I don't see the recent "secret weapons" in Iraq thing.
[0]= http://www.lrb.co.uk/2013/12/08/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
(I say "men", because women just haven't had sufficient chance to prove themselves as such; but between Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, and Condoleezza Rice they really have even a worse track record than men with their strong start of fail)
Why even bring in a needless gender divide, instead of just saying 'people'?
1) Iraq kills > 500 civilians using chemical weapons (google Ali Chemicali, Halabja, ...) (documented, amongst others, by the UN)
2) it is known that for at least a decade after that, Iraq was producing chemical weapons. (again, documented by the UN)
3) US invades
4) finds no weapons
Apparently the conclusion after this series of events is "there never were any chemical weapons", with a subtext of "Bush/CIA was not wrong, just lying".
I find it VERY hard to honestly draw that conclusion. The obvious conclusion is that those weapons were moved, the question is where.
The inspector conclusions at the end of Gulf II weren't that there was zero evidence of WMD, just that no stockpiles of it were found. It was not found in neighboring countries either.
Turns out Saddam was bluffing, which he admitted to later. He could not appear to be weak before US and Iran, literally surrounded by enemies. Everyone was wrong on WMD, he had fooled them with his elaborate games. Saddam's mistake was that he misjudged American govt resolve to oust him after 9/11. That they fabricated the reasons may have even surprised him.