Why the New Reports of Chemical Weapons in Iraq Matter - Fred Fleitz

by Fred Fleitz


Revelations last week by the New York Times that U.S. troops found chemical weapons in Iraq – about 5,000 CW warheads, shells and aviation bombs – but the size of this find and injuries from these weapons to American soldiers were covered up by the Bush administration has caused experts on both sides of the political spectrum to scramble to answer one question: does this prove President Bush was right that there were undeclared weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the 2003 war?

I believe the answer to this question clearly is yes. But a more important question that needs to be answered is why the American public was misled about this issue for a decade.

Last week’s New York Times article is not the first report of U.S. troops finding chemical weapons in Iraq after 2003. There were prior discoveries of chemical weapons –about 500 by 2006 – but they were dismissed by the Pentagon and Bush critics because these weapons were said to be degraded, pre-1991 weapons which did not prove Saddam Hussein had an active chemical weapons production effort.

This same argument is again being used by Bush critics to discount the recent New York Times report that far more chemical weapons were found in Iraq than the government had previously acknowledged.

The “but those WMDs don’t count” argument was always a dubious one since UN Security Council Resolution 687 and other resolutions used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq required the Saddam Hussein regime to account for and destroy all WMDs, not just those produced prior to 1991.

The 500 CW weapons found by 2006 were not the only evidence of WMDs discovered by U.S troops. CNN reported in 2008 that the U.S. spent $70 million to secretly remove 550 metric tons of uranium yellowcake from Iraq.

Bush administration critics discounted chemical weapons found in 2006 to defend their memes that there was no WMD in Iraq and “Bush lied and people died” about Saddam Hussein’s WMDs.

Strangely enough, several Bush officials also dismissed evidence that U.S. troops found chemical weapons in Iraq. Karl Rove, the president’s deputy Chief of staff, admitted in 201o that failing to refute charges President Bush “lied us into war” was his biggest mistake when he served in the White House. According to Rove, he and other senior officials gave up disputing claims by the president’s critics that Mr. Bush lied about pre-war WMD in Iraq because they did not want to relitigate this issue and wanted to move on.

This included repeated efforts by Rove and other Bush officials to conceal, discredit and downplay chemical weapons discoveries in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. These efforts were evident to Congressman Peter Hoekstra when he tried to investigate and publicize reports of chemical weapons found in Iraq by U.S. troops.

In June 2006, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Hoekstra along with former Congressman Curt Weldon and former Senator Rick Santorum tried to call attention to reports that U.S. troops had found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003. These reports included a June 21, 2006 fax from the Director of National Intelligence to Senator Santorum which contained declassified “key points” from a National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) report on chemical weapons discovered in Iraq since 2004.

The NGIC report said approximately 500 chemical weapons munitions had been recovered by coalition forces since 2003 which contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. According to the report, filled, unfilled pre-Gulf War munitions were assessed to still exist and the use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for Coalition forces. The report also said “while agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.”

According to Hoekstra, the Pentagon not only ignored the concerns raised in 2006 by Santorum, Weldon and himself about CW discoveries in Iraq, it was much more critical of their claims than Democratic members of Congress or the mainstream media.

The news media ridiculed the three legislators for challenging the conventional wisdom that there were no WMDs in Iraq. I remember seeing editorial cartoons at the time depicting Hoekstra, Santorum and Weldon as kooks. I believe media criticism of Santorum for his WMD statements contributed to his reelection defeat in 2006.

Congressman Hoekstra was careful to say in 2006 that while the chemical weapons found in Iraq did not prove Saddam Hussein had an active CW production program, they did prove Hussein lied to UN weapons inspectors. Hoekstra also maintained these weapons represented a threat to U.S. troops.

I believe the size of the chemical weapons stockpile recently reported by the Times and alleged injuries to U.S troops caused by these weapons decisively refutes the specious arguments made by Bush critics and some Bush officials in 2006 that these weapons were too old, too few and too weak to count as legitimate WMDs. The Times report also proves Hoekstra, Santorum and Weldon were right.

Accountability is needed in light of the Times article about WMDs found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

If the existence of such a large number of WMDs – even older, degraded ones – was known in the mid-2000s it likely would have had a significant effect on American politics by putting the lie to Democratic and media attack lines that there were no WMDs in Iraq and Bush lied about Saddam Hussein’s WMDs to justify going to war. The political effect might have been so great that one of this nation’s most vocal critics of the war in Iraq – Barack Obama – may not have been elected president.

The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media relentlessly attacked the Bush administration for lying about WMDs in Iraq to destroy the Bush presidency. We now know the real liars were in the mainstream media. They not only poisoned the political atmosphere in Washington but prevented an honest accounting of Iraqi WMDs after the war which could pose a threat to the region today if the Islamic State gets its hands on remaining chemical weapons caches in Iraq which U.S. troops did not find.

That the news media was dishonest about WMDs in Iraq found after the war will come as no surprise to most Americans who have come to expect the press to reflexively attack Republican presidents and give Democratic presidents a pass.

For me, the actions of Karl Rove and other senior Bush officials to cover up evidence of WMDs found by U.S. troops were far more reprehensible. Regrets expressed by Rove over the last few years for not trying to counter the relentless post-war criticism of President Bush over WMDs in Iraq are too little and too late. Rove and company misled the American people, lied to Congress in 2006 and withheld information from Congress about WMD discoveries. By their actions, these Bush officials betrayed the public trust.

While Rove and other Bush officials involved in the Iraq WMD cover-up will never be held legally accountable for their actions, it is my hope that the 2016 GOP presidential candidates will think long and hard before associating with them.


Fred Fleitz

Source: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2014/10/21/why-the-new-reports-of-chemical-weapons-in-iraq-matter/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.