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 ...
Yep. One of those things that make you go hmmmmm....
too bad the Kurds aren’t Mexican drug cartels.
We had no problems shipping weapons to them.
As long as no one can be blamed, thats the important thing.
It’s wrong to blame responsible people. I learned that today.
And of course during the Bush vs. Kerry campaign, it was pretty much a choice between Bonesman A and Bonesman B.
We not only lifted many export licenses for Iraq, we removed them from State Department’s list of terrorist countries in 82. We also supplied them with satellite imagery, Iranian defense locations and other intelligence assets for the use of chemical weapons against Iran.
As for pathogens and such, look up the Riegle report. We exported over 50 shipments of anthrax alone to Iraq.
...and thats only a partial summary!
Hussein was living proof that when push came to shove we wouldn’t enforce agreements or stick with anything hard, and as a result, it was encouraging others to strike at us, and nations to almost universally negotiate - not just normal diplomat duplicity - but in outright bad faith.
A country that tries to operate in that environment will either put a halt to that, or not be long for this world. we were being struck every year in major and public ways.
As a result of showing even basic resolve, the aforementioned weapons programs in Libya were shut down and turned over for dismantlement. As many fingers were in that, and as close as they were to success, Iraq was worthwhile several times over.
I think because in some cases the WMD were so dangerous due to age that they had to leave them in place and just seal them up rather than take the risk of attempting to remove/destroy them. That would not have gone over any better, so they let the press overplay their hand.
I don't follow you there. It seems to me the destruction of the Baath Party in Iraq was a boon to Iran.
Vintage 1992 to 2000 ???
In the army we had a phrase for that: "Need to know".........
Whatever the reason was, it reinforces my respect for President Bush that all the choices he made were for the country and not making it about himself........
This really isn't earth shattering news anyway, in fact, it's old news...
Syria's Chemical Weapons Came From Saddam's Iraq
Pentagon announces 500 tons of Uranium shipped from Iraq to Canada
This is news. It is the first real time that the MSM has admitted there were WMDs in Iraq in substantial numbers.
I don't believe it was the "primary" reason for the invasion. Iraq violating the "fly over zone" was not enough - been doing it for years. The WMD's is why I supported the Iraq war as did most of the World. Chemical weapons were known to exist, used, and found. Plus, everyone knew of Saddam's ambition to build nukes.
I now think we wasted too much of our Troops lives and limbs when we could have contained Saddam like we did Kaddafi. I believe the clandestine services and DOD spec-ops could have dealt with Saddam's behavior/operations. Again, specific targeting. Kaddafi punked out. With enough effort so would have Saddam - remember he was found in a hole in the ground.
Most of your comment I tend to agree with, although some I haven't heard of. Apparently, you are more informed or buying into hearsay, supposition, personal opinion, or conspiracy. I mean the above as no slight. Please don't bother to explain further. You have made some of your points with fact and I prefer not to Google everything on record. Thanks for the info.
So you cite the Riegle report, but aren’t actually cognizant of it?
According to the report, there were years between when Iraq was taken off the terrorist list, and when they began the research programs. When they began acting out, they got put right back on the naughty list. Even at that, what the US sold them was trivial.
Also, you should understand what anthrax is. Iraq has had anthrax for at least a few hundred years. Pretty much every nation with ungulates has anthrax. What they were given were reference samples...like much of the rest of the world. As for the quantity of fifty, that’s like saying three boxes of .22 constitutes an arsenal.
There are posts above that go into more detail.
I don’t follow you there. It seems to me the destruction of the Baath Party in Iraq was a boon to Iran.
Remember “don’t attack Iran! Promise you wont attack iran”?
And then Iran was allowed to fight a proxy-war in Iraq; and when Iran became destabilized, the next administration did nothing useful and even that was killed.
There are many valid points concerning the Riegle report that have never been deemed invalid. Your point of Anthrax already being in Iraq is misses the point of weapons exportation from the US. Sure, Iraq could have harvested such Bacillus, but there was no need, for We helped to supply them. And later, such ownership of Bacillus was used as a Casus belli!
Was there really a coverup, or was there in fact reports of such findings and it was media majors like the NYTimes that did the coverup, selecting not to report at the time what not only the military but they also knew? Was the only “coverup” the media’s?
The ‘coverup’ was really a ‘silencing’.
The ‘coverup’ was really a ‘silencing’.
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.