Posted on 09/14/2011 6:47:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Well, I heard it was because Saddam threatened Bush’s Daddy ... [/libspeak]
Terrific article. Thanks for posting it.
RE: Terrific article. Thanks for posting it.
Must be bookmarked as ammunition against the “Bush lied, people died” groupthinkers.
bttt
Saddam was the producer of WMD and Osama would be the delivery boy was the reality.
Bush did the absolute right thing.
And if Bubba had done the right thing after the '93 hit on the NYC Tower, maybe 9-11 would have never happened.
Good Post...
Saddam didn’t have WMD’s. Uh huh. Go tell that to the Iranians and the Kurds. The elephant in the room is, what happened to those WMD’s? Why is this such a hush-hush matter?
1. There were buildings on Iraqi bases that were off limits because people got deathly ill upon entering.
2. Anthrax shots were initially not mandatory for civilian deployees to Iraq. What changed?
I think CNN is running a series of stories on this. Oh, wait a minute, that series is on hot tennis players.
I’ll bet the Syrians have them.
So effective has been Big Media's whitewash of Hussein's wmd programs that I have friends who vigorously deny Hussein EVER!!! has any wmds. I'd point out the slaughter of the Kurds to them, and they'd shake their heads. Because they "know" Hussein never had any wmds. Their lib leaders told them so.
This article makes a strong case for the necessary action against SH. I never doubted that he was a grave threat. He was not an immediate threat but the long term possibilities were very strong. He was surrounded by terrorists. The only dependable fighters in GW2 were the Fedayyan, trained terrorists. SH hated the US and had every intention to seek revenge. With the sanctions lifted (or at least eased), he had the means and opportunity to wage unconventional warfare. Ironically, policy that emerged during the Clinton administration was to remove SH. The Clinton administration waged war on SH with periods of heavy bombing.
GW’s mistake was nation building. He campaigned against nation building and then discarded his policy with the threat of terrorism. Nation building has enormous costs and hardly ever works. Bush should never have conducted nation building in Iraq. Nation building in Iraq ruined his presidency and caused the loss of Republican control of Congress. Democrats and their allies showed their true disdain for out military with their incredible rants against Bush and the military. These rants were responsible for deaths and maiming of our military people as the terrorists were emboldened by the prospect of US unrest. Obama has not changed policies much yet there is hardly any protests. Incredibly, he has started a new war which will most likely end badly with a new regime being worse than the previous regime.
Thank you for posting this.
I saw that blob, Michael Moore, on the Today show reminding everyone how he was the first to say publicly no WMDs would ever be found in Iraq. Savannah “Too Tall” Guthrie let it go.
This is a pretty long read- I think I’ll clip it out of the New York Times and read it in the waiting room at my next appointment. < /sarc >
CONTRA Michael Moore....
EXCERPT :
WikiLeaks docs prove Saddam had WMD, threats remain
by Seth Mandel
October 28, 2010
WikiLeaks’ latest publication of Iraq war documents contains a lot of information that most reasonable people would prefer remained unknown, such as the names of Iraqi informants who will now be hunted for helping the U.S.
And although the anti-war left welcomed the release of the documents, they would probably cringe at one of the most significant finds of this latest crop of reports: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
“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,” Wired magazine’s Danger Room reports. “But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.”
That is, there definitively were weapons of mass destruction and elements of a WMD program in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq when U.S.-led coalition troops entered the country to depose Hussein.
Predictably, the liberal media did their best to either ignore the story–like the New York Times and Washington Post did–or spin it. It’s not an easy choice to make, since ignoring the story makes you look out of the loop and hurts your reputation as an informative publication, yet spinning the story means actively attempting to confuse and mislead your readers. CBS News chose the latter.
“WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs: No Evidence of Massive WMD Caches” read the headline on CBS News’ online. Here is the story’s opening paragraph:
“The nearly 400,000 Iraq war log documents released by WikiLeaks on Friday were full of evidence of abuses, civilian deaths and the chaos of war, but clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction–the Bush administration’s justification for invading Iraq–appears to be missing.”
There are two falsehoods in that sentence, demonstrating the difficulty in trying to spin a clear fact. The Bush administration’s justification for invading Iraq was much broader than WMD–in fact, it was similar to the litany of reasons the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which specifically called for regime change in Iraq as the official policy of the United States government (Iraq had repeatedly violated international law, Iraq had failed to comply with the obligations that ended the Gulf War, Iraq had circumvented U.N. resolutions, etc.).
