http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/188068-scoff-new-york-times-blasts-biggest-myth-george-w-bush-iraq-war-water/
Even the commie New York Times now admits it.
Even the commie New York Times now admits it.
Bush was right about WMDs in Iraq
- Thread starter IndySteel
- Start date
But what is absolutely befuddling is that the Bush administration knew this truth in 2005 and did not do a goddam thing to answer the claim that there were no WMD's, that Bush lied, or that "Bush lied, people died."
The goddamn Bush administration knew otherwise and did NOTHING to correct the record. Listen, I get that the Pelosi's and the Durbin's and the Reids should all be skewered for their lies, but the Bush administration deserves a kick in the balls as well.
Oh, and I am not holding my breath to hear apologies from Bammy, and Reid, and Pelosi, and Durbin, and Kerry, and on and on.
I hope there is a special place in hell for those liars. They had access to the same information, and decided that a bald-faced lie was just fine since it helped their political purposes.
P.S. Poor Bammy ... he is treated so harshly simply because he is black. *sob* Nobody would rag on a President and repeatedly tell lies about him if he was white!!
The goddamn Bush administration knew otherwise and did NOTHING to correct the record. Listen, I get that the Pelosi's and the Durbin's and the Reids should all be skewered for their lies, but the Bush administration deserves a kick in the balls as well.
Oh, and I am not holding my breath to hear apologies from Bammy, and Reid, and Pelosi, and Durbin, and Kerry, and on and on.
I hope there is a special place in hell for those liars. They had access to the same information, and decided that a bald-faced lie was just fine since it helped their political purposes.
P.S. Poor Bammy ... he is treated so harshly simply because he is black. *sob* Nobody would rag on a President and repeatedly tell lies about him if he was white!!
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 2,147
- Reaction score
- 144
- Points
- 63
I was thinking the same thing Stime. I guess he just values national security more than being viewed as a hero.
Well to be fair, a significant portion of those ended up on the black market when they failed to find them quickly, so Im not certain it was something the Bush admin was looking to push to the forefront of national news....
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,344
- Reaction score
- 1,691
- Points
- 113
Just the junk was left behind. The real stuff was moved by Russian convoys into Syria several weeks before the invasion.......... while the same Russians were preparing the Iraqis with night vision and anti tank gear. Assad has been sitting on the cache since. And he's used it on his citizens.
One wonders what the Bush administration might have said that a hostile media would have carried.......the same media that didn't seem to have a problem with the tool that occupies the White House pulling out all troops in 2011, or the predictable result we now live with. The best they can come up with is "Well, none of this would have happened if we hadn't invaded in the first place". Bush believes he will be vindicated as the truth comes out.
One wonders what the Bush administration might have said that a hostile media would have carried.......the same media that didn't seem to have a problem with the tool that occupies the White House pulling out all troops in 2011, or the predictable result we now live with. The best they can come up with is "Well, none of this would have happened if we hadn't invaded in the first place". Bush believes he will be vindicated as the truth comes out.
But he won't. The false narrative will never change - ever. "Bush lied, people died."
"Lied about what?", I ask.
"About WMD's," is the response.
"In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."
"But, but, but ... Bush lied" is the response.
"Lied ABOUT WHAT??????????"
"Well, uhhh, ehhh, WMD's!!! He lied!! We all know he did."
It will never change - ever.
I miss me some bush right about now.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 430
- Points
- 63
Looks like they're blaming Rove:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ame-rove-for-covering-up-iraq-s-real-wmd.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ame-rove-for-covering-up-iraq-s-real-wmd.html
S
Steel Not A Player
Guest
Right that there were still undestroyed stores, wrong about an active program.
But it's irrelevant, "WMD" was still not a good enough reason to kill 5000 American service members.
But it's irrelevant, "WMD" was still not a good enough reason to kill 5000 American service members.
Kerry and Hillary disagree with you.
S
Steel Not A Player
Guest
Am I supposed to run all of my statements by them before I go to print? I disagreed with them then, I disagree them now.
I'm betting you almost unanimously agree with them. WMDs as the reason to go to war was agreed upon by both parties.
And you may think it wasn't worth it. Imagine, had we stopped them, before the Russians exported them to Syria. How many lives would we have saved?
