Skip to comments.NY Times reveals secrets of WMD cover-up in Iraq
Posted on 10/15/2014 4:49:02 AM PDT by xzins
The New York Times...details U.S. forces in Iraq finding thousands of chemical weapons during the Iraq war. "From 2004 to 2011...troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Husseins rule," "In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
This is obviously a cover-up.
The gut reaction is to say “Bush was right.” This actually makes me question President Bush who obviously had this information suppressed. It led directly to the demise of the republican party at just the time that we needed one more supreme court justice to change this nation.
The revelation now means that the powers that be want to re-enter Iraq with boots on the ground and realize they oversold their own lies. Those lies are now preventing them from doing what they want.
So they attempt to walk them back
Many freepers knew this all along. Many (including me) had troops who said they’d encountered WMDs. Their lone voices never surfaced in the media.
Why would Bush want to cover it up and have his reputation sullied that he “lied about WMD’s”? This makes no sense.
But he did.
The only reason that makes sense to me is there was a desire for a transition of power to the democrats.
Because he was a god-damned liberal fixated on the destruction of the republican party? “We’re all socialists now.”
i agree. why would the bush admin admit publicly that there were no WMD’s when they were finding them all over the place?
There WERE reports of WMDs during the Iraq war.
The MSM and liberal retort was “Oh, those are OLD WMDs”
One possible answer is that he really is as stupid as the liberals say he is... though not for the reasons they choose to talk about.
They ran a report on those ‘old wmds’ a few months ago. They are now 10 years older than they were when they were first found. No one wants to enter the bunkers. They fear them. They are stockpiles.
So, wouldn’t they be even more lethal 10 years ago?
The lies are amazing. The liars are in both parties.
I remember during the height of Operation Iraq Freedom, there were several reports of our soldiers finding ‘stockpiles of WMD’ (some with video footages). Only to be told that chemicals were dual-use or something like it.
Hence the perpetual “Bush Lied about WMD” meme to get us into an unnecessary war.
Now THEY are telling us, our men and women DID find WMDs but it was covered up?
For Heaven’s sake, WHY? WTF @$^&#*&
Why? See #2.
They want boots on the ground in Iraq and need to walk this back.
Given the mainstream media's disdain for all things Republican, it is at least as likely that they had this information suppressed.
A president cannot have information suppressed.
He can simply stand before a microphone and say it and say it and say it.
President Bush NEVER fought this.
You must understand....I was a radical GW Bush supporter, regularly accused of being a BushBot
Rather than a devious plot by Bush to cover it up, I think it was more a failure to go over the heads of the Democrat Publicity machine ( a.k.a. the "Press")
President Bush never fought a LOT of things. One of his characteristics that I did NOT like. He had broad shoulders and let the BS roll off of him, but he didn’t fight to get his word out when he needed to do so IMHO.
I wouldn’t call that “suppressing” information. I think his desire to avoid getting dragged down into the “bug dust” hurt him at times, and this was one of those times. In fact, in this case, it hurt more than him - it hurt the country and was probably a major contributing factor to how we got stuck with the present administration.
This one throws me for a loop. When these were found, one would think the Bush administration would’ve trumpeted it with the grandest “told you so” messaging possible.
I don’t understand America anymore.
LIES! My Editor at the time told me to my face that the soldiers coming back with these stories were only looking for attention. The Dems assured him there were no WMDs.
One thing they were not finding were recently manufactured WMDs, perhaps that is the reason. Frankly, they should have known that as some of the shell enclosures and precursers for the WMDs came from the WEST. So, since the basic elements had not been sent to IRAQ since about 91, why would they have expected to find currently made stockpiles? Makes no sense to me as to why this was a partial basis for this war. Why they did not want to point out they found old degraded WMDs anyway can be explained as political BS.
Since the time Bush I did not wish to take out Saddam while he had the machine to do it in place, this whole Iraq thing has been one giant fiasco. It is the perfect example of what happens when you loose the dogs of war. We last won a war when we left occupation forces on the ground in the loser country. We withdrew from Vietnam and Iraq and the result is going to be the same. The best our Nation had to offer was wasted over PC and BS.
And we're just pawns in their game.
I recall seeing pics and text of found chemical warheads. ‘See there are WMDs !’.
The MSM blew it off with, ‘Those are leftovers from previous stockpiles, old stuff. Their not from a new batch, therefore they don’t bolster the argument as to why we went to war a second time.’
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.