Posted on 10/15/2014 6:35:30 AM PDT by lifeofgrace
The New York Times has the rather annoying problem of having to make actual facts fit their confirmation bias. By making journalistic pretzels of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, they’ve backed into the fact that W.M.D.’s really did exist in Saddam’s Iraq, despite their protestations.
In 2004, an NYT public apology declared
To anyone who read the paper between September 2002 and June 2003, the impression that Saddam Hussein possessed, or was acquiring, a frightening arsenal of W.M.D. seemed unmistakable. Except, of course, it appears to have been mistaken. [emphasis mine]Ten years later, above the fold “The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons” dances like a drunk Muppet around the issue of W.M.D.:
Reached recently, [Charles A. Duelfer, a former United Nations official working for the Central Intelligence Agency] agreed that the weapons were still a menace, but said the report strove to make it clear that they were not “a secret cache of weapons of mass destruction.”The NYT, on one hand, is saying that a frightening arsenal of W.M.D. (chiefly, chemical weapons) didn’t exist in 2004, and on the other hand, the chemical weapons found in the last ten years are frightening, dangerous, but not W.M.D. This tweet sums it up pretty well.“What I was trying to convey is that these were not militarily significant because they not used as W.M.D.,” he said. “It wasn’t that they weren’t dangerous.”
2005: Bush Lied People Died 2014: What difference does it make #WMDs— Razor (@hale_razor) October 15, 2014
Assuming the mantle of self-righteousness, the NYT article goes on to slam the Bush administration for withholding the dangerous-but-not-W.M.D. chemical weapons finds from Congress, and covering it up, lest anyone find out that some of them were made by western (even American) companies in the 1980’s Iran-Iraq war (in which we supported Iraq). And now, the dangerous but militarily insignificant devices could pose a threat in the hands of—you guessed it—Daesh* The secrecy fit a pattern. Since the outset of the war, the scale of the United States’ encounters with chemical weapons in Iraq was neither publicly shared nor widely circulated within the military. These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the Islamic State, a Qaeda splinter group, controls much of the territory where the weapons were found.In a schizophrenic episode, the New York Times simultaneously asserts that chemical weapons found in Iraq since 2003 are not W.M.D., and are in fact militarily insignificant; and that the weapons did not deteriorate and are still capable of causing havoc.
The report also played down the dangers of the lingering weapons, stating that because their contents would have deteriorated, “any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat.”and
By 2006, the American military had found dozens of these blister-agent shells in Iraq, and had reports of others circulating on black markets, several techs said. Tests determined that many still contained mustard agent, some at a purity level of 84 percent, officials said.Facts have a disturbing effect of destroying liberal bias, like Bush’s justification for the 2003 Iraq invasion was false. I am continually amazed at how today’s “journalists” can dance so well and never seem to hear the real music.Had these results been publicly disclosed, they would have shown that American assertions about Iraq’s chemical weapons posing no militarily significant threat could be misread, and that these dangerous chemical weapons had Western roots.
*I no longer call ISIS by any name other than Daesh, because it doesn't grant them the claim of being a "state", and mostly because they hate the name.
That's a sure-fire way to keep people from knowing what you're talking about, alright.
Wasn't this rag among those that accused Bush of lying about WMDs?
Read the article. And I’ve always been a huge critic of the Bush Admin misleading on WMDs. These are STILL not WMDs. Not all chemical weapons are. Most are not in fact and neither are these.
All we should care about are facts. Only facts, not conspiracy theories, will move Conservatism forward. Leave flailing in the wind to the Dims.
lol good morning zinger
When ISIS attacks the NYC subways with some of these chemicals, the NYT may have to admit these were weapons of mass destruction after all.
It is shameful how the Leftist media lied about this during George Bush’s term of office. There will never be an apology. of course, just as they have never apologized for their past support of various Communists, such as Fidel Castro.
America, Germany, and France, all sold chemical weapons to Iraq in the 70’s and 80’s. Much like Benghazi was all about illegal arms sales but not able to discuss it because it’s classified, so too was Iraq and the great chemical weapons hunt. Now most of the functional ones are in Syria after Iraq hid them there. But we can’t discuss them either. ISIS has many of them now.
