Guess who found WMD in Iraq!

[powerboatr]

As a retired sailor
I guaranteed all the way back in 1990 there were wmd's in iraq
we trained for it and the GOV knew he had mutli stockpiles all lover iraq.
what surprises me it is took this long for the old stuff to come out, we knew saddam dumped huge quantities of various bad stuff all over the sandy regions.
it happened during the invasion of iraq into kuwait
he even burned some in the mass oil fires as they retreated, many were exposed to bad stuff as it burned.

we know the mass stockpiles prior to 2001, were in usable condition
the weapons after the invasion....were most likely dumped and hidden in underground hidy holes, that were dug EVERYWHERE.
we even found tanks buried in deep holes to hid them from forces.
then we add in iraq was to dispose of the weapons FOUND as we left the country. seems they failed to comply with that little item.
what pizzzes me off is bush was right and he got flame sprayed because the huge piles were not easily found for the other side in dc

[K.Mooneyham]

It seems to me that the Bush administration had a HUGE lack of proper public relations, as if they didn't have a team at all. So, they didn't seem to even mount a proper response to the claims that no WMD were found in Iraq after the invasion. The biased mass media didn't help the situation, either.

To address how the various services handled the folks who got injured by chemical agents, well, I'd say they just weren't properly prepared and because they weren't (no matter what they said), they wanted to sweep their failings under the rug. For instance, as active duty USAF aircraft mechanic, I got nuclear, biological and chemical warfare training in regards to protecting myself and equipment. But other than marking suspected UXO (unexploded ordnance), I never got any training in how to deal with any sort of munitions. It was assumed the "experts" would handle it. However, I'll go out on a limb and say that after the end of the Cold War, less money was spent in that regard than should have been spent. After all, the Soviet Union was no more and why "waste" the money? I'm not saying they didn't have plans to deal with the stuff, but I'd wager that it wasn't sufficient and certainly the training wasn't given to enough personnel to make them understand the potential of these sorts of incidents occurring, especially medical personnel. Just my guesses, I could be WAY off the mark, of course.

[Right2Carry]

Answer: ISIS

http://www.inquisitr.com/1309825/isis-i ... was-right/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

EOD teams did in 2008 and possibly earlier. DOD hushed it up.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014 ... .html?_r=1

Quoting your NYT article:

“I felt more like a guinea pig than a wounded soldier,” said a former Army sergeant who suffered mustard burns in 2007 and was denied hospital treatment and medical evacuation to the United States despite requests from his commander.

Congress, too, was only partly informed, while troops and officers were instructed to be silent or give deceptive accounts of what they had found. “ 'Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say,” said Jarrod Lampier, a recently retired Army major who was present for the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war: more than 2,400 nerve-agent rockets unearthed in 2006 at a former Republican Guard compound.

Here is the problem I have with this......

The ENTIRE premise of going to war against Saddam Hussein, as it was sold to the American people, to Congress, and to the U.N., was to capture, destroy, and prevent the spread of his chemical weapons. Naysayers claimed that this was not true, that it was all about oil. The Bush administration and its supporters—myself included at the time—argued (I still think correctly) that if it was about oil, why didn't we simply capture the oil fields and be done with it? We didn't argue that, and we didn't capture and hold the oil fields. The plan was always to turn control of these assets over to the legitimate Iraqi government.

So that begs the question: "What possible reason would the DOD have to squash evidence which proved that our justification for war was in fact correct?"

The NYT was an overt enemy toward President GW Bush. They hated him, and they would have gladly participated in his downfall. They also never bought the premise for going to war in the first place, and I am certain that a search of the NYT archives (I'm not going to spend time on that, but I do remember it) would prove that point. If that is the case, then doesn't this article A) vindicate Bush's reason for going to war, and B) undermine the NYT's own opposition to the war from the beginning?

I absolutely believe the men interviewed for this article. I'm just having a hard time reconciling A) why the DOD would want to "bury" the evidence which would have supported the very reasons for going to war in the first place, with B) why the NYT would suddenly adopt a position which would support the policy they formerly opposed, and prove that their own earlier narrative was false.

I heard yesterday on the radio Mark Levin, that is was Karl Rove and other senior administration officials who kept the news surpresed because they had basically already lost the WMD argument with the public and didn't want to open up old wounds.

[stroo]

I googled Rove on news this morning and found a bunch of articles stating that he kept the news suppressed. Stupid!!! That helped bring us Obama.

[Dragonfighter]

Sean Penn. PHhhhhttt! I don't wish death on him, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if he got hit by a car.

Perhaps Stephen King can arrange something...

So, in such a movie who would YOU pick to play GWB? Maybe George Clooney?

I pick Fred Thompson, though he may need to have his legs shortened.

No contest, Dana Carvey.

[C-dub]

Sean Penn. PHhhhhttt! I don't wish death on him, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if he got hit by a car.

Perhaps Stephen King can arrange something...

So, in such a movie who would YOU pick to play GWB? Maybe George Clooney?

I pick Fred Thompson, though he may need to have his legs shortened.

No contest, Dana Carvey.

That would be great!

I've never really thought too much of Rove. Only like him slightly more than Dick Morris, who I can't stand for some reason. Now this is just one more reason to despise Rove.