“Even the NYTs admitted they had wmds”
And what did the NY Times writers claim that these WMDs were?
For a year Dubya had the 1,000 man Iraq Survey Group inspect Iraq for evidence of WMDs. The only ones that they found were chemical artillery shells manufactured prior to Gulf War I.
The laboratories for nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons were all dilapidated and showed no evidence of having been used for years.
This is all in the Duelfer Report, the final report of the Iraq Survey Group commissioned by Dubya. Dubya has publicly accepted it as accurate. It’s been available online for years. No one reads it.
[[The laboratories for nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons were all dilapidated and showed no evidence of having been used for years.]]
Yeah, this is why Saddams own people had and used chemical suits- because their chemical weapons of mass destruction were so ineffective-
Look- everyone knows He shipped wmd’s out of his country- stalled the inspectors while he did so- people on the ground there knew it was happening- His own people knew it and stated such-
Slam dunk, right? Bush lied.
Not so fast. First, the ISG did find WMD. In fact, it found at least 53 of them.
'Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered.'
Why haven't you heard that? Possibly because that information was buried on page 97 of Annex F of Volume 3 of the Duelfer Report.
Even if the number of WMD found were short of the 'large stockpiles' threshold demanded by invasion critics, what about the ability to produce and use WMD in a short amount of time? Here, the Duelfer Report is explicit.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2005/03/no_wmds_really.html