This puzzles me — and troubles me: The reality is that there were WMD; yet everyone either sinks their heads in the sand, or outright denies it. –Yes, this denial is often done for political expediency. But they were there.

Remember back for a minute to the time of our invasion of Iraq. We had warned them openly to desist WMD, or to be invaded — and there was obviously no surprise to the invasion when it finally happened. In fact, if you remember, all our troops were stationed at the borders for about a week before we went in. There were no surprises.

Well, about a month or so after we went in, I did a Yahoo news search for “WMD” — and came across a most fascinating article. –With the only thing surprising me more is the fact that it never came to light. But remains there for the research, for anyone with the resources and interest to do it.

The article was not a blog, or web-opinion, but a guest editorial in one of the two Washington DC newspapers — which one, I forget. The author was stated to be the “highest ranking defector to the US, from Communist Secret Service” — second in command of Romanian Secret Service. In this article, the gentleman stated the following (in my paraphrase:)

It would be fruitless to search for WMD. You will not find weapons of mass destruction. There was a long-standing plan in place in Iraq, dubbed the “Russian Plan” that, if Iraq was ever imminently about to be invaded, they were to destroy the weapons of mass destruction — but to carefully save and hide everything to microfiche, should the opportunity ever arise again to reconstitute the program.

Further, he went on, three days before we went in there were a contingent of Russian Military there, as “inspecting advisors.” They, he surmised, were not ‘inspecting’ — there were there to assist in the destruction of the existing weapons of mass destruction. No, we were not going to find any — by design.

Again, we were already amassed on the borders for several days before the advisors even arrived. Did they expect that we were going to do invasion? I’m sure they knew it; and I believe that they were therefore meticulously destroying what was there. And so did this most informed gentleman.

So, to me, the question is begged, why did this never come to light? It was in the editorial section of the Washington (Times or Post)! And even the Bush Administration conceeds that there was nothing there. I can see the Democrats hammering this falsehood, for political expedience and power; but the very Administration? Does no one read the local newspaper?

All this is readily researched by anyone in a Washington DC library with newspaper microfiche: sometime between invasion, and about two weeks afterwards (I do believe it was about seven days after) simply look up the editorial sections of those two newspapers. It’s only fourteen days.

And would be a significant turn-about for the understanding and affairs in this country.

Editor’s note (Nov 2, 2008): I have found this article, although I’ll need to research it again. And one day, perhaps soon, I’ll do a little re-write to this post. The article was in (I believe) the Washington Times; and it was about three weeks afterwards – in the Editorial section. (I give that above about a 95% chance of accuracy; but will re-research it.)

The one question I posed above, “Why in the world has the Bush Administration itself denied what is now believed to be fact — that they were there.” The answer, in my best guess and reading is this: The Russians were involved. But, needing a partner in the worldwide fight against Islamic terror; George Bush did not want to embarrass the Russians — whom he very much needed in a partnership to fight terrorism. In one external writer’s opinion of this, he stated: “This was a good move diplomatically, but a bad move politically.” I think we have clearly seen the latter. However, in my own personal opinion, the Russians are not worthy of this honor, as they are thick in this. And to placate them in this way probably does us more harm than good. The Russians themselves (as with most countries) are very much a self-serving nation. And worse, are themselves very much a partner with the terrorism; not fighters against it. George Bush’s (suspected) decision did more harm than good, in this writer’s opinion.