Gay Patriot Header Image


Posted by Bruce Carroll at 8:30 am - November 19, 2005.
Filed under: War On Terror

[Ed. note – Thanks to “SonicFrog” for the link to the actual UN report in the comments, and for pointing out to me that this story is over a year old. I missed the date when I first posted it because I wrongly assumed that this was new news. After all, this is so important in debunking the myth that there were no WMD in Iraq, that I was naive to think that we would have heard about this from the NYTCNNABCNBC before now.]

Well, no kidding. Anyone with a brain knows this since everyone from Madeleine Albright to Bill Clinton to Kofi Annan to Jacques Chirac were convinced that Saddam had WMD.

But now… at last… the UN agency tasked with finding and dismantling Saddam’s weapons has come to the conclusion that I assumed years ago. Saddam dismantled his WMD stockpile and smuggled them out of his country before the invasion.

UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq – The Vanguard

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam’s lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items – with UN inspection tags still on them — as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.

Notably absent from that list is Iraq’s western neighbor Syria, ruled by its own Baath Party just like Saddam’s and closed to even the thought of an UNMOVIC inspection. Israeli intelligence has been reporting the large-scale smuggling of Saddam’s WMD program across the Syrian border since at least two months before the war. Syria has long been the world’s foremost state-sponsor of terrorism.

Shouldn’t this be the lead on NBC Nightly News tonight? THIS is why OpenSourceMedia was formed!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)



  1. While we hear about how Bush “lied”

    Lets thank Gay Patriot for this source to say otherwise.


    Trackback by Inside Larry's head — November 18, 2005 @ 7:44 pm - November 18, 2005

  2. I agree with #1. Thanks, GP. You and West and Mom and even Saxby have proven what I have stated all along – the truth will always win out. YOU ARE A TRUE PATRIOT. The heck with your detractors and nay-sayers.

    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — November 18, 2005 @ 8:23 pm - November 18, 2005

  3. Thanks for the good news, Bruce.

    Comment by PatC — November 18, 2005 @ 9:58 pm - November 18, 2005

  4. Here is the link to the actual UNMOVIC report.

    Comment by sonicfrog — November 18, 2005 @ 10:02 pm - November 18, 2005

  5. Good morning, Sonic Frog

    Comment by V the K — November 19, 2005 @ 9:54 am - November 19, 2005

  6. This is “news” from May of 2004. If you think this was such a smoking gun, don’t you think some group in the GOP, maybe the White House or RNC, would have been waving it around screaming from the rafters as soon as the WMD issue was brought up? Why do you think they stayed mum? Did you read the UNMOVIC report at all? In your post you claim they found a reactor vessel, warheads and tons of scraps of missile parts in Jordan, Turkey and Holland. The report never mentions Jordan or Turkey, just the Netherlands. In fact the report doesn’t say anything about finding reactor vessels or warheads and the missile parts were part of the regulation breaking Al-Samoud 2 missile that inspectors had found and started having dismantled. Keep in mind that made the missile range still a theater missile, not an ICBM. Certainly a violation and certainly something needed to be dressed but also certainly not a WMD and definitely not a reason to spend $200 billion invading a country. How about all of the chemical and biological weapons that you insinuate are mentioned in the report. It boils down to “dual-use” agricultural equipment and supplies. “Dual-use” includes pretty much every common agricultural chemical and piece of equipment. How about if there was any discovery of it being converted over from dual use? We have this report stating in Section II Paragraph 14, “In general, from 1999 to 2002 Iraq procured a variety of dual-use biological and chemical items and materials, including chemicals, equipment and spare parts. [b]To date, UNMOVIC has found no evidence that these were used for proscribed chemical or biological weapon purposes.[/b] Although some of the goods may have been acquired by Iraq outside the framework of mechanisms established under
    Security Council resolutions, [b]most of them were later declared by Iraq to UNMOVIC in its semi-annual monitoring declarations.[/b]” Once again, sketchy, yes, and something that inspectors were actually keeping tabs on.

    Being as I was worked up as much as I was by this Administration, especially when I knew Powell was on board, I was waiting for them to hit the motherload. I remember when they opened up that underground facility and their gieger counters went crazy and thinking this was only the beginning. Turns out, like all the other potential WMD stuff, it was already tracked and contained and monitored. The scary thing for me is that there is real possibility that Saddam did have fragments of a WMD program and because Bush & Co. decided to only listen to the “roses at our feet crowd” and not go in with the appropriate number of troops to lock down the country inititally, we have no way of knowing what small fragments of chemical or biologial weapons programs slipped through our fingers into terrorists. Hopefully, for our sake, there wasn’t anything there to begin with otherwise their incompetence could really have put us into deep crap.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 19, 2005 @ 9:58 am - November 19, 2005

  7. Oh and the contained and documented WMD programs mentioned above all predate the 1st Gulf War and aren’t something new that cropped up in the last few years.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 19, 2005 @ 10:01 am - November 19, 2005

  8. Umh, yeah, this still doesn’t prove war was the answer, and Bush kept saying that the US is a target. Still no proof he had the capability to hit us.

