They were hoping there would still be some WMDs left from when Rumsfeld and friends sold them some in the 1980s.

The remaining WMDs were destroyed by ground troops in Gulf War 1. There was a documentary that went into the details of that talking about how the crates had countries of origin printed on them. Some were from France and other European countries and some were from the US. They speculate that the weapons stores were destroyed to hide evidence.

The explosions rained down the residue from the chemical weapons for miles killing many soldiers - even ones equipped with hazmat suits.

except that the most qualified person in the world (scott ritter) told anybody who would listen that they had been destroyed.

So did Hans Blix.

Well, scott was Blix's predecessor who was much more qualified to know firsthand.

The point being multiple sources had the same thing to say.

No WMD's in Iraq.

I remember when they tried to slander him with child porn.

ha, yea then they got him in a sting. Guess that's what happens when you go against the horde. http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111027/NEWS/110270321

Right you are. The neocons were dumbfounded to find he had actually destroyed perfectly good chemical weapons.

ok, so sadam had all of his WMDs in the small part of the country that was invaded 1991. Not the most plausible lol.

They tried to, sort of. There were these vans with equipment in them that they portrayed as mobile gas labs.

Anyhow, they didn't need to since the deed was done by the time we invaded, pretty much.

They found the weapons alright, but what they didn't want everyone to see was the "Made in America" stamped all over them.

Larry Silverstein had an asbestos problem.

They tried to plant WMD, they failed, they were killed by friendly fire.

portland.indymedia.org

I'd like to see this submitted as a new post. Perhaps you could also post it to /r/worldpolitics.

Be my guest.

My guess would be a matter of procurement. anything nuclear, radiological or chemical is so closely guarded in the US that someone would have known if any had gone missing. To get the stuff from a source outside the US would have involved a lot of people that the government has no control over and who may be considered wild cards if they decide to talk.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/13/world/la-fg-missing-billions-20110613

I have no doubt about that. Including that operatives in the region were complaining about it early on. Since they had to back pack everything into northern Iraq early on, it was $100 bills. Everything cost $100. From intelligence to coffee and cars. The Americans finally had to beg to get smaller bills because the monetary system was unsustainable.

The benefit of compartmentalization. I've heard rumors (take it for what it is, this is r/conspiracy after all) that the President no longer has access to the nuclear football since Bush invaded Iraq. This would mean usage of nuclear weapons is deemed a military decision, and considering the old Soviet nuclear plans, this is probably for the best

Why would the Iraq invasion be the swivel point on that?

The choice to invade a sovereign nation based entirely on lies would imply the office is is not to be trusted with the deployment of WMD's.

All it would take is Powell showing up for another show-n-tell day at the UN and millions would disappear.

The CIA was mad at them, and Mossad was still laying low after 911. That left the army; and, well...

Because it wasn't necessary to achieve his goals. He wanted to destabilize the region and give reasonable belief that Saddam was creating/exploring the creation of WMD's. He accomplished that tenfold, and was able to garner enough support to remove Saddam under the premise that they might exist, even after months (years?) of NATO searches coming up empty.

Why put yourself at risk of being found-out when you can simply use your propaganda machines (mainstream media) to shape the opinions and beliefs of the public into whatever you want? That was the point of 9/11, after all - to convince the public that people wanted to kill us. When we were able to give reasonable suspicion that Saddam was one of those people that wanted to kill us, it was easy to do literally whatever the fuck we wanted from that point on.

That sounds like "reality" based thinking right there. Here at BushCheneyCo, we make our own reality.

what difference would it make? they do what they want, evidence or not.

They sold them all to Saddam, silly.

[deleted]

Nice.

Interestingly enough....I knew an EOD tech that was in Iraq when it all kicked off. He said they did have some, but it wasn't very much...and most of them were either destroyed or not in working order.(e.g. leaky chemical weapons) They of course disposed of what little was left of it.

Now I imagine showing those on TV really wouldn't have gotten the desired effect.

EDIT: And really to the average American WMD is kind of a subjective thing. You could produce some photos of a few RPGs and mortars, with the wrong fuses screwed in, that don't even work and people would think you were showing them WMDs.

Also, imagine the kind of havoc we wreaked with these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1QvyodEwg0 Shape charges EVERYWHERE...not only that, but they communicate with each other for improved efficiency.

Or even better, imagine submunitions full of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flechette

Because its not as easy as pressing a button. It would have involved billions of dollars, hundreds of people, multiple countries, etc... to bring in a nuclear bomb to Iraq. It just wouldn't have worked, it would have been too complex and all they wanted to have is pretext, not context.

You got to understand that it was much easier to falsify a story about WMD's and "throwing babies out of incubators" than to transport a nuclear bomb to Iraq.

[deleted]

So... they are capable of orchestrating a false flag attack that destroyed all of lower Manhattan... but they can't pay some guys to bury some shit in a desert?

You people are deluded.

I don't think Bush would need to be present during the delivery of evidence for a false flag event. That is a strange way to frame the argument.

He could have delegated some tasks to his underlings.

Right you are. The neocons were dumbfounded to find he had actually destroyed perfectly good chemical weapons.

ok, so sadam had all of his WMDs in the small part of the country that was invaded 1991. Not the most plausible lol.

except that the most qualified person in the world (scott ritter) told anybody who would listen that they had been destroyed.