That anyone takes seriously anything the NYT, or MSM, says is a sad testimony.
They were there and they were moved.a Russian General admitted that they were taken out after they removed the seats on a plane to fly them out.it’s even in wikileaks.
Bush didn’t lie.
They just didn’t want to tell America we got there too late and now the bad guys have them.
16 intelligence agencies had it wrong....?
Besides Saddam was paying terrorists families for suicide bombers.
I had forgotten that Sadam hid his chem weapons in Syria. No doubt ISIS has them now. Perhaps that is the big attack ISIS is planning on the US.
Zyklon B was a pesticide developed for disinfection of ships and machinery.. and was used as a WMD in WWII.
Any chemical can be used as a WMD if delivered correctly (water supply?)
The point is that the left screamed that saddam had NO WMD’s. Over and over. And now they are screaming that they didn’t mean NO WMD’s, they meant that saddam had no NEW WMD’s.
Facts.
You just did some flailing right there.
It would be interesting to learn about your threshold for when mustard gas munitions are not WMD? Perhaps you may know about the Kurds that Saddam attacked with them
And BTW - Bush was correct; you were wrong. Ponder that for a moment.
And if 10 years later they are still dangerous, then what were they 10 years ago? Damned dangerous.
They just can't explain themselves as it shows them for who and what they are.
And degraded means less than 100% capability. So if a wmd had 99% capability, it was considered degraded. Would you like to feel the effects of one of those degraded wmds?
Bush, Saddam, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction: WHO IS REALLY LYING?
“Bush lied about the Weapons of Mass Destruction.” It is the mantra of most of the democrat candidates, all of their professional spinmeisters, and the constant harangue of the liberal media. To determine if Bush did, in fact lie, we must accomplish two goals. First, we must determine what is meant by the word ‘lie.’ Then, we must consider the facts of the situation and see if President Bush did actually lie, as the word is generally understood.
So then, what is a lie? Is it merely an untruth? Is it just a false statement? No, it is more complicated than that. A witness in court must swear to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” This three-part element, when violated in any of its components, is what a lie really is. It may be a lie of commission or omission, covert or overt.
When Bill Clinton said that he “never had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky,” he was committing an overt lie. The statement itself is patently false. It is so false that even Clinton, the master of the genre, could make only a feeble effort to redefine what “sex” is to try to extricate himself from his own falsehood. His democrat cohorts, however, committed a lie of omission in their defense of him. The party line became, “Sure he lied, but he only lied about sex. Any man would lie about a private act whose discovery would be hurtful to his family.”
What they omitted was that Mr. Clinton was the defendant in a sexual harassment case (Paula Jones) and was queried about Ms. Lewinsky because the law says that prior bad acts can be brought up in court in such cases, due to the “he-said, she-said” nature of the charges. So, if your secretary sues you because you told her that if she didn’t have sex with you, she would get fired, it would be permissible to bring up facts related to the last ten secretaries who had been dismissed. If one or more of them corroborates the plaintiff’s story, it would certainly lend credence to the charges. So, to say that Mr. Clinton’s lie was only about sex is as disingenuous as if Michael Jackson were found to be lying only about sex. Having sex with an underling, in the first case, or a twelve year-old boy, in the second, is different from having a consensual affair with your next-door neighbor.
It is evident that, for something to be the truth, it must be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Here is another example. A woman hears her husband leaving the house early one Saturday morning. He returns at ten a.m. after being gone for several hours. He has had a history of philandering, so the wife is suspicious.
“Where the Hell were you?” she inquires. “I got the car washed,” is the reply. He points out the window to their gleaming sedan. But was he telling the truth, as it is commonly understood?