    This is old, it’s from The Vanguard(bad source). Sorry.

    Comment by Joey — November 19, 2005 @ 10:30 am - November 19, 2005

  9. #6
    It boils down to “dual-use” agricultural equipment and supplies.

    Oh. So we could say that the phosphorous used in Fallujah was actually fertilizer. Right?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 19, 2005 @ 10:38 am - November 19, 2005

  10. #8
    Uhmmm… Joey, when did Bush say that Iraq threatened the continental U.S.?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 19, 2005 @ 10:44 am - November 19, 2005

  11. #9 If you want to go after every country that has bought fertilizer and agricultural equipment in the last twenty years, be my guest. Why don’t you read the report, of even the relevant paragraph I quoted above, to see that there is no evidence it was ever weaponized and that the stuff was reported to the UN monitoring group after procurment.

    I know why you think the “MSM” covered this up “WMD smoking gun”, but I’m curious what you think the rationale is for the White House, RNC and right wing groups not bringing it up even once when it was first released a year and a half ago and during the elections.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 19, 2005 @ 10:50 am - November 19, 2005

  12. Actually, TGC, if I may…….

    Umh, yeah, this still doesn’t prove war was the answer, and Bush kept saying that the US is a target. Still no proof he had the capability to hit us.

    This is the excuse used by the Democrats as to why dealing with Taliban Afghanistan wasn’t necessary. According to the Dems, the United States cannot be attacked by another country unless they have aircraft capable of bombing us or missiles.

    This is why the Democrats are incompetent to administer national security– they cannot recognize the threat of Saddam’s paid assassins releasing quantities of anthrax spores into building ventilation shafts, or nerve gases into the New York or DC subway systems.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 19, 2005 @ 10:53 am - November 19, 2005

  13. NDT, how many Demcrats were against going into Afganistan? Remind me because I guarantee it wasn’t all of them and I know it wasn’t even a large plurality of them

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 19, 2005 @ 11:06 am - November 19, 2005

  14. #6
    The report never mentions Jordan or Turkey, just the Netherlands.

    True, but this one did. Oh and you missed the point in #9.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 19, 2005 @ 11:08 am - November 19, 2005

  15. TGC,

    Thanks for that link! Another smoking gun from 2004 that the RNC and White House didn’t mention once during the election. I’m still waiting to hear what tin foil hat conspiracy you think there is for them not bringing it up. Read the report for some clues.

    1. The scrap started coming out of Iraq to the scrap yards in June of 2003 and continued through 2004. Remind me when “Mission Accomplished” was claimed and when the U.S. forces controlled the regions surrounding these facilities (actually all of Iraq), May 1st. The toppling of the regime and control of Iraq was declared weeks before that.

    2. The majority of the scrap mentioned in the report once again dealt with the Al-Samoud 2 missile not some defunct WND weapons program.

    3. The movement of material from these formerly monitored sites occured after the invasion, which means during a period of time that we should have been securing the sites since we had control over the region. Let’s hope that there was no WMD there that have now fallen into the hands of terrorists due to our lack of ability of securing these previously guarded sites!

    4. The volume of scrap from Iraq included tons of metal that was of normal industrial use, like the truck the report mentions watching being unloaded. You read the skewed headline about “thousand of tons of scrap” juxtaposed with “WMD” and make some false correlation about it. The closest thing to a “WMD” they found was a dual-use mixing vessel that was previously tagged by the UN. In other words, it was material that we we were tracking and guarding against potential dual use before the invasion began. Some covert program he had there. The conclusion of the report, and the report in October was that none of the dual-use stuff had been used at all in any attempt to restart a WMD program.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 19, 2005 @ 11:31 am - November 19, 2005

  16. I suppose the mustard and the sarin were “dual purpose” too?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 19, 2005 @ 11:51 am - November 19, 2005

  17. Mr. Moderate, DNC darlings Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan made it clear a long time ago that Democrats were against going into Afghanistan.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 19, 2005 @ 11:52 am - November 19, 2005

