The Media’s Collective WMD Deception

Flopping Aces ^ | 10-17-14 | Wordsmith

[Starman417]

"Many people have asked how close
Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we
don't know exactly, and that's the problem."
-George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, Oct 7, 2002

In wake of ISIS possibly acquiring and using chemical weapons in Iraq, The NYTimes' C.J. Chivers came out with a piece earlier this week that has reignited debate over the issue of Iraq WMD.

Chivers' article that covers old munitions and the plight of OIF soldiers exposed to chemical weapons leakage, is not exactly new news. "Nothing found" is a lie, which much of mainstream belief has embraced due to the constant barrage of "No wmd found" and "Bush lied" slogans. It's the reason why Karl Rove and the Bush White House mistakenly decided to move forward and talk about "nation-building" in Iraq rather than continue defending the original justifications, including the WMD reasoning.

A number of low-information voters are commenting, expressing anything from shock to "so Bush was right" and vindicated. This is similar to what happened in '08 when the U.S. shipped yellowcake out of Iraq and into Canada. It was already declared stuff and known about, pre-'o3 Invasion, under lock at Tuwaitha with a UN label. The progressive critics are pointing and laughing, wondering if these commenters actually bothered to read the article and not just a headline blurb about "chemical weapons found". Chivers article demonstrates the power, reach, and influence of mainstream media. The only thing revelatory (at least for myself) is how these soldiers exposed to chemical weapons have not been receiving better care.

Glenn Kessler gives 4 pinocchios to anyone who claims that the New York Times story vindicates George W. Bush-era claims of Iraq WMD.

Foreign Policy Blog: Bush Defenders Say NYTimes Just Vindicated The Iraq Invasion

Vox: Iraq war supporters think they were just vindicated on Saddam's WMDs. They're wrong.

MSNBC: Conservatives continue to get Iraqi WMD story wrong

HuffPo: That NYT Story On Abandoned Munitions Doesn't Prove Bush Was Right About WMDs

Mother Jones: No, There's Still No Evidence There Was an Active WMD Program in Iraq

These are just a few examples of how the media in it's snobbery has deluded its own self into a false narrative.

Patrick Brennan at the National Review Corner has the most balanced response to Chivers' article:

The existence of these weapons doesn’t affect the debate over the war’s justification either way: They’re not evidence that Saddam Hussein was, as proponents of the war contended, in the process of resuming chemical-weapons production or starting other WMD programs. But on the other hand, as the existence of thousands of hidden or mislabeled chemical-weapons munitions reported in Chivers’s article could suggest, Saddam was clearly not complying with United Nations requirements about exposing and dismantling his chemical-weapons stores, which was the legal justification for the war.

Some of the munitions found in post-war Iraq were deliberately buried/hidden and not declared to UN weapons inspections. It doesn't matter if these were pre-'90/'91 era- Saddam wasn't supposed to still have these at all.

The simple question is: Did Saddam, in a 12 year span that involved 16 + 1 UNSCRs, ever come into full compliance of UNSCR 678, 687, and 1441 (1441 was not what was cited as legal justification for OIF)? The simple answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT! And it's because of the feeble, toothless UN that Saddam felt emboldened to continue snubbing his nose at the international community for over a decade of deceit and defiance. Even when U.S. forces began massing upon his doorstep in preparation for Operation Iraqi Freedom, Saddam did not believe President Bush and the American people had the will nor the gonads to risk casualties and commit to a ground invasion.

Whether or not WMD material- new or old- was shipped out of Iraq before/during Invasion, it was Saddam himself who perpetuated the belief, however accurate or inaccurate, that he was a WMD danger. Translated post-war documents bear this out; as well as Saddam Hussein's own confessions to his FBI debriefer, George Piro.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

One can villify the media all they may wish to over this issue, but the pure hatred has to be reserved for Rove.

Arguably, the failure to fight back against the “Bush lied, people died” thing (which still is heard TO THIS DAY) cost Congress and cost the presidency and in the end, this could cost the country. At the risk of being a tad overdramatic. But this decision could have been reversed AT ANY TIME over 5 years. It could have been reversed covertly, by having some other outlet release the information. The impact of this decision will last for many years. It’s already lasted a decade.

Incredible. Rove should be fed into one of Saddams’ old plastic shredders.

[taxcontrol]

Let the spin, begin.

[crazydad]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/

[crazydad]

Oh believe me the Libs are on a roll. On my Facebook pages they are still denying and denying. Calling people names, saying “Bush is still a mass Murderer”. They will never admit they were wrong.

[driftless2]

Reasonable people can argue whether it was worthwhile eradicating Saddam whether he had WMDs or not. But the fact is for five years the media was screaming NO WMDs FOUND....SADDAM HAD NO WMDs....BUSH LIED!!!!

The Dems knew Hussein had WMDs. Heck, Clinton was the president who passed the act to remove Hussein BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!! Even when reports of WMDs being fired at U.S. troops (as reported by ABC News in 2004) the Dems and leftists persisted in their lies about no WMDs.

Now we've found about 5,000 WMDs in various stages of decomposition. Although many are corroded, many are still dangerous. A degraded WMD just means less than 100% capable. I doubt many people would like to dip their hands in a mustard gas canister to find out how degraded it was.

[Billthedrill]

Glad to see all the denial, actually, because it validates what was becoming a lost-cause feeling even among conservatives. Were the media in any way honest they'd admit they were mistaken and fall back onto the "but that wasn't the only reason Bush went into Iraq" stance, which also is the truth.

Instead we have simple, childish, bitter clinging to what was never more than spin to begin with. The truth isn't in these people. Nice to see that verified.

[TigersEye]

• Wikileaks documents show WMDs found in Iraq
• Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
• WMDs Found in Iraq Human Events
• Saddam talked of WMD attack in U.S.
• Saddam's WMD have been found
• Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says
• Saddam general: WMDs in Syria
• Deadly chemicals are found dumped in river
• Evidence of WMDs in Iraq - Annonymous Freeper in Iraq
• Cyanide Salt Block Found in Iraq
• MSNBC - Cyanide & Mustard Agents Found in Euphrates River
• EUPHRATES 'POISONED'
• Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
• Iraq's biological weapons program.
• Iraq's chemical weapons program.

[Wuli]

The GWBush quote: “Many people have asked how close
Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we
don’t know exactly, and that’s the problem.”

WAS and IS the crux of the cause against Saddam. At the time, it was considered a very high security risk to NOT be able to answer that question, with total transparency & clarity. The war followed Saddam making it clear that he was not going to help get to those answers. It - the security issue - was not “Saddam had ‘the bomb’, but post-9/11 it became imperative we find out. Saddam, not the U.S. made the war inevitable under the circumstances. He had the ability to change the whole dynamic and prevent the war, by behaving as South Africa did when ending their WMD programs. Saddam chose the war, because he chose not to make its alternative possible with answers and cooperation that would satisfy everyone. The U.S. did not go to war because GWBush lied, but because Saddam was not willing to provide the truth.