An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD 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, largely 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.
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. …
And yet this was suppressed even by the Bush administration which would have helped justify the invasion. The question is why? It is a foregone fact hat democrats supported the invasion while Clinton was president and which was confirmed when we went in.
Remember Scott Ritter, the UN inspector,who infamously decided there were none for some unknown reason.
In Iran inspectors are facing the same situation with the Iranians refusing to show their sites.