  18. #16 Mustard and sarin from the 1980’s, when we were providing him with biological and chemical agents, that were subsequently either spent before Gulf War I or dismantled during the inspections period of the 1990’s. The latest “find” of weapons mentioned in this report was in 1997, a series of abandoned munitions. I like this line with regards to storage facility for pre-1991 nerve agents that the UN was tracking up through the invasion, “UNMOVIC does not know whether these procedures have been followed up by the coalition forces after the withdrawal of UNMOVIC from Iraq in March 2003 or recently pursued by the Interim Government of Iraq.” I feel safer already. Still, a UN monitored stock of pre-1991 agents (AKA agents that he was using while we were providing him with chemical and biological agents) is not a “reconstituted WMD program.” What of these chemicals, according to the report, “Depending on the munition model, types of chemical warfare agent, dates of their production and filling, storage conditions, some old Iraqi munitions could still retain high-purity chemical warfare agents, while others would contain degraded chemical warfare agents, binary components or only their residues.” In other words, all of these programs were monitored and contained under organizations and were not part of the supposed unsanctioned WMD program.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 19, 2005 @ 12:04 pm - November 19, 2005

  19. #17 Really, why don’t we look at the roll call on the vote to see what Democrats stated, shall we. Why don’t we look at polls of Democrats during 2001 and 2002 to see where they stood on the war, shall we?

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 19, 2005 @ 12:05 pm - November 19, 2005

  20. Mr. Moderate, that was three years ago. Why not look at what they’re saying now, as “Mother” Sheehan exemplifies?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 19, 2005 @ 12:16 pm - November 19, 2005

  21. #20, No NDT, you asked above, “NDT, how many Demcrats were against going into Afganistan?” So I’d like to know how many were against it when the actual event took place.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 19, 2005 @ 12:27 pm - November 19, 2005

  22. #21 woops lost track of the message thing at the bottom, my bad

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — November 19, 2005 @ 12:39 pm - November 19, 2005

  23. Can you think of any better reason that we need to be on the ground in Syria NOW!

    Comment by Richard of Oregon — November 19, 2005 @ 12:39 pm - November 19, 2005

  24. I’m confused. Wasn’t it our Republican led government who was quite cozy with the Taliban (regarding the pipeline through Afghanistan) from the time Bush took power right up until 9/11/01?

    Comment by Kevin — November 19, 2005 @ 11:13 pm - November 19, 2005

  25. Kevin, you are confused. The Bush Admin was never cozy with the Taliban. The pipeline proposal that you refer to was a product of the previous administration. FYI, using Michael Moore as your primary source can result in serious confusion.

    Comment by Bobo — November 20, 2005 @ 12:49 am - November 20, 2005

  26. #26

    Nah. Just blatant stupidity and Kool-Aid drinking.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 20, 2005 @ 1:06 am - November 20, 2005

  27. Kevin’s comment in #25 shows how little knowledge of world history he has. The Taliban came to power during the Clinton Administration. And was never cozy with the Bush Administration. Bobo #25 seems to know his source because Michael Moore alleges such cooperation. David Kopel rebuts Moore’s deceits here.

    Indeed, the one time Bush Administration officials met with the Taliban, they made clear that the U.S. did not recognize the Taliban government and rejected that Taliban claim that it “had complied with U.S. requests to isolate Osama bin Laden.”

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 20, 2005 @ 4:55 am - November 20, 2005

  28. Ah. Kevin relies on Michael Moore! That explains alot.

    Comment by Calarato — November 20, 2005 @ 10:31 am - November 20, 2005

  29. heard a as of yet unconfimed report that we blew up zarqawi

    Comment by nuyorker — November 20, 2005 @ 2:20 pm - November 20, 2005

  30. Kevin has also previously spouted the urban legend that OBL is on dialysis, another lie promulgated by Michael Moore.

    Comment by V the K — November 20, 2005 @ 5:58 pm - November 20, 2005

  31. Still no proof he had the capability to hit us.

    Saddam had been shooting at US planes for over a decade prior to the invasion. Clinton was concerned enough to launch a 5 day air assault.

    Comment by Purple Avenger — November 20, 2005 @ 11:53 pm - November 20, 2005

  32. If I may summarize comments 6, 11, 15, and 18.

    1. Yeah, sure we found lots of evidence of WMDs
    2. But it doesn’t count.

    Comment by V the K — November 21, 2005 @ 10:17 am - November 21, 2005

  33. #20, No NDT, you asked above, “NDT, how many Demcrats were against going into Afganistan?” So I’d like to know how many were against it when the actual event took place.

    When you can phrase that question intelligently and in a manner that makes sense, I shall answer it.

    Until then, they all were. “Mother” Sheehan, who I have yet to see a Democrat repudiate as being a liar and several, including the DNC, endorse, says that the action in Afghanistan was wrong and that all Democrats oppose it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 22, 2005 @ 3:45 am - November 22, 2005

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.