Here’s what actually happened: he left the house at seven, got to the car wash when it opened, left there at seven thirty, and drove to his girlfriend’s house a few miles away. He spent a few hours there committing adultery, and was back home at ten. His statement, that he “got the car washed,” while perfectly true and perfectly obvious from the car’s exterior, is, in fact, part of a lie. The lie is clearly one of omission. The critical question, from the wife’s viewpoint, was an implied, “Have you been seeing that bimbo again?” But, since it was not specifically asked, the question went unanswered. Had the wife countered with, “It took you all morning to get your car washed?” the man would still not be caught in an overt lie. He could have replied with “It takes over an hour to get the car washed on Saturday morning at eight o’clock.” While the statement is true, it is irrelevant because he wasn’t at the car wash at eight o’clock. He was there at seven when the lines are short. His answer implied that he was there at eight, but he didn’t actually say that he was. Bill Clinton would be proud.
Now to the question of George Bush and the Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the issue of who really is lying. The democrats are all using the same basic talking points. They allege:
1. George Bush said that Saddam had WMD’s.
2. He took the country into war because of it.
3. Despite nearly a year of searching, no WMD’s have been found, and therefore,
4. George Bush is a liar, which leads to
5. And should be replaced by a democrat, the party renowned for its honesty.
There are some shades and gradations of the above, depending upon whether it’s Howard Dean or John Kerry doing the talking, but the basic premise is the one I have outlined. Let’s check it for veracity.
The very first statement is a lie of omission, and is actually the key to the democrats’ game plan to discredit the President. On the face of it, the statement “George Bush said that Saddam had WMD’s” appears to be perfectly true. And it is, as far as it goes. But, as we have learned, sometimes statements don’t go far enough, and the veracity of the statement is quite dubious, based upon a key omission. What is it that is omitted here? We all heard the President make the statement many times. Here is the key element: because George Bush subsequently acted (attacked Iraq) based upon this statement, the democrats are trying to make it seem like the statement really is:
“George Bush (and George Bush alone) said that Saddam had WMD’s.” That is clearly what they are implying. But, before the war started, everyone in the world said that Saddam had WMD’s. Bush said it, but so did Clinton, Gore, Daschle, Kennedy, Pelosi and Kerry, to say nothing of Koffi Annan and Dominique de Villepin. Even Saddam Hussein said that he had weapons of mass destruction
Of course, it wouldn’t be much of an indictment of the President if the first premise was: “George Bush and the entire world said that Saddam had WMD’s,” or even, more accurately, “The entire world said that Saddam had WMD’s,” which clearly would include George W. Bush among its minions. No, the liars on the left find it convenient to assign a belief which is held by all, and attribute it to one (and only one) person. This disingenuous act is exacerbated by their turning the truth further on its head by calling Bush the liar.
The second statement, “He took the country into war because of it,” is also partly true, but false in what it omits. George Bush and, indeed, Colin Powell, made a very strong case for the war, and the existence of the WMD’s was only part of the reason. The democrats have attempted (rather successfully) to frame their argument that Bush made an assertion which ultimately he has been unable to prove. They (conveniently) omit just enough to keep their argument strong. Let’s examine what they have left out.
What is inarguable is that Saddam, at one point in time, did have Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is inarguable because there is clear evidence that he used them. He killed thousands of Kurds with poison gas, dealt the Marsh Arabs a similar fate, and was actively using chemical weapons throughout the long war with Iran. Nobody, not even Howard Dean or Scott Ritter can say, with a straight face, that Saddam never had WMD’s. The 1998 inventoried list is not in dispute. The United Nations passed over a dozen resolutions, attempting to get Saddam to disarm. The final one, Resolution 1441, clearly, irrevocably, and for the final time, gave Saddam a last chance to come clean. Since the weapons clearly existed at one time, it was necessary for Saddam, as demanded by The United Nations, to hand over all proscribed munitions, and to explain and verify what had become of the rest. If weapons had been destroyed, he was to show evidence (video, trace element, even a bookkeeping entry) to prove it.
