Posted on 10/21/2014 4:24:07 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
The Left would rather forget its old slogan, “Bush lied, thousands died.”
The very mention of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and Iraq was toxic for Republicans by 2005. They wanted to forget about the supposed absence of recently manufactured WMD in great quantities in Iraq; Democrats saw Republican defensiveness as key to their recovery in 2006. By the time Obama was elected, the issue had been demagogued to death, was no longer of any political utility, and so vanished.
So why all of a sudden is the New York Times strangely focused on old WMD stockpiles showing up in Iraq? Is the subtext perhaps that the rise of ISIS poses an existential threat in such a dangerous landscape (and by extension offers an explanation for the current bombing)? Or are we to be reminded that Bush stirred up a WMD hornets’ nest that Obama was forced to deal with? Or is the sudden interest intended to preempt the story now before we learn that ISIS routinely employs WMD against the Kurds? How strange that Iraq, WMD, bombing, and preemption reappear in the news, but now without the hysteria of the Bush era.
Indeed, for the last two years, reports of WMD of some sort have popped up weekly in Syria and Iraq. Bashar Assad has used them
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
VDH ping ...
Great article, thanks for the ping
I think a new tactic should be employed, as follows:
+++
There were no WMD during the Bush years.
Now there are, during the Obama Administration.
It appears as though Obama has created an atmosphere in which they can be built.
It’s Obama’s fault.
You’re right. There are only two choices left to report for the MSM.
1. The incessant drumbeat about no WMDs in Iraq by the media was wrong, and they owe Bush an apology.
2. There were no WMDs in Iraq when Bush was in office, but they’re there now, so it’s Obama’s fault in dropping the ball.
Of course what the MSM will do, as it famously did in cases like Walter Duranty winning a Pulitzer for falsely reporting about no starvation in the Soviet Union under Stalin, is to simply not bring up their past reporting which contradicts their current reporting. Come to think of of, it’s much the same thing they did with global cooling, no global warming. Never mind. Climate Change.
It has the look and feel of something the dem party would do. Yet another example of why neither party is substantively different.
Say what? It is a prime example of how different they are!
The liberals are lying evil partisan hacks, only concerned about their election. And the pubbies are concerned about America, but fight lamely and stupidly.
That's where the tactic I outlined works so well, all one has to do is say that the current administration has fostered a climate which allows WMD.
So, lying is OK when republicans do it but not OK when dems do it? Thats what Rove did, lie for political gain for his party...at least thats the story.
The RINOcrat Uniparty isn't concerned AT ALL about America, but only about being in charge of running it.
As Mark Levin says, they LOVE big government because they can't make money and have power under limited government.
You think Mitch McConnell and John Boehner and their RINOcrat buddies care about America, or the Constitution, or liberty, free markets and limited government?
Puh-LEEZE.
The Republicans have made it very clear that they are only too happy to pass the Obama agenda if they win the Senate. So that's just great, because it will give the Obama administration BI-PARTISAN COVER for the next two years leading up to the 2016 presidential elections.
Moreover, a Republican Senate victory will prove to the big goverment loving RINOcrats that they don't need the conservative base, on whom they have declared outright WAR, so you can forget about them becoming more conservative anytime soon -- not that we have any more time to wait.
You think it's crazy to say that Republicans intend to pass the Democrat agenda? Consider that:
The Republican leadership is lowering expectations about what they'll do if they take the Senate in 2014.
John McCain is already promising to restore the filibuster and promising to expedite approval of Obama's nominees “I will work very hard to go back to 60 votes,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who boldly predicts a Republican Senate would process Obama’s nominees “more rapidly than [Democrats] do today.”
And as for the House: John Boehner: ‘Very Few’ Republicans Will Oppose Me
Oh, and best of all, now Republicans are promising that a Senate takeover will increase the odds of passing immigration reform. Republicans: Immigration reform is more likely to happen if we take the Senate
Well at least the Republicans will repeal Obamacare. Oh wait, they won't.
The only SLIM chance we have to save our country at this point is to demonstrate beyond a doubt that the GOPs "moderate" agenda is doomed to fail at the polls.
Only then will we have a chance of having a true conservative Presidential nominee in 2016, and the utter collapse of Democrat credibility after two more years of their control of the Senate.
It is terrible to consider two more years of Democrat Senate Control, but no less terrible to consider the result of GOPe control.
drivel
No less, huh? Puh-LEEZE! Dingy Harry Reid?! You have got to be kidding. I hate the gOpE's stupidity as much as anyone, but there would be no 0bamacare with a Republican Senate.
But hopefully, 15 years from now (or in my lifetime) historians look back at this period will use 'now thoroughly exposed and defunct NYT/WaPo/(mass media whatnots)' or something like that.
Currently even Dan "Fake But Accurate" Rather gets a Hollywood remake with none other than Redford. "Stupid is as stupid gets". As to those 'editors and journalists', I can't think of a worst fate that they truly deserve.
