That is breaking news!!Do you have proof on that or is that what you want to believe after no wmd found ANYWHERE to justify 5000 American soldier lives— 40,000 soldiers wounded and maimed— 300,000 Iraqs dead and 2 fricken TRILLION DOLLARS completely flushed down the toilet? Hummmm? Show us the proof.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/10/16/new-york-times-reports-wmd-found-in-iraq
The New York Times published an article that has re-ignited a 12-year-old debate: Was then-President George W. Bush right about Iraq? The report examined U.S. service personnel’s encounters with abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq – and some conservatives were quick to pounce on the story as evidence that claims by Bush in the lead-up to the war that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction were true and that the United States’ 2003 invasion was justified.
The article by Times reporter C.J. Chivers focused on U.S. soldiers who suffered from exposure to the sulfur mustard and other nerve gases which emitted from the bombs. According to the story, about “5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs” were found scattered across Iraqi soil. The U.S. government buried the cases from both the public and the troops. As a result, injured soldiers did not receive proper medical treatment.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002.
The first was munitions that had been sealed in bunkers at Iraq’s Al Muthanna weapons complex by U.N. inspectors during the 1990s. The inspectors destroyed enormous quantities of chemical weapons at Al Muthanna between 1992 and 1994, including 480,000 litres of live chemical weapons agent, but some could not be incinerated because it was too dangerous to move it. The U.N. and U.S. knew these chemical weapons were there, Saddam Hussein knew they knew, and there was no way for the Iraqi military to access them without the world immediately finding out. But after the invasion the U.S. failed to secure the site, and insurgents broke into the bunkers to retrieve some of the munitions. This is well-known to anyone who follows this issue closely. However, the U.S. media, as Duelfer puts it, periodically “rediscover this and get excited about it.” (The Intercept explained some aspects of the remaining Al Muthanna munitions last fall.)
The U.S. government suppressed information about chemical weapons it found in Iraq, and several servicemembers were injured by their exposure to those weapons, The New York Times is reporting.
In an article the newspaper says it found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to mustard or nerve agents after 2003. They were reportedly given inadequate care and told not to talk about what happened.
“From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by chemical weapons.
That enough? I can get more. And you can be assured these articles, written by the NY times and CNN, and not conservative in nature. This is a little crow eating.
red
You really need to seek help
To me, what stood out, and I have never seen explained, is that in the final weeks of the (endless) run-up to the U.S. invasion in 2003, convoys of heavy trucks under Russian escort were photographed by US spy planes and satellites traveling from Baghdad and environs to Damascus. These convoys were seen and reported in the mainstream media at the time.
Iraq and Syria, besides sharing a border, were close allies, were both part of the Ba'ath Socialist movement--which was organized and supported by the Soviet Union--and were both users of poison gas, at least in domestic conflicts.
Were there WMD, such as Sarin gas, in those trucks? I wasn't there. But I can't seriously imagine there was anything else--other than perhaps Saddam's crystal and silver--that would have been so important to take out of the country on the eve of our well-telegraphed invasion of Iraq. The view that Saddam had a change of heart and stopped using WMD voluntarily, or did NOT have some back-door arrangement for re-acquiring his supply from his close allies in Syria, doesn't seem to me like a serious view. That he had stocks of poison gas in the country is not in dispute, since he had used them in recent memory, and odd canisters of the stuff kept turning up in warehouses or buried in the ground as the US invasion advanced.
This is apart from any consideration of whether the war in Iraq (II) was well advised, which is another subject.