Wikileaks Documents Show WMD's Found In Iraq

Wired.com:

By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMDlargely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents. program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal,

In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.

It's been the biggest lie created by the Left to malign former President Bush's move to invade Iraq: no WMD's. Now after, of all people, an anti-war organization reveals that Saddam Hussein did indeed have WMD's, will anyone in the MSM have the guts to admit that yeah Saddam was only a really, really bad guy, but he had WMD's, stopped the U.N. from finding them and needed to be killed? Probably not.

Tony Blair Stands Up To Liberal Terrorism, Has No Regrets About Going After Saddam

FinancialTimes.com:

An unrepentant Tony Blair told the Iraq inquiry yesterday that he would, "frankly, do it all again" as he defended his decision to topple Saddam Hussein and urged world leaders to take "a very hard line" on Iran.

The former prime minister faced heckles of "murderer" as he concluded six hours of defiant testimony in which he expressed "not a regret" for removing a dictator who, in his view, could today have posed a nuclear threat.

After overcoming a rare bout of nerves, which had left his hand shaking, Mr Blair delivered a characteristically assured and unapologetic performance covering five years of British engagement in Iraq.

He offered few concessions to critics apart from accepting that, with hindsight, the public presentation of intelligence could have been improved and the army's nation-building skills strengthened.

Addressing allegations he exaggerated the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he said: "This isn't about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception, this is a decision." Without the war, he argued, the "psychopathic" dictator Saddam would now be in a dangerous nuclear arms race with Iran.

"What's important is not to ask the March 2003 question but to ask the 2010 question," he said, adding: "With the oil price at $100 a barrel, he would have had the intent and he would have had the means, and we would have lost our nerve."

Iran's support for terrorism and nuclear ambitions would mean that the international community would have to confront the "same judgment on risk" he faced. "I take a very hard line, a tough line on Iran today and many of the same arguments apply," he said.

Mr Blair denied "signing in blood" his commitment to invade Iraq as early as April 2002 at a summit with the US president. But Mr Blair said: "What I said to President [George W.] Bush is that we are going to be with you in confronting and dealing with this threat."

Great job by Mr. Blair. WMD's or no WMD's, Saddam Hussein and his heinous, murderous regime needed to be toppled.