laden contact meeting with Iraq
dated: 3/23/'06
Excerpt:"Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq"

"A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

Speech on YouTube by Al Gore about how HW Bush ignored Iraq's ties with terrorists. Link.
C-Span 9/29/'92
Sure, you can find many good superficial and artificial reasons to go to war with numerous countries including Iraq.

It doesn't mean they were real reasons why it happened or good reasons to do it anyhow.
Wow, I thought we were over this discussion years ago.
The South needs to be re-invaded. Digs on Civil War battlefields prove the existance of a weapons program.
The War was for oil. And other silly catch phrases.
The South needs to be re-invaded. Digs on Civil War battlefields prove the existance of a weapons program.

The Civil War took place 143 years ago. The First Gulf War took place less than 20 years ago. Your comparison holds no water, whatsoever.
The Civil War took place 143 years ago. The First Gulf War took place less than 20 years ago. Your comparison holds no water, whatsoever.
You're right. The South has had a 120 year head start to clean up its battlefields. They must be planning something really big if they have refused to do so by now.
Damn straight we are!


On topic, we've seen similar reports here from time to time; the fact that they don't get much press should say something...
Top Bottom