No evidence of such compliance has ever been offered. George Bush went to war because Saddam Hussein did not comply with the UN’s resolution. The onus was on Saddam to prove he had destroyed known stocks of illegal weapons. The onus is not, as implied by the democrats, on George Bush to find those weapons. It is almost as if George Bush had invaded some peace-loving nation, like Switzerland, accusing it of making illegal weapons. That is not the case at all. The prior existence of Saddam’s WMD’s was never in dispute
To give another analogy, consider the case of a mass-murderer who pulls out an automatic weapon and fires into a bunch of schoolchildren, killing nine of them. There are about a thousand witnesses, including a police officer, who gives chase. After a long run, he eventually starts gaining on the perpetrator, and yells, “Police! Put down your weapon! Put your hands up and surrender!” But, the alleged perpetrator keeps running. The policeman uses his own weapon to shoot the guy. Unfortunately, the police are unable to find the perpetrator’s weapon. If you are a democrat, the only conclusion that you could draw is that the weapon never existed. Tell that to the nine dead schoolchildren. And tell the Kurds that Saddam never gassed their village.
The left is forced into a syllogism that is absurd on its face. They really are saying:
1. Saddam had WMD’s.
2. We can’t find the WMD’s, therefore
3. Saddam didn’t have WMD’s , and
4. George Bush is a liar for saying that he did.
Clearly, syllogisms don’t work that way. One must start with a premise, and, based upon that premise, come to a conclusion. However, (and this is critical),
the conclusion can never invalidate the original premise.
For instance, my premise might be: “An apple is a fruit.” It is clearly a true statement. From this, I can infer that if I am eating an apple, I am, in fact, eating a fruit. I cannot, however, by the rules of logic, infer that if I am eating a fruit, it must be an apple. I obviously could be eating an orange or a pear, and would still be eating a fruit. One could make many statements related to the original premise, but one could never say, “An apple is a fruit. I am eating a fruit. It is a pear. Therefore, an apple is not a fruit.” One can never invalidate the original premise. It is an absurdity.
While Saddam’s possession of WMD’s is not quite the tautology of “An apple is a fruit, “ it is pretty close. If the democrats accept it as a fact, as they all did in 1998 when Clinton was president, they are left with the above non sequitur. Since he did have the weapons and we can’t find them, we cannot conclude that he never had them. (Unless we are democrats!) So then, what can rational people conclude? The choices are obvious. I will list them.
1. He hid them so well that we haven’t discovered them.
2. He transferred them to another country or entity.
3. He destroyed them.
Of course, there might be some combination of these three. If Saddam hid or transferred the weapons, the President was clearly correct in launching the invasion. That he had years to hide them does not make us at fault for not yet finding them. If he transferred them to a terrorist state, or a terrorist group, the invasion gains even more justification. Finally, the left might lead you to believe that if he destroyed them, we were wrong to invade. That is not the case. He had to show proof that he destroyed them, or else, like a gunman running from the police, the only safe assumption that can be made is that he still has the weapon or weapons. That’s why the police say, “Come out slowly with your hands up!” It is not enough to disarm. If you act as if you are still armed (for a criminal—keeping your hand in your pocket, pointing like a gun), the only way that you can be treated is as if you are, in fact, still armed. If the weapon is found, of course, these issues are moot. In Saddam’s case, the weapons have yet to be found in any significant quantity. This does not mean that he never had them, nor does it indicate that Saddam complied in any way with UN Resolution 1441, which passed unanimously, with even France and Germany approving it. Yes, there is a big lie involving George Bush, the invasion of Iraq, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Clearly, he’s not the one telling it.
Imagine if the terrorists knew what they were doing. Even old wmds can be very deadly. A degraded weapon just means it's not 100%. 99% capable is considered degraded. Obviously, many of the wmds were a lot more degraded, but there's no way of knowing unless inspected.
dances like a drunk MuppetNice turn of phrase. I'll probably remember that one.
FWIW, a hand grenade is considered a weapon of mass destruction under US statutory law. Seeing as how the definition of “mass destruction” is almost infinitely flexible, I suspect most people would find any chemical weapon to be a WMD, unless it was administered dose by dose.
You,my FRiend,are sadly mistaken.What they'll say is that it was either a case of "workplace violence" or that it was a faulty cleaning solution negligently supplied by Dow Chemical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.