Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NY Times reveals secrets of WMD cover-up in Iraq
Fox News ^ | 15 Oct 14 | Fox

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2004; 2011; almuthana; bcw; bush; chemicalweapons; coverup; deception; iraqiwmd; iraqwmd; isis; mosul; muthana; warheads; wmd; wmdchem; wmdfinds
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-224 next last
To: petitfour

That point in time being now.


41 posted on 10/15/2014 5:42:42 AM PDT by Mygirlsmom (Obama Legacy: Bush's fault. Next guy's problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mears

bfl


42 posted on 10/15/2014 5:45:24 AM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Were these recently built weapons, or were they old weapons found almost randomly/accidentally in back corners of warehouses and bunkers?

Based on past stories of old/lost weapons being found, I’m inclined to believe that the Bush Admin spoke what they believed to be the truth, under the caveat that they were speaking of known/documented, combat-ready chemical weapons, which weren’t found.

As an example of how I’m thinking about this, consider that there’s a fairly sizable “stockpile” of chemical weapons inside DC itself. They’re buried behind American University, where they were dumped at the end of WWI. The Army’s spent 20 years trying to locate all of them and dig them out. But does the fact that a bunch are certainly still there mean that the US is in violation of it’s promise/assurances that out stockpiles have been destroyed?


43 posted on 10/15/2014 5:46:22 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

President Bush always said history will be the ultimate judge.
I always thought it a mistake to refer to the sought after materials as WMD’s. International definitions would support calling them Precursors, accelerants and dual use materials. (I read the UNMOVIC reports.) I just couldn’t imagine President Bush pronouncing those terms.
Curious, though, that the NYT is publishing all this now.


44 posted on 10/15/2014 5:46:33 AM PDT by griswold3 (I was born here in America. I will die here in a third world country. Obama succeeded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: winner3000
Why would Bush want to cover it up and have his reputation sullied that he “lied about WMD’s”?

Because the Saudis that own him told him to do so.

45 posted on 10/15/2014 5:47:12 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA
This one throws me for a loop. When these were found, one would think the Bush administration would’ve trumpeted it with the grandest “told you so” messaging possible.

When you are fighting a war, you never want to announce to your underdog enemy that if you look hard enough, you can find WMDs to use against US forces.

46 posted on 10/15/2014 5:49:11 AM PDT by Go Gordon (Barack McGreevey Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: winner3000
A couple of theories that I have heard are that...

1.) The existence of the weapons was not widely know among the insurgency. The administration wanted us to actively look for them but didn't want the insurgents to be looking for them as well.

2.) The liberals had the the upper hand by getting out a head of the debate over whether they weapons existed or not. The administration didn't want to engage in an uphill battle rehashing the debate over the reasons for war and instead wanted to focus on the path forward (the surge, keeping troops there, training Iraqis, etc...)

47 posted on 10/15/2014 5:54:51 AM PDT by nitzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kidd

You are correct. There were reports. The liberal MSM just chose to deny them because it did not fit their leftist narrative.


48 posted on 10/15/2014 5:54:56 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I read some of this and found it to be a blame BUSH article. Bush sent them in harms way did not tell them about the chemical’s and now the troops are sick? Did not finish this article.


49 posted on 10/15/2014 5:57:19 AM PDT by angcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

My sense is that you defend yourself against political attacks. You especially defend yourself against political attacks when they are threatening to put in power a socialist nutcase with zero experience, a liberal agenda, and a list of accomplices that would make Joseph Stalin feel at home.

You especially defend yourself when a transformation of the Supreme Court is just one appointment away.

We could have new pro-life, pro-gun, pro-natural marriage rulings by now. Instead we have a gay army, the criminalization of traditional morality, and a nation without ammunition.

President Bush’s silence, whatever the reason, and especially NOW knowing that he KNEW there were WMDs, is an indication of SOMETHING political.


50 posted on 10/15/2014 5:57:35 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

Completely true but not be prepared for the foaming-mouth backlash from those who wouldn’t vote for Romney because he is Mormon, because he’s no different than the Kenyan, etc.

Yes, they betrayed the Constitution and the country by allowing another term for der Fuehrer. What do you bright sparks have now? A much worse economy than 2012, Ebola, Enterovirus, disease carrying illegals pouring across the country with the blessing of democrats. Nothing is better and nothing stayed the same. It is all worse so thanks you “principled” so-called “conservatives, you made it all possible.


51 posted on 10/15/2014 6:02:39 AM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


             
^10
52 posted on 10/15/2014 6:06:57 AM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

OIL!


53 posted on 10/15/2014 6:10:06 AM PDT by hsmomx3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Of course it’s political: there’s ALWAYS a political angle.

From the Bush Administration’s perspective, probably, the stories of old stockpile remnants were already out there. The press wasn’t covering them. If the Admin started pushing for coverage the story would have been that the Bush Admin was exaggerating old and unusable, pretty much lost and forgotten weapons into an actual usable combat capability.

IOW trying to cover a “lie” with another “lie.”

So there was certainly a political calculation that playing up these things would do more harm than good. Which, given the political environment at the time was a fair argument.


54 posted on 10/15/2014 6:10:52 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: winner3000

IIRC there was evidence that some of these WMD came from our allies.

Think France.

I read this here many years ago.


55 posted on 10/15/2014 6:11:19 AM PDT by COUNTrecount (There's no there there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nitzy
1.) The existence of the weapons was not widely know among the insurgency. The administration wanted us to actively look for them but didn't want the insurgents to be looking for them as well.

This seems the most plausible to me. However, why is the NYT reporting this now? It's not to give GWB credibility.

1. Ebola distraction?

2. Early news dump for Obama's/Hillary's failures in Iraq?

3. Excuse to put boots on the ground, AGAIN, in Iraq?

4. All of the above?

56 posted on 10/15/2014 6:13:44 AM PDT by Envisioning (My desire to be well informed is at odds with my desire to remain sane....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: winner3000

The Secret U.S. Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3215255/posts

[Never let them see you bleed.]


57 posted on 10/15/2014 6:13:59 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March ("Collapse the system." -- Cloward, Piven, and President Ebola.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xzins
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
58 posted on 10/15/2014 6:15:04 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

It wouldn’t matter what the counter-story would have been to Bush’s claim that there were WMDs.

It’s the same with any political issue; abortion, for example. They have their points and we have our points and the debate rages. But at least there’s a debate.

Pres Bush’s supporters would not have stood on the sidelines saying “oh my, they have points, so we better not repeat our own being advocated by our leader.”

We would have shouted from the housetops, AND we would have won the hearts and minds of many Americans who were 100% behind the president at the outset of this war and would have at least acknowledged a debate was raging with facts on our side.

But, Pres Bush chose NOT to argue at all. He gave ZERO information on these WMDs to his supporters and potential supporters. It was his biggest FAIL. He owns it.


59 posted on 10/15/2014 6:15:39 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I see this as an indictment of the American Press. Everyone knew Saddam had WMDs and that he had used them. The American Press knew this. They were afraid that this President Bush might get an approval rating of 92% like his father had after DESERT STORM. The American Press believe they are paid by the Democrats. They had to keep President Bush from having that kind of approval rating. So, they changed the dialogue from a madman having and using WMDs to a debate about whether there were WMD factories in Iraq. They kept the second President Bush from increasing his approval rating which, in turn, helped give us Barrack Hussein Obama as President. The American Press really deserves a good kick in the ass.


60 posted on 10/15/2014 6:16:22 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-224 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson