The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons

Right...maybe just 300 or so coincidental bee stings.

Ok, this is interesting. now I see it says Assads regime has several factories making them, is there a part of the story...or maybe a different story that shows these Assad factories being taken by ISIS like we have in regards to Iraq?

As a reminder, the stories about Iraq Chem Weapons do not state it as "Iraq has Chemical factories"....the Iraqi Government is actually reporting that some were taken. Is there something about CW's in Syria that puts it on that same level? Any confirmed losses of munitions or facilities?

 

But still...Saddam Hussein had mustard gas. It still works.

So "Bush lied" is a crock.

 

Yes WMD which the anti-Bush side said did not exist. And there was no claim of a "thriving" program but correct claims that once sanctions were lifted it would become thriving once again and that was true as we confirmed after his removal.

Yes he had hidden WMD from inspectors by the time we removed him some had degrgaded, so what. We also found the proscribed materials he needed to quickly rearm hidden from inspectors.

 

We went to war because of thee unaccounted for WMD and you nor any else knows what condidtion they were in in 2003 and the fact he would REACTIVATE his WMD production once sanctions were lifted and inspections ended. He didn't need to be producing new WMD while inspections were ongoing he could rearm in a matter of weeks and we found the proscribed materials to do so, hidden from inspections, and the evidence he was actively reaeraching new and even more deadly ones.

The fact remains as the Clinton and Bush administrations stated, as Senator Clinton stated Saddam was. WMD threat and would always be WMD threat and could not be allowed to remain in power.

 

I think he was tired of defending it and would look like he was trying to. I think he knows that I'm the long run history will and does show he was correct so let history do the talking.

 

I could care less what you think about, Clinton made Saddam's removal the official policy of the United States, he fails Bush succeeded.

Now confirm to me you do not support Hillary for President.

 

Liberals like you have a visceral comment for FOX, conservatives disagree with the NYT, and have never tried to shut them down. Amazing you can't see the difference between a dissenting opinion, and liberal nazi like tactics

 

Oh no, I support Hillary for president. I hope it's like having Bill all over again. I will vote for her as many times as I can get away with.

 

As in the ones that UNSCOM was looking for and Saddam was trying to hide..............the WMD he possessed.

ROFL no those are what are called WMD, chemical WMD, that Saddam was attempting to hide from inspectors.

Well give me the exact date they went "non-functional" and if they were "non-functional" why was Saddam trying to hide them from inspectors?

 

It most certainly was as Saddam as bribing the UN to lift the sanctions which we could not allow to happen.

Show me where they claim they were misled.

Yes they did and in Hillary's case she was quite clear her decission was made on her own consulting with the people she trusted.

How absurd, first Blix reported back that Saddam was still not cooperating, we had clear evidence he was not cooperating, he was still trying to deny access to places and what we found after his removal proved he was hiding proscribed materials from inspectors.

 

The most certainly did inspite of the NYT attempt to spin it otherwise.

Yes he was continuing to research new and even more deadly WMD while stockpiling the materials necessary to rearm with these new and more deadly WMD.

Yes because they were a total sham as proven by what we found after we removed him from office. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And that is a canard, age has nothing to do with it, it doesn't matter WHEN he made them but the fact that he still had them. We just finish up at the Anniston Army Depot destroying US WMD made back in the fifties that were just as deadly now as then. There was no distinction made between when he produced them. AND that was the minor concern, it was the fact he could rearm within weeks with the materials we uncovered that UNSCOM was oblivious.

And of course we uncovered his proscribed research into ballistic missiles which could have carried WMD.

SO WHAT????? We also found brand new chemical artillary shells hidden with the proscribe precursor chemicals.

Yes after being hidden from inspectors for several years what would you expect?

Not suprising after not be stored properly after he attempted to hide them from inspectors....so what?

Not abandoned, hidden.

 

LOL Yes, bribing 3 UN officials will certainly lead to the removal of their sanctions. Next you'll probably trying saying The Taliban and Saddam were working together.

 

The official policy passed by Congress under Clinton was no use of US forces. Nice try to hide the facts.

 

Conservatives like you have a visceral comment for the NY Times, liberals disagree with the Fox. Amazing you can't see the difference between a dissenting opinion, and conservative nazi like tactics.

Baseless ranting is fun and easy, and many use it to substitute from informed discussion.

 

Not at all. They found some of the old abandoned shells before Bush attacked.

They were looking for the WMD and programs the Bush administration said made Iraq an "urgent threat" to the us.

They weren't hidden. They were abandoned and falling apart.

Probably starting when they abandoned them back in 1991.

 

Bush didn't sell attacking Iraq because of UN sanctions. He sold it because their supposed WMD and supposed links to Al-Queda made Iraq an "urgent threat". Which was completely bogus.

