This Leading GOP Congressional Candidate Insists We Found Saddam’s WMD Program

Former Army officer Steve Russell claims his friend discovered Iraq’s nuclear weapons program—but says the war had nothing to do with WMDs anyway.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ2tw5VuBy4">Steve Russell</a>/YouTube

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Steve Russell’s political career has largely been propelled by his Iraq War heroics. The retired Army Lt. Col., who’s vying in Tuesday’s Republican primary to run for the seat being vacated Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.), led the battalion that hunted down and captured Saddam Hussein. After returning to civilian life, he barnstormed the country in support of a troop surge. He has also been one of the leading voices advancing the discredited claim that Iraq possessed an active weapons of mass destruction program at the time of the US invasion in 2003.

“He [Saddam Hussein] was trying to develop mass destructive weapons to include nuclear weapons,” Russell said in a 2012 speech. “The record is there. We found evidence of it even in Iraq. That’s a big misconception. Oh, there was no WMD, there was no nuclear program. That is false… They were clearly on a path to develop destructive weapons.” Russell, a former Oklahoma state senator, also made the dubious claim during this speech that the rationale for invading Iraq had little if anything to do with WMDs. “Was that the only basis for going in? No. It never was. It was never about WMD. It was about what right does one man have to defy the entire world.”

Since returning from Iraq in 2006, Russell has often said publicly that an active WMD program was uncovered there but that “the story was completely buried by the press.” Russell told an audience at Florida State University in 2007: “With regard to no weapons of mass destruction found, during my service in Iraq, US soldiers in Baghdad captured Saddam’s most prominent nuclear scientist, Dr. Ubaydi, and found a Zippe centrifuge, along with all the components and blueprints to produce more.” He explained that he had learned this from a “good buddy,” who had led the raid. “Saddam’s nuclear scientist stated that with the centrifuge technology, Iraq possessed all the technical skill to produce a nuclear bomb and were making efforts to do so. The centrifuge captured was the same centrifuge technology that Iran is currently using to enrich uranium and to develop their nuclear weapons.”

Russell’s assertions about Iraqi WMDs are contradicted by the official record. In 2004, at the request of then-President George W. Bush, Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, released a report revealing that there had been no “concerted efforts to restart the [weapons] program.” As Duelfer told Congress, “we were almost all wrong.” While Ubaydi had indeed turned over a Zippe centrifuge after being captured, it was not part of any operating nuclear program—it was buried in his garden. The Duelfer report also deemed the transfer of biological and chemical weapons en masse from Iraq to Syria “unlikely.” (Russell did not respond to a request for comment.)

The idea that the United States uncovered an active weapons program in Iraq has lingered among Republican politicians. In May, Iowa state Sen. Joni Ernst, the Republican nominee to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin, told the Des Moines Register that she did “have reason to believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Ernst’s proof: her husband “served in Saudi Arabia as the Army Central Command sergeant major for a year and that’s a hot-button topic in that area.” Last year, Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.), speculated to an Omaha radio host that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were being used by the Syrian government against opposition forces.

After retiring from the Army in 2006, Russell set out to reverse the shifting political tides against the war. He formed a non-profit, Vets for Victory, that canvassed the country in support of the Bush administration’s plan to escalate troop levels. He had no patience for the war’s critics. “They’re basically rooting for our defeat over there,” he wrote in the New York Daily News in 2008. “It’s almost as if the enemy is working within our own borders, prompting America to lose heart.” At stake was no less than the nation’s manhood: “Do we honestly think then, that our nation can be held hostage by ten thousand insurgents equipped with little more than ‘man-dresses’ and flip-flops?,” he asked a crowd in Oklahoma City in 2007.

Russell was elected to the state legislature in 2008, where he floated a bill to expand open carry laws and made national headlines by comparing a back-to-school speech from President Obama that was aired in public school classrooms to “something you’d expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.” After leaving office, Russell launched Two Rivers Arms Company, a gun manufacturer that specializes in replicating the Iraqi Tabuk rifle, an AK-47 spinoff.

In a crowded primary field, Russell’s Iraq war rep and previous electoral victory have moved him toward the front of the pack, which includes Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner Patrice Douglas, state Rep. Mike Turner, and state Sen. Clark Jolley. But with no obvious front-runner, it’s likely that none of the candidates will hit the 50-percent threshold needed to avoid a top-two runoff.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate