Mako11 | 16 Feb 2015 12:00 a.m. PST |
So, contrary to the opinion of many, there were lots of WMDs found, recovered, and apparently "bought and paid for" as well: link An interesting footnote, to the war. |
darthfozzywig | 16 Feb 2015 12:22 a.m. PST |
But those were old, not very effective chemical weapons. "Junk weapons," no doubt, much like your old health insurance policy. |
Major Mike | 16 Feb 2015 5:22 a.m. PST |
You just had to ask those that were there to know that the media was creating "The Big Lie" |
Murphy | 16 Feb 2015 5:42 a.m. PST |
Wait…let me get this straight…we went in in 2003, and they bought these in 2005 – 2006. So they were in country?…So essentially speaking…hmmmm… Lets see… 1: "Old not very effective weapons"…can still kill you. 2: 400 Bortak rockets….hmmmm that's 400 rockets filled with Chemical munitions…. Plus this little moniker: "Many rockets were in poor condition and some were empty or held a nonlethal liquid, the officials said. But others contained the nerve agent sarin, which analysis showed to be purer than the intelligence community had expected given the age of the stock." So the answer was…were there WMD's in Iraq?.. Obviously the answer is now "yes"…. I'm thinking that maybe over time….we will find out more and more about this…. |
Dynaman8789 | 16 Feb 2015 7:14 a.m. PST |
The part that does not add up is the administration would have shouted to the world "SEE, we were right!". |
tuscaloosa | 16 Feb 2015 7:55 a.m. PST |
Chemical weapons were never the issue. Nukes were. Old rocket rounds with mustard or sarin residue? Big deal, you don't go to war over that. It was Cheney and Rice who kept on and on about "the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud". |
Pan Marek | 16 Feb 2015 8:58 a.m. PST |
Tuscaloosa and Dynaman have it right. |
Sundance | 16 Feb 2015 9:12 a.m. PST |
Actually, Tuscaloosa, at the time, the people who chose to ignore the facts of history and who wanted to castigate the sitting president (including the media) denied that there were chemical weapons in Iraq. It wasn't just nukes – it was anything other than conventional weapons. |
WarWizard | 16 Feb 2015 10:46 a.m. PST |
People simply do not understand the Saddam Hussein wanted everyone to believe WMD. He conned everyone into believing he had large stockpiles of these. That's how he held all the other countries in fear. His plan backfired though, because the US bought into all his phoney hype and "appearance" of WMD. So when he was called on the carpet about it, he couldn't confess and say it was all an illusion. Then everyone would know he was bluffing. He had to continue with his reign of intimidation. |
Dn Jackson | 16 Feb 2015 11:24 a.m. PST |
Um, he did have large stocks of WMD, that's what the article details. As for the nukes, his entire program was found right after the invasion buried in one of the lead researchers garden. That was news early on, so the attention of the anti-president/war group shifted to chemical weapons with numerous cries that there weren't any. Which this article pretty much disproved. There were numerous stories during the early part of the war about our finding stocks of chemical weapons, but these were usually discounted as old/degraded etc. |
Zargon | 16 Feb 2015 11:41 a.m. PST |
Er, I though WMD is an acronym for the western politicians bellicose orientation. What now no WMD don't go and get the horror that is Dash, boy how warbly these western politicians are. |
M C MonkeyDew | 16 Feb 2015 1:17 p.m. PST |
Truth is the first casualty. Sadam had wmd. We had bases close to Iran tgat did not depend on Saudi benevolence. Now we have Daesgh. It is a fundamental change. |
Dynaman8789 | 16 Feb 2015 1:37 p.m. PST |
> Truth is the first casualty. Except when it is sacrificed later on. Sort of like the idea that a bunch of old weapons wasting away is what the Iraq invasion was about. |
Dye4minis | 16 Feb 2015 2:20 p.m. PST |
This is not really "news". Just read Kenneth R.Timmerman's book, "Countdown to Crisis" and Iraqi General Georges Sada's "Sadam's Secrets" (especially pages 250-264). Like Sada comments, I cannot understand why the Bush administration did not make these facts public and kept silent about them! My only conclusion is that if divulged, the HUMIT source would be at grave risk and also open up accusatory facts about "allies" involvement in creating the WMD situation in the first place. Their actions were in complete disregard for existing non-proliferation/embargo treaties in effect at the time. Greed for the easy and quick buck bends moral ethics from biblical to todays headlines. (Just follow the money trail…..) This stuff has been out there since the the fall of Saddam- some before that. Most just drink the kool-aid that the press serves up and never seek other sources. Believe me, open source documents can be found and cross checked for accuracy IF you know what to look for. Happens every day and not many big ticket news organizations even take the time to report the 100% truth anymore. Despite what one may feel about any President or Prime Minister, etc., wondering why they make decisions the way they do/did will just have to wait for the hisory books- usually decades after the events. |
Meiczyslaw | 16 Feb 2015 8:46 p.m. PST |
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. -- Michael Crichton, many years ago |
mandt2 | 16 Feb 2015 9:29 p.m. PST |
Like Sada comments, I cannot understand why the Bush administration did not make these facts public and kept silent about them! I remember when they found that stuff. It was in the news. They were old, pre-Desert Storm weapons, and were described as not functional but dangerous if left lying around, but not so much as weapons. Many were leaking and had explosive contents that were unstable. THAT's why it wasn't considered a big deal back in 2006. I thought they had all been destroyed by our Army. So Bush let the CIA sell them instead? Where'd that money go I wonder? Keep in mind that the whole WMD thing was based on the fear that these weapons posed an extraordinary danger to the U.S., which, with the exception of nukes, they did not. Nearly every smoking gun that was offered up as evidence that Saddam had a nuke program was debunked. The inspectors found no trace of a nuke program. That yellow cake story was the most notorious. The Admin said the intel came from the Brits. The Brits were ticked at us because they had already reported to us that it was bull, and now we were pinning it on them. So everyone who had any info on the subject knew that Saddam did not have nukes and was a decade or more away from even dreaming about making them. The big lie about WMDs was not whether Saddam had them. The lie was that even if he had chemical and biological weapons, they posed no special danger to us. They are too difficult to handle for a terrorist complex like al Qaeda. Al Qaeda's M.O. was to use what was at hand in the target area, like hijacked aircraft, or a simple car bomb. WMDs also provide too little bang for the buck. For the amount it would cost to make or buy enough sarin or ricin to make everyone in a subway station sick, one could buy a couple of hundred pounds of fertilizer and a 50-gallon drum of diesel, and cause some serious death and destruction. A poll taken just before the 2004 national election revealed that 60% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with, or was behind the 911 attacks. It is frightening to me to think that 60% of the people in this country were so badly misinformed, or were that stupid. And THAT's what made the invasion of Iraq possible. |
Dn Jackson | 17 Feb 2015 7:32 a.m. PST |
"So Bush let the CIA sell them instead?" No, the article stated the CIA was buying them and getting them off the market. |
Skarper | 17 Feb 2015 9:41 a.m. PST |
Yep – a few rusted old chemical weapon munitions from pre-Desert Storm days is not going to absolve the Bush era for its wars in Iraq. |
tuscaloosa | 17 Feb 2015 10:16 a.m. PST |
Very true. But oh, how they'll try to twist it into absolution! |
Dye4minis | 17 Feb 2015 11:23 a.m. PST |
Well, Syria sure made use of the Iraqi chemical weapons against their own folks within the last year or so… Regarding yellow cake: There is an occasional poster here that was in charge of guarding over 50 55gal drums of the stuff on the tarmac in Bagdad, destined for a location in Canada!!! I've known this fellow for over 40 years and have trusted my life with him. From what I have seen & heard, the stuff really existed. Unfortunately, political views will have to fade away before we can learn the truth. In any case, a nice piece if scenario material here…. |
Mako11 | 17 Feb 2015 2:25 p.m. PST |
Yea, I suspect more stuff is still secret, like this little-known "buyback" program. |
mandt2 | 18 Feb 2015 10:01 p.m. PST |
No, the article stated the CIA was buying them and getting them off the market. Oops. Thanks. Regarding yellow cake: There is an occasional poster here that was in charge of guarding over 50 55gal drums of the stuff on the tarmac in Bagdad, destined for a location in Canada!!! I've known this fellow for over 40 years and have trusted my life with him. From what I have seen & heard, the stuff really existed. Unfortunately, political views will have to fade away before we can learn the truth. I'm sorry, but I find this difficult to take seriously. Why would nothing have been said about it? Why would the Bush Administration not have trumpeted this as an "I told you so"? Truthfully, this would have been the smoking gun that could have rescued the Bush/Cheney legacy. It makes no sense. |