Senate Intelligence Committee: Bush and Cheney Misled us on Iraq
In news that should surprise no one, a bipartisan report finds the Bush administration exaggerated threats of WMDs as well as Saddam/al Queda links.
http://www.alternet.org/story/87630/senate_intelligence_committee:_bush_and_cheney_misled_us_on_iraq

"We were misled, we were given evidence that was not true," Kerry said. "It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote [for it]."
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/kerry-was-misled-on-iraq-wmds-by-clinton#.VD_4GRaOoWg

No they made the quoted statements in 2002, before the UN inspectors combed hundreds of sites with unfettered access and unannounced spot visits, not finding the WMD that our bogus sources were saying he had.

Blix reported that Iraq gave the UN inspectors full and unfettered access to make unannounced inspections anywhere in Iraq. Blix confirmed they found no evidence of active WMDs or WMD programs consistent with Iraq destroying the WMDs back in 1991. The only thing he cited Iraq for was not providing strong enough evidence of the destruction of the weapons a decade earlier.

Any prudent leader, with this new intel putting a big question market on the veracity of the bogus sources we were relying upon, should have held back and waiting for further investigation before committing the nation to such a disastrous, mistaken war.

 

Try and be honest, post one comment of conservatives trying to shut down the NYT? There are hundreds of threads of you liberal eviscerating FOX from the airwaves

 

Who cares about Ricin when you have Sarin and Mustard Gas ? How does this make any difference to what is stated in my post ?

Saddam had used poison gas on numerous occasions. We were supporting him while he was doing it. Even when we stopped supporting Saddam directly at the end of Gulf war I we still supported Saddam's use of poison gas.

We always knew Saddam had this stuff so it is no surprise that remnants of this stuff were still around Iraq.

What is a joke is claiming that Saddam was an immanent or terrorist threat to the US such that we needed to start a war.

 

Sorry, we didn't go to war because there were a scattering of old, abandoned, rotting old shells laying around.

Complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Even Bush has the integrity to admit there were no WMD. Unlike quite a few neocons here.

Sorry, we didn't go to war because there were a scattering of old, abandoned, rotting old shells laying around.

No evidence of an active WMD development program was found.

Cite your proof they found brand new chemical shells. First I've heard of it.

They weren't hidden. They were abandoned and left to rot.

Not surprising when they were abandoned and left to rot.

Sure. The US military simply left thousands of perfectly good and brand new chemical artillery shells laying around Iraq, and Bush said they were not WMD, because even though he is the one guy in the world with the most to gain if actual WMD was found in Iraq, he lied about it so that the worst smear on his administration could stand for perpetuity.

Conservatives make sense.

If you ignore reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Try to be honest, and please quote and link my post where I said conservatives tried to shut down the NYT. Thanks.

 

Bull crap.

""In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent," the Committee chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller"

Well what changed between 2000 and 2003

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

Yes Hillary was quite clear and unequivical that her conclusions were based on years of evidence and her consultation with her own experts and those she trusted. So surely you do not support her for president since she must have been lying too.

Nope he reported Saddam as still not cooperating.

And we know he didn't and that the inspections were joke. But if everyone knew for a fact that Saddam had no WMD, that they had all been destroyed then what the heck was Blix looking for?

Except as we know they weren't in fact UNSCOM had cataloged the WMD that were not.

The fact is we found the secret cache's where Saddam attempted to hide the WMD he had.

But the more salient question do you believe the WMD threat he posed began and ended with just those WMD?

 

I never said you, I was speaking of the entire forum, and liberals constantly trying to shut up FOX and any other conservative talk. Much like the liberals loon mayor of Houston Texas, and her nazi style speech control.

 

My statement was a little shorthand. I meant to say Bush didn't sell attack Iraq because of "bribing the UN to lift the sanctions" which you claimed.

All said before the UN inspectors went in in early 2003 and did hundreds of spot inspections all over Iraq, not finding the WMD or programs.

No he said Saddam had given the inspectors unfettered access to the entire country and after hundreds of spot inspections they found no evidence of the WMD Bush claimed made Iraq an "urgent threat" to our country.

I've cited you the text of Blix's report before. I'll look it up for any other member who's interested.

They weren't a joke at all. That's just neocons pushing us to war. Because they were relying on bogus intel form unreliable sources.

We know he destroyed his WMD weapons and programs in the early 1990s.

Where is your link to these new chem weapons you claim they found?

They posed no "urgent" threat justifying invasion and occupation.

Even if Hussein had those WMDs, he had had them since the 1980s since 1990 there is no evidence he used them or transferred them or did anything with them that posed an urgent threat to the US.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah, so when you wrote in response to and quoting my post: "Try and be honest, post one comment of conservatives trying to shut down the NYT?" you were really speaking to the "entire forum."

LOL. So much for trying to be honest.

 

No, so much for you lacking comprehension. BTW, you still can't post any conservative trying to shut down your liberal blather media, why is that?

 

I didn't say anything about it. Since you brought it up, you've never heard of conservatives trying to cut off PBS funding?

 

Again your dishonesty surfaces. Cutting off funding of PBS is not shutting them down, it is removing tax dollars. You still can't seem to bring even the most rabid conservatives forth that have gone after liberal news media in hopes to silence their voice. PBS gets plenty of money from private donors, which I am one.