2002 - 2003 Mark Kirk's WMD Lies

The Mark Kirk resume scandal began with his one and then ten lies about his military service and continues with his teaching and gun toting toddler lies, and the lies to cover up those lies. In 2002 ad 2003, Kirk was telling different lies. These were the lies to convince fellow congressmen and constituents to accept the invasion of Iraq.

First, Kirk assured us he saw the evidence of Iraqi WMD with his own eyes. He told the audience of his debate with 2002 opponent Hank Perritt:

You don't support the war because you don't have the security to know about the photographs of the Weapons of Mass Destruction that I know about.

On October 8, 2002, on the House floor while arguing to let Bush continue with his diplomacy leading to invastion strategy, Kirk described the loathsome WMD in greater detail:

We have evidence that Iraq has built a third unmanned aerial vehicle that is much smaller than the larger jets. There are reports that this smaller AUV is the intended final vehicle for use delivering chemical and biological weapons in a way that would not be detected on radar. There is compelling further evidence on this program which remains classified.

Reporting on the violation of commitments on ballistic missiles, UNSCOM disclosed that, contrary to UN resolutions, Iraq had retained a number of Scud missiles. Iraq also began work on two new missiles, a liquid-fueled missile (the al-Samoud) and solid-fueled missile (the Ababil), both capable of flying far beyond the 150 km limit imposed by the UN Security Council. Such missiles could deliver a weapon of mass destruction against Israel in under 250 seconds. Iraq also rebuilt the al-Mamoun missile test facility that had been dismantled by the UN to prevent the construction of long-range missiles. Work is underway to test a much larger missile engine to support even longer-range missiles.

Despite promises not to acquire or test nuclear components, Iraq has a large nuclear weapons complex.

In the same speech, he also told fellow members of congress about Saeed al-Haideri, the Iraqi defector who was supposed to have "reported that he visited 20 secret facilities dedicated to producing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons."

On June 5, 2003, Kirk scoffed at those who doubted there were WMD in Iraq three months into the invasion:

Mr. Speaker, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? We know to a moral certitude of such weapons. How do we know? Saddam Hussein told us. On December 7 of last year, he told the U.N. that he owned 30,000 chemical weapons, but he forgot where he put them. We have not even found the chemical weapons that Saddam admitted to the U.N. he made. There are over 500 WMD sites in Iraq, and we have inspected less than half of them.

Remember Dr. Hussein Kamel? The U.N. inspected Iraq for 4 years between 1991 and 1995 and found no nuclear program. Dr. Kamel then told us that 40,000 Iraqis worked on nuclear weapons, but our intelligence missed it all.

WMD in Iraq, it is inevitable that a final chapter will be written in this story. As Paul Harvey would say, and then we will say, ``and now for the rest of the story.'' 

Kirk responded to a constituent who doubted the WMD claims. In the November 2003 response, he wrote that allied forces had captured "key components of Iraq's weapons programs. He went on to describe that the Coalition Provisional Authority had "custody of illegal longrange missiles, mobile chemical weapons facilities, and numerous caches of supplies for the weapons programs."

By October 2003, people weren't too keen on staying in Iraq. They were sold a shock and awe invasion and a short stay.  However, the Bush Administration wanted to stay and needed funding to do so. They asked Congress for $87 billion. Mark Kirk was there to make the case. He compared it to the Marshall Plan:

KONDRACKE: Now, the, the national polls indicate that this $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan was unpopular around the country. Was this a tough vote for you to vote for it?

KIRK: It wasn't. I think the Marshall Plan (search) was also unpopular at the beginning. But the question President Truman (search) asked is, how much would we spend to not have World War III and not send a third generations of Americans to the killing fields of Europe? The answer was, in today's dollars, $105 billion.

So I think that today the key question is, how much would we spend not to have a third war in Iraq? And the answer is, about $19 billion to, to plan for the reconstruction so that we don't have to send yet a third generation of Americans to that field.

Then, he claimed the money was to protect the troops, for things like armored vehicles and vests.

And I really look at it in two ways. The $67 billion was for the immediate protection of our troops, armored vehicles, personnel…vests, and all the support. And the $20 billion is the road to the way home and the real protection of our troops.

The problem was that there was no Marshall Plan plan for Iraq and the troops were buying their own armor. To this day, we really don't know where that money went.

Between 2002 and 2003, Kirk was making the Bush Administration case for invading Iraq and staying in. A lot of what Kirk said echoed the later debunked Judith Miller WMD stories. Then, we found out that Kirk had been hand picked to make the case for the Iraq War.

So what did he do when the story fell apart?