^10
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 ...
That point in time being now.
bfl
Were these recently built weapons, or were they old weapons found almost randomly/accidentally in back corners of warehouses and bunkers?
Based on past stories of old/lost weapons being found, I’m inclined to believe that the Bush Admin spoke what they believed to be the truth, under the caveat that they were speaking of known/documented, combat-ready chemical weapons, which weren’t found.
As an example of how I’m thinking about this, consider that there’s a fairly sizable “stockpile” of chemical weapons inside DC itself. They’re buried behind American University, where they were dumped at the end of WWI. The Army’s spent 20 years trying to locate all of them and dig them out. But does the fact that a bunch are certainly still there mean that the US is in violation of it’s promise/assurances that out stockpiles have been destroyed?
President Bush always said history will be the ultimate judge.
I always thought it a mistake to refer to the sought after materials as WMD’s. International definitions would support calling them Precursors, accelerants and dual use materials. (I read the UNMOVIC reports.) I just couldn’t imagine President Bush pronouncing those terms.
Curious, though, that the NYT is publishing all this now.
Because the Saudis that own him told him to do so.
When you are fighting a war, you never want to announce to your underdog enemy that if you look hard enough, you can find WMDs to use against US forces.
1.) The existence of the weapons was not widely know among the insurgency. The administration wanted us to actively look for them but didn't want the insurgents to be looking for them as well.
2.) The liberals had the the upper hand by getting out a head of the debate over whether they weapons existed or not. The administration didn't want to engage in an uphill battle rehashing the debate over the reasons for war and instead wanted to focus on the path forward (the surge, keeping troops there, training Iraqis, etc...)
You are correct. There were reports. The liberal MSM just chose to deny them because it did not fit their leftist narrative.
I read some of this and found it to be a blame BUSH article. Bush sent them in harms way did not tell them about the chemical’s and now the troops are sick? Did not finish this article.
My sense is that you defend yourself against political attacks. You especially defend yourself against political attacks when they are threatening to put in power a socialist nutcase with zero experience, a liberal agenda, and a list of accomplices that would make Joseph Stalin feel at home.
You especially defend yourself when a transformation of the Supreme Court is just one appointment away.
We could have new pro-life, pro-gun, pro-natural marriage rulings by now. Instead we have a gay army, the criminalization of traditional morality, and a nation without ammunition.
President Bush’s silence, whatever the reason, and especially NOW knowing that he KNEW there were WMDs, is an indication of SOMETHING political.
Completely true but not be prepared for the foaming-mouth backlash from those who wouldn’t vote for Romney because he is Mormon, because he’s no different than the Kenyan, etc.
Yes, they betrayed the Constitution and the country by allowing another term for der Fuehrer. What do you bright sparks have now? A much worse economy than 2012, Ebola, Enterovirus, disease carrying illegals pouring across the country with the blessing of democrats. Nothing is better and nothing stayed the same. It is all worse so thanks you “principled” so-called “conservatives, you made it all possible.
OIL!
Of course it’s political: there’s ALWAYS a political angle.
From the Bush Administration’s perspective, probably, the stories of old stockpile remnants were already out there. The press wasn’t covering them. If the Admin started pushing for coverage the story would have been that the Bush Admin was exaggerating old and unusable, pretty much lost and forgotten weapons into an actual usable combat capability.
IOW trying to cover a “lie” with another “lie.”
So there was certainly a political calculation that playing up these things would do more harm than good. Which, given the political environment at the time was a fair argument.
IIRC there was evidence that some of these WMD came from our allies.
Think France.
I read this here many years ago.
This seems the most plausible to me. However, why is the NYT reporting this now? It's not to give GWB credibility.
1. Ebola distraction?
2. Early news dump for Obama's/Hillary's failures in Iraq?
3. Excuse to put boots on the ground, AGAIN, in Iraq?
4. All of the above?
The Secret U.S. Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3215255/posts
[Never let them see you bleed.]
It wouldn’t matter what the counter-story would have been to Bush’s claim that there were WMDs.
It’s the same with any political issue; abortion, for example. They have their points and we have our points and the debate rages. But at least there’s a debate.
Pres Bush’s supporters would not have stood on the sidelines saying “oh my, they have points, so we better not repeat our own being advocated by our leader.”
We would have shouted from the housetops, AND we would have won the hearts and minds of many Americans who were 100% behind the president at the outset of this war and would have at least acknowledged a debate was raging with facts on our side.
But, Pres Bush chose NOT to argue at all. He gave ZERO information on these WMDs to his supporters and potential supporters. It was his biggest FAIL. He owns it.
I see this as an indictment of the American Press. Everyone knew Saddam had WMDs and that he had used them. The American Press knew this. They were afraid that this President Bush might get an approval rating of 92% like his father had after DESERT STORM. The American Press believe they are paid by the Democrats. They had to keep President Bush from having that kind of approval rating. So, they changed the dialogue from a madman having and using WMDs to a debate about whether there were WMD factories in Iraq. They kept the second President Bush from increasing his approval rating which, in turn, helped give us Barrack Hussein Obama as President. The American Press really deserves a good kick in the ass.
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.