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 Hussein’s rule," "In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“The MSM and liberal retort was “Oh, those are OLD WMDs””
that’s the way I remember it being “reported”
You’re right. Every time a news reporter reported on the WNDs they were told the chemical weapons could not be classified as WMDs. And I guarantee you that was democrats would say tonight.
Here’s a “left field” theory:
The people around Bush felt that McCain was “more dangerous” than Obama (mainly in the area of foreign policy). It could also be that the GOPe was terrified of what Sarah Palin might do to them, esp. if McCain kicked the bucket after a year or two.
“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”
They also believed it was a few chemical weapons, mostly old weapons from Saddam gassing the Kurds. Even Bush’s own men didn’t think they amounted to anything. This is not a new story. It was reported when the war was going on.
I agree that he didn’t make his case. My point is the Left would not allow/accept using the term “WMD” for chemical weapons. Because the Bush Admin made the case in front of the UN about nuclear weapons, the Left demanded proof of nuclear capabilities or stockpiles. They wouldn’t accept chemical weapons as proof.
That doesn’t excuse Bush for handling it the way he did. I just think it’s convenient that the Left is now considering chemical weapons to be WMD’s. They refused to before now.
Active Duty/Retiree ping.
I think it was someone other than Bush. Why would he want to cover it up?
I always found those pics of Bush kissing & holding hands with the Saudi king, as they walked during his visits, quite bizzare & disturbing.
Same thing I'm wondering about. I was hearing about this from multiple informed sources at that time. Haven't seen any good follow-up on it since.
Meanwhile, the geniuses who were so interested in maps of Iraq forgot all about the map of the US, particularly the southern border.
“Given the mainstream media’s disdain for all things Republican, it is at least as likely that they had this information suppressed.”
On the other hand, this is a NYT investigation that we are referring to.
Why would he not go totally public and fight for the fact that WMDs were found?
Many are saying, “Oh...no...the media would have disagreed with him...!”
If he had worried about that, he never would have fought for the surge.
With my tin foil hat on, I’ll offer possibilities:
1. As part of the establishment, he had been told that the next election was designated for the democrats.
2. He was very naïve and didn’t notice it was a big issue.
3. He knew it was an issue but didn’t know how to combat it in the media.
“President Bush NEVER fought this.”
No, he never did. In fact, he has said repeatedly, on the record, and even in his book on his Presidency, Decision Points, that we never found WMD’s in Iraq. I think his statements have been one of the major reasons that it is accepted that there were no WMD’s in Iraq.
Perhaps in his mind, he was expecting to find nuclear weapons, or sophisticated biological or chemical weapons, and what we did find just didn’t measure up.
A quick check of a host of military field manuals should have disavowed him of any notion of ‘chemical weapons’ not being WMDs. They are the most often and the most meticulously addressed.
In other words, I'm not voting for anyone that can't even say that killing babies is wrong, or that sodomy is wrong. Those two things, at least, were wrong yesterday, are wrong today, and will be tomorrow. That is the foundation of Conservatism, that we recognize and conserve certain truths and wisdom that are transcendent of the current spirit of the age. Indeed, "self evident" and "endowed by their Creator" are essentially conservative.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
These evils are not sufferable, and I am ashamed I voted for people who will suffer them. In my opinion, the Republican party has no principles that are immutable. Instead of "how can we further align ourselves with what is good and true?" we get "how can we further align ourselves with evil, and still say it is good and true?" So, I believe that to the extent that we conform to the spirit of the age, namely depravity, we will continue in decline and fecklessness.
You are wrong this time. The Livertarian party does not offer a real change. By seeking to weaken the Republican Party, you would simply empower the Democrats. Rand Paul is the new John McCain, the media darling who puts his finger in the wind before taking a poison on anything.
Right now, Rand Paul is like a windmill, he is spinning so fast.
I am no Liberaltarian, or an Ayn Rand or any other Rand acolyte.
I don’t seek to make the Republican party weaker, liberals do; like Bush, Cheney, McCain, Romney, Christie, Rove, McConnell, Boehner, and whoever is likely to “win” nomination in 2016.
GW and Daddy are both members of the cult Skull and Bones at Yale. A cult that is anti God. GW claims to be a Christian. If he is still active in the Bones, then I would have my doubts. If he is a liberal, I again have my doubts. Liberals are too much against the things of God, supporting homos and abortion. Both are abominations to God and will be punished to the highest degree the LORD has.
If you'll remember in 2000 "W" dissed "Focus on The Family" by saying he didn't need any "Focus Groups" aimed toward James Dobson and promptly met with Log Cabin Republicans a gay organization. Focus on The Family ran a program to help Gays go straight. The family has came out in support of abortion they just aren't real vocal about it. He's a diehard Northeastern Ivy League education Liberal.
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.