BOMBSHELL: New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq!
By Alexa Coombs

How many times have we been told that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq? I'm pretty sure I've heard it millions of times. I've read stories here and there over the last several years about WMDs being found, but of course it never got much news coverage - until now.

The New York Times shockingly admitted in an explosive front page report that thousands of WMDs were found in Iraq since the start of the war:

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein's rule.

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.

So, now it needs to be repeated millions of times: there WERE WMDs found in Iraq! But of course The Times couldn't admit that their discovery vindicates President Bush. Instead they claim that these WMDs don't count and that an active WMD program was the only rationale for the Iraq War:

The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government's invasion rationale.

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.

Oh, really? Well, it sounds to me in UN Resolution 1441, adopted November 8, 2002, that there was concern about an active WMD program, but a key point of contention with Iraq in the decade after the 1991 Gulf War was the WMDs that had been left over (the ones The Times reports as being found during the Iraq War). Iraq had repeatedly refused to disarm and destroy its WMDs, even kicking out UN inspectors between 1998 and 2002. Some key excerpts from the resolution:

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material ...

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material; ...

- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

In President Bush's speech to the UN on September 12, 2002, a huge chunk of his case was about Iraq violating its agreement to be transparent and disarm and destroy all WMDs after the Gulf War, maintaining stockpiles (like the thousands that The New York Times reported on!), improving facilities that could be used to produce WMDs, and not complying with UN weapons inspectors:

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons. ...

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

On the eve of the Iraq War, President Bush laid out his case to the American people. Again, the focus was on disarmament and Iraq's possession of WMDs:

My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again - because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

For The New York Times to say, "The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government's invasion rationale," is ridiculous. Now that the leftist claim that no WMDs were found in Iraq has become untenable, they are moving the goalposts again. They say these pre-Gulf War era WMDs don't count, even though Saddam's continued possession of these older ones was clearly used as a justification for war.

When Saddam said he destroyed all his WMDs from the Gulf War, we knew he was lying and still had stockpiles, and we were proven right when we found the thousands The New York Times reported. The left has now conveniently changed to saying that no NEW WMDs were found. As if the "old" chemical weapons that were found couldn't have been put into the wrong hands by Saddam and used in a terrorist attack!

The bottom line is: Weapons of mass destruction WERE found in Iraq. Debate the Iraq War all you want, but this should no longer be a point of contention.


Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider...d-iraq/#ixzz3jre7ZIoO


-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

I thought everyone knew that. Progs don't, of course, but they are not really human.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

so what?

not really a good reason to start a war the we could never win.

lot's of countries have wmd's. should we invade all of them?

like vietnam, a really bad idea.

we have wmd's. how many innocent civilians died in heroshima and naghasaki?

FACT!

Nope. There were no "innocent" civilians in Japan. Dupes and sheeple maybe, but no innocents. Not when their soldiers were getting their rocks off doing this, , , ,:



-------------------------
Dora Hates You

if america duz it, it's all good...

crusty old chemical weapons, provided by the U.S.

Alexa Coombs

-------------------------

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness -
John Kenneth Galbraith

Another horseshit propaganda piece from yet another wacky right non thinker.

-------------------------

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness -
John Kenneth Galbraith

Why isn't Amanda in uniform? She wants to go to war so badly. Hubby won't let her I guess.

-------------------------

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness -
John Kenneth Galbraith

You didn't know that there were WMD in Iraq? Why you might just be a prog?

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

They had weapons and they got invaded, killed and overrun without using them on us? What are weapons for if not to defend your homeland and fight? These weapons are real to tpap because he saw colon power hold up a cartoon of what they thought they might look like in the rush to war. You are too late to claim that wmd's were there when even the neocon chicken Hawks have abandoned this argument in favor of the "we went with what we had and at that time we were justified."

Have a nice slice of yellow cake and a glass of heavy water kool aid. It's good to see how you maintain your consistently dishonest position despite the fact that even the people that created these lies to go to war have abandoned them and relied instead upon the possibility of wmd's to justify their cries for war. Some woman blogging from outside dc with a "bombshell" ten years later is funny. She should ask colon power for his cartoon pictures from the United nations presentation as proof. After all, it was good enough for her then, the press bought it and she thinks it could probably work again.

By the way, how many soldiers that were have openly antagonistic positions to the president and who are no longer active would that article need to have even a shred of credibility. How is it the famous infotainment network wouldn't jump on this and remind everyone that they too are reporters and that this is what makes them fair and balanced? How is it that none of those things happened but here you sit cutting and pasting with an occasional "lib" thrown in to make it sound like your lies are accepted truths by people in the know. It's not even a good effort. I would say your better than this I'm reminded that by making the focus of your bs a ten year old lie, you might forget that the 16 asses that think they can run this country better have either no specifics (healthcare, immigration, deficits) or simplistic specifics that almost sound like they should be proclaimed in German (mass deportations, a wall, trickle on economics). No luck on that attempt today.

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

Iraq had WMD's and did use them in '92. We knew but did everything we could to "keep it quiet". Some of our advanced units were "gassed", although ineffectively. A person I know was in the middle of it. Coms about "gas" were forbidden. First, we did not want the Israelis to get "off the chain", which they would of had they had even the slightest thought that any of the SCUDS were loaded. Secondly, the French had tactical nukes with them and had made it clear that they would use them if Iraq used WMDs.

-------------------------
Dora Hates You

As long as you are relying on secret info from unnamed sources, you are on the money.

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

Answer this: if Iraq had wmd's then why didn't they use them as their country was invaded, their leader and his sons killed and his party scattered? Hint: it was NOT because they were so busy hiding then instead of fighting.

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.