April 2, 2007

Well, Isn’t This Special? Munitions Found Last Year Were Officially WMDs

It goes back to June of last year, and it appears to have gone unnoticed and unreported:

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 — The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center’s commander said here today.

“These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes … they do constitute weapons of mass destruction,” Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

Pretty remarkable, considering that it’s a supposed article of faith that “there were no WMDs found in Iraq.”

Readers of this blog already know better.

For those who wish to whine that the items under immediate discussion at the link are from the 1980s and may be of dubious effectiveness, and that they therefore don’t “count” (with the whiners pretending to be more expert than the witness quoted), my response is “YOU are the ones who got sloppy and said there were NO WMDs, with no exceptions, and no redefinitions. Therefore, YOU were, and are, WRONG.”


UPDATE, April 19 (actually entered in early June based on seeing this entry at Atlas Shrugs): Melanie Phillips on Dave Gaubatz — “I Found Saddam’s WMD Bunkers”

UPDATE 2, June 16: More on Gaubatz (saved to host hard drive) at “Iraqi WMD: A Deadly Cover-Up?” by Gerald Flurry –

Gaubatz later found out from Iraqi, cia and British intelligence that the wmd had been excavated by Iraqis and Syrians, with Russia’s help, and transferred to Syria. “The worst-case scenario has now come about,” the Spectator wrote. “Saddam’s nuclear, biological and chemical material is in the hands of a rogue terrorist state — and one with close links to Iran.”



  1. Ah, yes. The “Santorum Cache”. Yes, this was widely reported, widely refuted…back in June.

    Comment by Eric — April 2, 2007 @ 8:54 am

  2. #1, obviously in “popular” perception only — not in official proceedings. They fit the recognized definition of WMDs.

    The premise that the statement the “there were no WMDs in Iraq” has thus been shown (again) to be objectively not true.

    Game over (again, and again, and again….).

    Comment by TBlumer — April 2, 2007 @ 8:58 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.