PDA

View Full Version : This is great


Southpaw2012
10-15-2014, 08:55 AM
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/188068-scoff-new-york-times-blasts-biggest-myth-george-w-bush-iraq-war-water/

Can't argue much with this when it's coming from The New York Times; one of the most liberal news sources around. Whether or not the war was worth it, this justifies it more than when liberals were bashing Bush over "lying" about chemical weapons.

Nazbaque
10-15-2014, 09:54 AM
There he goes again trying to define truth by who speaks it.

How many spins do you want from the wheel of wrong doing? Is it only important that your people commit the final wrong?

You keep complaining about your treatment on these boards and how we are too liberal for you. Southpaw at least half of our regulars are not USA citizens. Our opinion officially doesn't matter to your political system. If you want to be taken seriously, stop starting threads like this. It's okay for you to have an opinion on politics but try to prove to us that there is more to you than that. Read the other threads. Post your opinion on the matter and if it isn't political don't bring it there. There is more to life than USA politics. Even for the people who live there.

GonzoTheGreat
10-15-2014, 10:09 AM
As The Blaze’s Oliver Darcy pointed out, the WMD discoveries were kept partly hidden from Congress.

Retired Army major Jarrod Lampier, who was there when the U.S. military found 2,400 nerve agent rockets in 2006 — the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war – said of the finding’s import, “‘Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say.”
So George W. Bush (or one of his underlings) officially ordered an Army major to lie to Congress, and you think that a couple of obsolete* chemical weapons are the big revelation there?

Why is it that the Bush administration covered up for Saddam even after they'd killed the tyrant?

* There were occasional mentions of such attacks. Each time it turned out that someone had fitted a no longer functional chemical grenade or something like that to a bunch of explosives to manufacture an IED. Americans did get hurt by them, but they weren't the kind of stuff that justified the war.

Davian93
10-15-2014, 10:57 AM
Not to doubt this "report" but please explain what Bush's motivation would be for lying about there being chemical weapons in Iraq again? He, and his entire Administration, looked like complete idiots for not ever finding chemical weapons in Iraq and it destroyed his Presidency. Why cover-up something that would vindicate him?

Also, please note that Syria had a very active weapons program until about 6 months ago...and, at the time, they were having fun supplying Iraqi dissidents to kill Americans, same with Iran. It's quite possible, even if there were confirmed chem weapon attacks, that that is the source of the weapons.

Southpaw2012
10-15-2014, 11:34 AM
Bush's administration looked dumb at the time because the liberal news networks did not entertain the thought that there were chemical weapons in Iraq. People were so against war that the media ignored the facts. Anyone with knowledge of the Iraq/Iran conflict of the 80's knew that Hussein had chemical weapons, yet since he denied it in 2003, liberals ran wild and smeared the Bush administration for lying. At least now that a Democrat is in office the media decides to take notice that nations over in the Middle East (such as Syria) have chemical weapons.

GonzoTheGreat
10-15-2014, 12:30 PM
Why did Bush agree to stop looking for those WMD if he knew they were there?

Kimon
10-15-2014, 03:19 PM
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/188068-scoff-new-york-times-blasts-biggest-myth-george-w-bush-iraq-war-water/

Can't argue much with this when it's coming from The New York Times; one of the most liberal news sources around. Whether or not the war was worth it, this justifies it more than when liberals were bashing Bush over "lying" about chemical weapons.

When you mention the NYT, but then link to something else, it begs the question why.

Here is what the actual NYT article has to say about these weapons...

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.
Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.
All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

Here's the full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

GonzoTheGreat
10-16-2014, 05:34 AM
Short time line of these weapons:

They were made in Iraq, in factories designed and build by Western (both American and European) companies, in the 1980s.
Some of those weapons were used against either Iran or the Kurds in that period.
The rest were decommissioned after Saddam's Quwait adventure.
The UN weapons inspectors divided them into three classes: those that could be ignored (don't know whether there were any in that class), those that could be destroyed safely (those were destroyed) and those that had to be stored to decay on their own.
The weapons now found had belonged in that last class.
Those weapons had been under lock and key, subject to regular inspections, for about a decade, between 1993 and 2003.
Then the USA ordered the UN inspectors out, invaded and routed the Iraqi army which had been guarding the site so far.
Instead of putting US soldiers there to keep things safe, the USA ignored the place.
Someone, probably early rebels, or maybe people who later sold the stuff to them, then looted the storage space.
Some of those weapons were then used to kill American soldiers.

Now, why wouldn't Bush want to publicly admit that it was due to a decision by Rumsfeld that WMD were being used to kill US troops?
I could speculate, but even for me it isn't really easy to pin this on liberals.

Davian93
10-16-2014, 07:37 AM
Bush's administration looked dumb at the time because the liberal news networks did not entertain the thought that there were chemical weapons in Iraq. People were so against war that the media ignored the facts. Anyone with knowledge of the Iraq/Iran conflict of the 80's knew that Hussein had chemical weapons, yet since he denied it in 2003, liberals ran wild and smeared the Bush administration for lying. At least now that a Democrat is in office the media decides to take notice that nations over in the Middle East (such as Syria) have chemical weapons.

Um, were you in a cave when the Iraq war started and for the first 2-3 years of it? It was ridiculously popular for a long time. Something like 80% of Americans supported it up until the point where NO CHEMCIAL WEAPONS WERE FOUND...then people realized they had been duped. Everyone, up till then, basically believed Bush and Colin Powell (who took one for the team with his UN briefing) that Saddam had and was developing a new chemical weapons program. The few people that dared to say otherwise were destroyed politically and the countries that did so (like France) got pilliored. Do you perhaps recall the big huff on calling them "freedom fries" instead of french fries...all because France refused to go along with Bush's BS on the subject.

For example, the war was so unpopular that a full 18 months after it started, Bush won a smashing reelection victory.

If a legitimate chemical weapons program was ever found, they would have sung it from the rooftops to justify their idiotic illegal war.

BTW, I was there in Iraq and a lot of my friends got seriously fucked up (either killed or maimed for life) so you might realize why I'd be a bit pissed on this subject. We were all told we were fighting for one thing and it was total BS. And now look at the shithole that is there all because Dubya had to avenge his Daddy's honor.