“If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow,” President Clinton said in February 1998. “Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”
The second falsehood was the phrase “appears to be missing.” In August 2004, American soldiers seized a toxic “blister agent,” a chemical weapon used since the First World War, Wired reported. In Anbar province, they discovered a chemical lab and a “chemical cache.” Three years later, U.S. military found buried WMD, and even as recent as 2008 found chemical munitions.
This isn’t the first time Iraq war documents shattered a media myth about Saddam’s regime. In 2008, a Pentagon study of Iraqi documents, as well as audio and video recordings, revealed connections between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Called the Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP), the report–based on more than 600,000 captured original documents and thousands of hours of audio and video recordings–proved conclusively that Saddam had worked with terrorist organizations that were plotting attacks on American targets around the world.
One way to identify a media narrative in deep trouble is the naked attempt to draw conclusions for the reader instead of just presenting the story. The CBS report on the leaked WMD documents is a case in point of the reporter telling the reader what they ought to think, knowing full well that otherwise the facts of the case would likely lead the reader to the opposite conclusion.
“At this point,” CBS reporter Dan Farber desperately pleads, “history will still record that the Bush administration went into Iraq under an erroneous threat assessment that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing and hoarding weapons of mass destruction.”
That’s as close as the liberal mainstream media will get to admitting they were wrong. It’s their version of a confession. The myth that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was WMD-free has met its demise.
And these weapons couldn’t simply be the lost scraps of Saddam’s attempts to destroy the stockpile, as Ed Morrissey points out.
“Had Saddam Hussein wanted those weapons destroyed, no lower-ranking military officer would have dared defy him by keeping them hidden,” he writes. “It would have taken dozens of officers to conspire to move and hide those weapons, as well as a like number of enlisted men, any and all of whom could have been a spy for the Hussein clique.”
But now that we’ve answered the question of whether there were actual weapons of mass destruction in Iraq–there were and are–we may have a more significant question to answer: Who has possession of these weapons now?
“But the more salient issue may be how insurgents and Islamic extremists (possibly with the help of Iran) attempted to use these lethal and exotic arms,” Wired reports. In 2006, for example, “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons were brought in from Iran.
“That same month, then ‘chemical weapons specialists’ were apprehended in Balad,” the Wired report continues. “These ‘foreigners’ were there specifically ‘to support the chemical weapons operations.’ The following month, an intelligence report refers to a ‘chemical weapons expert’ that ‘provided assistance with the gas weapons.’ What happened to that specialist, the WikiLeaked document doesn’t say.”
RE: Michael Moore, on the Today show reminding everyone how he was the first to say publicly no WMDs would ever be found in Iraq
What does the Boviator say to this :
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060622055545.07o4imol&show_article=1
_____________________________________________________________________________
Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq: US intelligence
US-led coalition forces in Iraq have found some 500 chemical weapons since the March 2003 invasion, Republican lawmakers said, citing an intelligence report.
“Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent,” said an overview of the report unveiled by Senator Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra, head of the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives.
“Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf war chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf war chemical munitions are assessed to still exist,” it says.
The lawmakers cited the report as validation of the US rationale for the war, and stressed the ongoing danger they pose.
“This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false,” Santorum said.
A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions “in such a degraded state they couldn’t be used for what they are designed for.”
The official, who asked not to be identified, said most were 155 millimeter artillery projectiles with mustard gas or sarin of varying degrees of potency.
“We’re destroying them where we find them in the normal manner,” the official said.
In 2004, the US army said it had found a shell containing sarin gas and another shell containing mustard gas, and a Pentagon official said at the time the discovery showed there were likely more.
The intelligence overview published Wednesday stressed that the pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market.
“Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out,” it said.
Santorum said the two-month-old report was prepared by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a military intelligence agency that started looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the Iraq Survey Group stopped doing so in late 2004.
Last year the head of Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, said that insurgents in Iraq had already used old chemical weapons in their attacks.
Nevertheless, “the impression that the Iraqi Survey Group left with the American people was they didn’t find anything,” Hoekstra said.
“But this says: Weapons have been discovered; more weapons exist. And they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq,” he said.
Asked just how dangerous the weapons are, Hoekstra said: “One or two of these shells, the materials inside of these, transferred outside of the country, can be very, very deadly.”
The report said that the purity of the chemical agents — and thus their potency — depends on “many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions.”
“While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal,” it said.
Reporters questioned the lawmakers as to why the Bush administration had not played up the report to boost their case for continued warfare in Iraq.
“The administration has been very clear that they want to look forward,” Santorum said. “They felt it was not their role to go back and fight previous discussions.”
Fear that Saddam Hussein might use his alleged arsenal of chemical and biological weapons was a reason US officials gave for launching the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Mark - Read later. Seems like a good companion to Cheney’s book - which I am listening to.
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.