Meiczyslaw | 20 Feb 2015 9:23 p.m. PST |
I'm sorry, but I find this difficult to take seriously. Why would nothing have been said about it? Why would the Bush Administration not have trumpeted this as an "I told you so"? Truthfully, this would have been the smoking gun that could have rescued the Bush/Cheney legacy. It makes no sense. That's 'cause it's not the whole story. That yellowcake had originally been bought for Iraq's nuke plant, and everybody knew about it. When Saddam was still letting the UN inspectors into Iraq, they knew exactly where it was, and checked it off the list as safe and well-stored. The stuff was not very dangerous (as nuke materials go), but could be used to breed weapons grade material if it was put in the wrong kind of plant. I presume Bush didn't make a big deal about it because it's wasn't a WMD yet. Iraq's WMDs were all of the chemical variety. |
Mako11 | 21 Feb 2015 12:50 a.m. PST |
For the same reason they covered up the WMD buyback program. Not every President, or his underlings care about their spin in the media. Some do what's right, regardless, and let history be the judge, not lying TV news anchors. |
tuscaloosa | 22 Feb 2015 10:53 a.m. PST |
"Iraq's WMDs were all of the chemical variety." Two types: chemical, as you say, and fantasy. Like the Tooth Fairy. One thing's for sure: Saddam wouldn't have put up with ISIS. A shame we hung him, and turned the place over to chaos. Bush's toppling of Saddam has become the biggest enabler of terrorism and chaos in the MidEast. |
Early morning writer | 03 Mar 2015 12:00 a.m. PST |
now, tuscaloosa has it dead on. Saddam wasn't much but he had his boot firmly on the neck of the dangerous – and we cut his foot off (all the Iraqi's did was bungle his hanging and cut his head off: after he wasn't much of a danger anymore.) Now, the dangerous are very dangerous indeed. But not to worry, we'll go in and make it right – as long as there is a profit in it. Not any kind of news, but US weight of force is only ever really deployed where substantial natural resources are in play. Is that wrong? Not for me to say. But it is. And those who want to trot out our philanthropic nature, maybe check again. Yeah, we have a small amount of aid heading to Haiti, but what resources does Haiti have to justify the large aid really needed? as to reports from vets out of Iraq, or any war zone – and I respect the service and sacrifice of every one of them – what you hear from them generally matches closely with their personal politics within my experience. yeah, I'm a vet but not a combat vet. Again, not right or wrong, just a simple truth that every source of information must be sifted through a filter before it can be interpreted. The best information in all the above posts? Follow the money. Find out who benefited most financially from Iraq, Afghan, Syria, whatever, and you'll find the real cause, ultimately. Ideaologies are just an excuse. There is always money behind war, somewhere, somehow. Resources. Always. Altruism exists in the hearts of many, including many vets (or did before they saw combat, sometimes after, too). But not in the final analysis of why wars happen. The irony? Ultimately, peace is vastly more profitable than war. Just some businesses can't transit out of that field. What need is there of another gun or bullet on a planet so awash in them? Yet how many more are made every year? While I agree with the expression "if you want peace, prepare for war" but I see a clear connection between the vast excess of weaponry proliferating across the globe and the increasingly dangerous conflicts out there. What happens when the world puts a solid lid on terrorism, whatever its stripe? Will it be China versus whoever? Pakistan versus India? Israel versus Iran? Some sad day the bombs will fly, the really, really big ones. Then what? We are a mad species, are we not? And yet we have, evidenced so clearly in this hobby we all share, are grimly fascinated by war. Hey, how to get rid of the "liberal media"! Deny them any wars anywhere to report on. Then all they can do is sell cars and talk about global warming. Whoa! I need to go to bed after that ramble. |
Mako11 | 03 Mar 2015 1:01 a.m. PST |
May I point out a minor, technical detail? ISIS didn't exist during the Bush era, and they rose to power due to the vacuum created by pulling out all of the US ground forces from Iraq, despite the military's strong counsel against that, which was ignored, since a certain individual thought he knew better than his generals. Sadly, he was mistaken. |