Posted on 10/15/2014 4:49:02 AM PDT by xzins
Because ISIS now has the stockpiles that went to Syria?
It is true that Bush did not defend himself, even though as president and commander in chief, he had to know WMDs were found.
If the military unilaterally refused to reveal this to him, first one has to wonder how in the world they managed that, but second, that makes it, in effect, a coup d’état by the military against civilian control. And it would have been to the harm of the US. That was an era of US general of which I had personal knowledge (not claiming personal relationship...please don’t misunderstand.) That simply would not have been the case with those people. I would find it hard to believe about them.
In order to contain Iran we had to take down Iraq. Don’t forget the Qadeer Khan proliferation network was very active right up to the war in Libya, Egypt, Mali, Malaysia, South Africa etc., and while the press named SOME of the nations involved in it they deliberately did not name them all. Two went unnamed at least. Syria and Iraq most likely.
It was in Libya where we found Iraqi scientists working- in fact Obeidi worked there - the scientist in whose rose garden in Iraq we found a prototype for an enrichment centrifuge along with reams of docs and specs for the nuclear program.
You can’t understand the last thirty years of proliferation and IRaq without understanding the Qadeer Khan network, whose scientists were also involved directly with al Qaeda. This network allowed collaboration among various rogue states and enabled states under sanction to dodge inspectors by outsourcing elements of their weapons programs.
That jury has been in for a while now. Bush was such a flaming tool that he got Zero elected and has said not a peep ever since. Look at how active Bubba is. Bush watches this country sink beneath international socialism and says not a word.
ONe of the binaries that insurgents tried to use as an IED thinking it was conventional was from French circa 1996. Last I checked they come in larger packages than just one per pallet.
That still doesn’t make any sense.
I understand (!) the find in 2008 maybe McCain camp didn’t want the Iraq war/WMD debate all over again.
But from the article, soldiers found these weapons for longer periods of time since OIF. (1) Does Bush know? When did he know?
(2) Those in the military upper echelons (we know some are Obama/Dem supporters), what were their roles in not letting American public know?
These reports came out constantly, and were portrayed (repeatedly) as one-offs. I’m pretty sure you were on some of those threads.
Propaganda works. There’re probably a hundred million Americans that don’t thing Iraq EVER had chemical weapons - despite a decade on the news weekly for a decade before Bush even became President.
See #83
McCain. He didn’t want to deal with just about anything in that campaign (if we can call it a campaign.)
..................
Once upon a time on an old computer I had a list of favorites that was about a 100 links long about the proof of WMDs being found in Iraq. It crashed or I stuck it on a lost thumb drive. Too bad. I’d like to go over it again right now.
Bookmark.
It is impossible for the media to shut up a determined president. They can certainly argue against him, call him names, run outrageous exposes....but they cannot prevent him from standing before a microphone and repeatedly telling the truth to get a particular story out.
What’s scary is that that is not true. And example is the whole “selling 13 US ports to Dubai Port World” proposal. It never happened, yet the Administration was shouted down so hard you even had some idiot Republican congressmen defending it.
We knew this years ago on FR.
What I want to know is why the Pentagon covered it up.
Given that the saddam’s 3rd in command survived, that makes less likely the argument that we didn’t want insurgents to know where they were. Al Dhouri is now a lead general for ISIS. He knows.
Probably right on both fronts. No matter what the Bush admin said they would of been called liars and the media would of backed them up on it.
Which is exactly why some of us fight so relentlessly for ONLY electing people of principle and why so many more fight so strongly to shut us up.
I respect your strong feelings on the issue, and your arrival date as a 98er but as I see it no one is trying to shut you up. They are trying to pound some sense into those unwilling to recognize their complicity in the virtual destruction of every principle upon which this nation was founded, and doing it in the name of principle.
Shooting yourself in the foot with the imminent destruction of the country at stake, should get you a long sentence in Leavenworth or a public flogging instead of a place on the pedestal of pride.
Your post seems to infer your version of principle is supposed to trump mine or the many others here who figure your version of such gave us the six years of Obama and another two coming.
Me thinks you protest a bit too much about being shut up when reality is that all of us better believe in the three founding documents of this country which enumerate your right to say what you want and accept the consequences.
As I see it, there are three possibilities that contributed to Mr Obama occupying the White House:
1. Outright voter fraud
2. The principled voter syndrome
3. An electorate made up of...
The answer may well be a combination of all three but I believe regardless of the answer, it will be difficult to contend that shooting oneself in the foot over contested “principle” is not one of them that got us where we are today.
This isn’t personal, and I’m guessing we both came here for many of the same reasons and stuck it out over many controversial years to arrive at 2014.
My state is now faced with what I believe to be the identical scenario faced by Republican’s and the so called principled voter in the presidential election of 2008 and 2012. The result could be not gaining control of the US Senate and therefor the ability to slow or contain the destructive policies of the democrat administration, and Harry Reid in particular.
It started with a five way primary where the two “principled” candidates lost, and continues in a four way general between one so called republican, two independents, one an outright leftist, and the other the principled republican, running as an independent, and the democrat. The race is tight as can be between the three primary candidates. If we choose poorly the dem or the leftist walk into the Senate and we are toast.
If that ends up the result, how can anyone come back and justify the “principled” vote? I would rather try to justify “I voted my conscience”, than call it principled.
That said I started working on Conscience and principle and immediately got bogged down so I’ll leave it at that.
If it was the Pentagon, then they had to have a compliant President, SecDef, Vice President, SecState, senior republican senators and congressmen.
How could the pentagon keep it secret from the president?
I knew a troop who told me. Reports were all over the media. How did the president not know?
Answer: he did know. He just chose not to defend himself.
Bush does NOT own this.
These weapons were widely reported. The NYT reported on them and said they were old and not the stockpiles Bush had claimed was there.
My guess is that ISIS is using these now and the NYT is spinning to cover Obama and their own butts.
Bush does own this. He refused to defend himself.
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.