Wikileaks Document Dump Proves How Moronic The Anti-Iraq War Lefties Really Were

Flopping Aces ^ | 10-24-10 | Curt

[Starman417]

I guess it's fitting that the nimrod who released all these Iraq war documents has been proven to be not only a nimrod, but a tool:

By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I...

[snip]

Oh, and that lancet study?

I’m not sure it’s what WikiLeaks intended, but its latest leaks reveal that the infamous Lancet paper which claimed the US-led liberation of Iraq cost the lives of 655,000 Iraqis in fact exaggerated the death toll by at least 600 per cent:

[snip]

So let's see, first we find out that some Iraqi police abused detainees, and our troops intervened when they knew about it. Second we find out that there were indeed WMD's in Iraq and lastly we find out that the study exaggerating the death toll in Iraq was indeed exaggerated.

Wowzers.

[tcrlaf]

A MAJORITY of Americans have been convinced by a mostly-liberal media (Largely GAYS with an agenda to elect DEMOCRATS, financed by OFFSHORE foreign money) that chemical weapons never existed in Iraq, and that Bush LIED.

And for that, I have to blame George Bush himself.

Whatever the intention, not announcing every single find to the public allowed the Pro Left to push memes that got American Soldiers killed.

[frankenMonkey]

DId ya notice how 400,000 pages were released, and at the same time the MSM had news reports ready to go with the most damning bits?

Seems like the goods were “released” to the lefties in the MSM (but I repeat myself) quite a bit earlier.

[tcrlaf]

And yet, strangely, the BIG Media (Except FOX) has failed to mention ANYTHING about the Lancet Paper exaggerations, or the Chem weapons finds.

I cannot imagine why? Can you?

[ElayneJ]

Well, I’ve never sen a description of a “weapon of mass destruction.” WMD could be as large as a tank or as small as a medicine vial, I would guess. You’r right - the left framed the argument and Americans bought into the “Bush lie” lie.

[Cacique]

btt

[poindexters brother]

... And for that, I have to blame George Bush himself. Whatever the intention, not announcing every single find to the public allowed the Pro Left to push memes that got American Soldiers killed.

I have to agree. Especially as this additional information comes out, I still do not understand why Bush didn't pursue a vigorous and truthful defense against the onslaught of lies perpetrated by the left and their media sympathizers.

[EQAndyBuzz]

I can see the MSM now.

No no no... .Not those WMD’s.

[Mr. Jeeves]

The Left simply reframed the debate to mean WMD = nuclear weapons. The MSM helped them. One good Bush speech on the subject could have set back their efforts almost entirely. He never made it. Ergo, there was some strategic advantage to the US in allowing the world to believe there were no WMD’s in Iraq. Probably to keep every terrorist in the Middle East from heading there on a scavenger hunt.