• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • WikiLeaks’ Inconvenient Truth about Iraqi Chemical Weapons

    Buried in the WikiLeaks avalanche of documents related to the war in Iraq are various reports about the discovery of chemical weapons caches inside Iraq—reports which contradict the revisionist narrative about the genesis of the war. Scattered throughout the roughly 392,000 documents illegally published by WikiLeaks are accounts of U.S., coalition and Iraqi forces recovering chemical munitions left behind by Saddam Hussein’s overthrown regime.

    While the chemical munitions recovered appeared to be manufactured before the 1991 Gulf War, after which Iraqi forces were required to surrender and destroy their illegal chemical weapons, the leaked documents are a reminder that Saddam Hussein’s regime could not be trusted to fulfill its disarmament obligations and fully cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, as the Bush Administration correctly argued before the 2003 war.

    Some commentators have downplayed the finding of chemical weapons, saying that these were not the massive quantities for which the Bush Administration claimed it was looking.  But these commentators conveniently overlook the fact that the presence of chemical weapons is concrete proof that Saddam’s regime failed to comply with its legal obligations to destroy all weapons of mass destruction, as required by the cease-fire agreement that ended the 1991 Gulf War and more than a dozen subsequent U.N. Security Council resolutions. This additional evidence of Iraqi noncompliance furnishes convincing proof, if any is still needed, that refutes the revisionist narrative that the Bush Administration fought an “illegal” war in Iraq.

    The revisionist narrative holds that the failure to find massive quantities of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) after the war discredited the Bush Administration’s decision to go to war in the first place. But in fact, the real rationale for going to war was that Saddam’s regime was not cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors and therefore the United States and its allies were fully justified in undertaking military operations to make sure that Iraq did not have the WMD stockpiles and the programs to build WMD, that the U.N. inspectors previously had confirmed that it had. Iraq already had used prohibited chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980–1988 Iran-Iraq war and against Iraqi Kurds who had rebelled against the regime.

    The burden of proof was on Iraq’s non-compliant regime, not on the “coalition of the willing,” which was enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions. U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, which set the terms of the cease-fire that ended the 1991 war that expelled Iraqi forces that had invaded Kuwait, required that:

    Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

    • (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
    • (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

    Not only was Iraq not cooperating with inspectors in destroying its WMD stockpiles and facilities, but it also was found to have missiles that exceeded the 150-kilometer range limits. These are clear violations of the 1991 cease-fire that technically put Iraq back into a state of war with the United States. The Bush Administration was not alone in finding that Iraqi noncompliance on WMD issues merited a military response. The Clinton Administration also cited Iraq’s noncompliance as justification for launching Operation Desert Fox, four days of air strikes against Iraqi targets, in December 1998. Many critics who charge that the Bush Administration conjured up Iraqi WMD as a false justification for war against Iraq conveniently ignore the fact that the Clinton Administration based its military attacks on the same premise.

    The WikiLeaks document dump is a disturbing and reckless politically motivated attack that has passed potentially valuable information to hostile forces and increased the risks to U.S., coalition and Iraqi troops and civilians who continue to fight to build a stable democracy in Iraq. The selective morality and self-righteous arrogance of the WikiLeaks crew is breathtaking. But if anything positive comes out of their dangerous and misguided actions, it is a reminder that, contrary to popular wisdom, Iraq did in fact possess illegal chemical weapons that it failed to destroy before the 2003 war.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    11 Responses to WikiLeaks’ Inconvenient Truth about Iraqi Chemical Weapons

    1. Sand Storm, Iraq says:

      I like the notion that says: "Sadam himself is a mass destruction weapon". Some people just do or want to overlook the fact that he used WMD against is own people and against his neighbors, and that he never complied to any agreement as long as was against his interest.

      So keeping some WMD weapon cash is not surprising to me at all. It's Sadam!!

      Thanks Wikileaks.

    2. IWO V 26 says:

      Am I the only one that remembers the caravan of trucks that left Iraq for Syria and the Bekaa Valley prior to the war and who still wants to know what was in them?

    3. Kris Zwettler, Oshko says:

      Sand Storm in his comment said what I've been saying since day one, that Saddam Hussein himself was a major "weapon of mass destruction" who had no conscience.

    4. Steve Arizona says:

      I believe it was 29 july 2008 yahoo news carried a story about 10 tons of enriched URANIUM YELLOWCAKE concealed in the 300 tons of raw uranium sold to a canadian company from Iraq. this could not have happened naturally it had to have been done in a centrifuge.

    5. Pingback: Must Know Headlines 10.29.2010 — ExposeTheMedia.com

    6. KH says:

      I'm not a passivist by any means but a staunch strict constructionist. The war in Iraq was an illegal war based on UN sanctions. I don't recall a Constitutional provision allowing the US to go to war based on the sanctions of a foreign governing body.

      We need to be out of the UN not doing its police work.

    7. Drew Page, IL says:

      Do the leaked documents provide information on how many WMDs were found, or how much (5 pounds or 500 hundred tons of chemical weapons)?

    8. Johnny Smith, Tallad says:

      In our politically correct world where the citizen must know everything and have access to even the most secretive of documents I have only one question, Why can we not charge people like this wimpyleaks group with treason and shoot them all??? I remember an occasion when a reporter, getting the story got shot at on his boat for straying to close to his story. Who says the public has the right, or the need to know all that the military does.AAAAAGGGGGGHHHHH!

    9. Leon Lundquist, Dura says:

      Wasn't that the day they coined the phrase "Not a shred of evidence!" I hear this all the time when you put evidence right in their faces, Progressives always say that. Not a shred of evidence.

      I was pissed at the Republicans for letting this one go on, and on. We saw all the evidence that any sane person needs for WMD in Iraq. The Captive Media was just so darned hard of hearing! They never ever got it! Then! That rascal Wilson got our guy falsely accused of lying to Congress (or the FBI) when those fools outted themselves! It cost our guy $50,000. RINO Bush let that stand! He should have pardoned him on that kind of set up! Saddam was buying Yellowcake from Nigeria! Wilson failed to report.

      Now that it is too late, the truth comes out (again). Watch! The Progressive History books will all say there was no WMD! Fact is it was all over the place!

    10. Abe says:

      The Heritage Foundation promotes a perpetual war society. If there is any truth here at all; it lies in the obligatory law of Rocketfeller/RothZchild motto " we will lead the revolution against us" and we will own every media outlet and think tank necessary to get the job done.

    11. Ed says:

      So let me get this straight its ok to leak thousands of documents, but I can't get on a plane without being patted down? So every citizen might be a risk to national security but this website can still operate?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.