The WMDs mattered.
What reasons has Obama given to justify the use of drones on terrorists or air strikes on ISIS that you support? Interested in your reply.
And you may think it wasn't worth it. Imagine, had we stopped them, before the Russians exported them to Syria. How many lives would we have saved?
The WMDs mattered.
What reasons has Obama given to justify the use of drones on terrorists or air strikes on ISIS that you support? Interested in your reply.
S
Steel Not A Player
Guest
What branch did you serve in? I would be interested to know the answer to that. If you're a chicken hawk this conversation is kind of pointless.
WMDs do not matter. Lots of people have them. Saddam's were old and rusting. If we were to chase down every country that had them we'd be quite busy for quite awhile. And again, how many tours would you be volunteering to pull?
War is hard, dirty, dangerous work. It's only glamorous in the movies and it's only fun for psychopaths. I don't support most of Obama's policies, least of all the bombing of ISIS. We should be disengaging from the middle east, not falling for the bait and rushing back in to make ourselves targets. They baited him with those beheadings and he swallowed it like a sucker, hook line and sinker.
For the record, I was Army. Some of my brothers came home broken, others not at all. People take war so lightly when they see it on TV. It's different when it's you, and yours.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
First, thank you for your service.
Second, having served or not, doesn't affect whether you can have an opinion on the subject. Most of us "chicken hawks" know what it takes out of our military members and their families. A bunch of us "chicken hawks" have actualy served, during war-time or not. I may or may not give more credence to someone who has served, depending on where/when, but anyone on a message board can say anything. John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, has several medals. I think he and his opinions are steaming piles of ****.
Third, wasn't it just the delivery vehicles of the found WMD's that were rusting and broken? If our soldiers were getting sick just from being around them, it sounds like the WMD's were working fine.
Fourth, the story only describes what was found. How much more was sent out of the country before we went in? None? One truckload? A "bunch"? It would take a pretty big distancing from reality to logically conclude that none was moved. When that reality sinks in, it is pretty clear that what was left behind was stuff that couldn't safely be moved.
Fifth, if soldiers were sent into areas where exposure to known WMD's was likely and they were not warned, that is a breakdown of their command structure and should be investigated. I doubt their immediate on-the-ground commander knew, but if someone above him/her knew, that should not have happened.
Sixth, of course the WMD's mattered. It was a main reason given for the invasion and how many times have we been told it was a lie? I don't know if you are a liberal or not, but that is certainly from the playbook. It was, "No WMD's found, Bush liked". Now it is "Oh, WMD's don't matter" or "Those were old and unusuable, anyway". Would it be OK to bury it in your yard?
Seventh, apparently, the WMD's found were not destroyed and, now, ISIS seems to have gotten control of them? If so, that is a **** up of epic proportions. Combined with the fact that, it is possible that the WMD's came about with help from the US, leads me to believe that we had even more impetus to go in. If we helped arm a madman (no other way to describe the dude), we ought to have some responsibility to disarm him. Absent a time machine, we can't go back in time and not arm him.
Thanks Ark. No need for me to reply.
Powell presented the following key arguments to the UN about the reasons why military force was warranted against Iraq:
- Iraq had stored chemical weapons that it could still use.
- Iraq was hiding chemical weapons.
- Iraq was not giving access to UN weapons inspectors.
- Iraq was not giving complete access to UN inspectors when they spoke to Iraqi scientists, and instead had a "minder" present during the meetings.
- Iraq had available chemical weapons.
- Iraq had not turned over these chemical weapons, as required by the treaty ending Gulf War I.
The Democrat narrative in 2006 was that Bush lied about the existence of or access to chemical weapons. The evidence shows that all of the issues bullet-pointed above were true - every one of them.
So when can we expect that apology from Pelosi, et al.??
yeah, but, see, those don't matter.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 430
- Points
- 63
I'm confused as to why everyone on this board all but insists that you are either CONSERVATIVE or LIBERAL. If any poster disagrees with any conservative point/view/decision, they're immediately branded an Obama-loving, tree-hugging, Welfare-accepting, pot-smoking, dirty, hippie liberal.