Jump. This high. Good Boy. Good Boy.
Wallow, wallow....... ignorance is good for ya
There would have been be no Obamacare if the GOPe didn't foist John McCain on us.
And in case you think it was just incompetence, consider that we are finally seeing the GOPe declare OUTRIGHT WAR on conservatives -- including supporting Democrat candidates and making charges of racism against conservatives to get more Democrats to vote in Republican primaries.
And now that it looks like we WILL have a GOPe Senate, do you think the Republicans will repeal Obamacare? Or any other aspect of the Democrat agenda? Uh, no. I have already shown you evidence that what I am saying is true.
Where's YOUR evidence?
There is NO chance of saving this country as long as the RINO establishment runs the Republican Party.
It is more urgent to get the big government RINOs out of the Republican Party than to get Reid out of the Senate.
What I am not seeing is comments about
the MSM employees screaming about Reagan-Bush administration "giving" the weapons to Saddam.
"On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, 'It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the power it became', and 'Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.'"
-- from an Internet source. (Be prepared for the screaming that Reagan gave Saddam WMDs to go 24/7 again).
The truth us much closer to the following; it is from a www.un.org report.
6. The chemical weapon programme required access to foreign technology, equipment and raw materials because, in the early 1980s, Iraq did not have indigenous capabilities to manufacture chemical process equipment and precursors for the production of chemical warfare agents. A convincing legitimate cover story was needed to engage outside contractors and suppliers. Therefore, the chemical weapon programme began to operate under the facade of the State Establishment for Pesticide Production (SEPP).
"7. In the 1970s and 198Os, the production of a second generation of agricultural pesticides, in terms of technology, equipment and raw materials, most closely corresponded to the requirements for the production of chemical warfare agents. In addition, Iraq had legitimate needs for pesticides for its growing agricultural sector."
8. In general, Iraq did not develop its own methods for the production of chemical warfare agents. At the beginning of the programme, its main concept was to replicate, at an industrial scale, known foreign methods and techniques of the production of chemical warfare agents using commercially available technology, equipment and raw materials. Later, however, for some agents, such as VX, Iraq applied modified processes to suit its own capabilities.
9. Training in foreign institutions, open publications, foreign patents, international conferences and forums were major sources of information on basic chemical weapon production technology for Iraq. The information was first tested by Iraq at laboratory level to identify and adjust unknown parameters of the synthesis of chemical warfare agents thatcould not be found in open sources, such as the kinetics of chemical reactions, combinations of catalysts, equipment specifications and scaling-up procedures.
10. During the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi chemical weapon programme was not able to produce weapons of sufficient quality that could be stored as operational and strategic reserves. To overcome this limitation, after the end of the war, the chemical weapon programme was focused on the improvement of previously produced agents and on the development of more powerful agents and better quality agents suitable for long-term storage. Those activities included efforts to produce binary weapons and the chemical warfare agent VX. Iraq also initiated several projects to build indigenous capabilities for the production of critical chemical warfare agent precursors after 1988. These efforts were interrupted by the 1991 Gulf war. 11. According to declarations made by Iraq, in the period from 1981 to 1991 the chemical weapon programme produced approximately 3,850 tons of the chemical warfare agents mustard, tabun, sarin and VX . . . .
Overview of the chemical weapon programme of Iraq
This is only an annex to a report. I did not read the whole annex and a search did not reveal anything about our Dept. of Agriculture or anyone else in the U.S. government supplying chemicals to Saddam. Though I do recall that our Ag Dept did send agricultural chemicals to Iraq and other countries.
Pubbies fight? What planet are you on? That they are lame and stupid, I'll agree. But you don't go far enough. The Pubbies go along with the lying hack partisan Democrats, due to their cowardice. So, the point is, in the end, what difference does it make?
I suspect the Obamans orchestrated the WMD story to justify no boots on the ground. Just wouldn’t be prudent to risk our troops like that (sending them to surely get Ebola is different...).
I think Bush did exaggerate WMD because he did not want to present the geopolitical case for war against Saddam, for three reasons:
1) Public too ignorant to follow.
2) Fear motivates more readily than prudence. Nowhere is this more true than in Congress.
3) The neocon’s geopolitical case was weak and based on some loopy assumptions. Many people would question why it was that freedom and democracy would fill the void and spread across the middle east; why democracy is an Islamic sea of rival sects wouldn’t lead to theocracies and failed states; who would contain Iran; why wouldn’t Iraq spin into warring factions; etc.
None of this is to say that WMD was not present. But it was not the eminent threat Saddam wanted others, like Mosni Mubarak, to think, or at least say, it was.
Was ruminating on the biggest lies for all time.
1.) There is no God.
2.) There is a God, but He does not care about us.
3.) Jesus Christ is not who He claimed to be, not God’s Son.
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.