S
Steel Not A Player
Guest
Two points and then I'll get away from this subject. First, if you believe in a war you should serve in it. If you don't you're full of ****, period. Second, I don't consider any veteran a chicken hawk. If you did your service during peace time then I thank you for standing the line. I'm only addressing people who refuse to serve at all but then can't wait for "us" to go attack someone. That "us" never includes themselves.
No way to know. But there are all kinds of nasty things in the world. Are we going to invade everybody to go get them? What made Iraq special? Why not Syria or Iran? We know both countries have chemical weapons. And why stop there? There are some pretty nasty countries down in Africa too. Why not invade them?
Iraq was chosen as a TV war target. Something tasty to blow up on CNN so people would feel better about 9/11. It was a PR stunt that went bad.
When I say "WMD don't matter" I mean it's not a good enough reason to invade. Who gives a damn what they have in some store room over there? That's their neighbor's problem, not ours. Why does some kid from Sioux Falls have to watch his legs get shredded off by an IED for some 30 year old ordnance in a warehouse halfway around the world?
It's not a good enough reason. It wasn't then, and it isn't now.
I don't care about ISIS. ISIS is not smuggling weapons into the US. They are killing people over there. Let them. That's their problem. Not ours. If people want freedom they should either fight for it at home, or move abroad. The ME is a mess of people who don't want freedom all arguing over the best version of totalitarianism. IDGAF about them. Not our problem.
You know, 9/11 happened because our Government agencies refused to collaborate. Our infrastructure failed. 9/11 was not the result of rogue agents hating us, that has always been. We should focus on protecting the homeland, not blowing up other countries. Think what you could do at the US border with all the blood and treasure we wasted on Iraq.
But those aren't all of his case. Powell insisted that there was an active program. We haven't seen evidence of that. He insisted that there were mobile labs and new weapons being created daily. No evidence has surfaced to support any of that.
Moreover, Powell himself was highly suspicious of Curveball and the paper thin evidence presented. That's why George Tenant is right over his shoulder during his presentation. Powell insisted that if he was going down for presenting a bad case, Tenant was going with him.
In any event, it still isn't a good enough reason to invade. Who gives a **** if Saddam had an active program? Iran, Syria, Israel, and the Saudis all have active chemical weapons programs. I'm not a fan of any of those countries, but I wouldn't invade them either. We have enough of our own problems without burning up good soldiers on these questionable adventures in the middle east. The ME and Africa are ****** up. I agree. But those are their problems, not ours.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 21,214
- Reaction score
- 23,582
- Points
- 113
Of course he was right. You have to laugh at the folks who minimize it. I guess Iran with nuclear weapons will be no problem either. That one has been swept away. We helped arm ISIS and now we must kill them. **** happens.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/15/us/iraq-chemical-weapons/index.html
These weapons were not publicized because they weren't the ones they were looking for.
These were all old, pre-1991, US designed and manufactured in Europe. They were not from
a Saddam Hussein build-up and program.
Bush lied, people died and US taxpayers were handed the bill.
These weapons were not publicized because they weren't the ones they were looking for.
These were all old, pre-1991, US designed and manufactured in Europe. They were not from
a Saddam Hussein build-up and program.
Bush lied, people died and US taxpayers were handed the bill.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
KEEP THE LIE ALIVE AT ALL COST!!
Oh, I didn't know we were looking for SPECIFIC WMDs...you know the ones that weren't moved out during our build up.
The delivery mechanisms seemed to have been degraded. If US military members are getting sick just by being in the vicinity, seems as if the bad part was still a problem.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/21/mee...on_wmds_but_the_truth_was_covered_up_by_bush/
Here is another explanation. George Bush Sr's Admin helped create these. What was his son suppose to do, go to the media and brag, that we
found weapons my father helped create. Rove helped prevent, the Bush admin becoming a bigger laughing stock.
Here is another explanation. George Bush Sr's Admin helped create these. What was his son suppose to do, go to the media and brag, that we
found weapons my father helped create. Rove helped prevent, the Bush admin becoming a bigger laughing stock.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
I said, essentially, that earlier. At some point, SH's ability to get WMD's was either helped or outright provided by the US (probably back to Reagan and, less likely but not improbable, Carter rather than GW's dad) due to the Iraq's opposition to Iran. Which is part of the reason I believe it was incumbent on us to go in to stop him from using it even more than he already did.
Similar threads
