WMD found in Iraq after all, Bush was right: Pentagon ‘hid’ chemical weapons?

We have to consider a few things here:

- The New York Times broke this story. Barack Obama delivers regular "off the record" updates to the NYT's editorial board.. of the story as HE wants it to appear.

- On February 8th, 2008, Carey Sublette, a former analyst with what's now the Defense Threat Reduction Agency posted to USENET: "Iraq definitely manufactured ton quantities of VX - they imported enough precursors for 200 tons, but fessed up only to two or so."

NOTE: "VX" is a very, very toxic nerve agent feared for its ability to kill in tiny doses and its persistence in the environment. Britain and the US both used it - in fact, Britain traded us the formula for VX in exchange for the Teller-Ulam thermonuclear weapon design.

190 tons of precursors for VX would make about 190 tons of FRESH VX nerve gas. This isn't necessarily the old stuff they found in rusting shells and canisters, but even the VX we had stockpiled at the VX factory in Newport, Indiana and all over the country and in a few overseas weapon dumps would have been quite potent regardless of the rust on the outside of the shells and storage tanks.

The reference in the article about the age of the chemical weapons is almost pure spin by the New York Times, who fired their only editor courageous enough to criticize the Obama administration, Jill Abramson, last year.

- No one's interviewed Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, or anyone else involved with WMD-related intel or decision-making for THEIR side of the story.

- If the current Secretary of Defense WANTED the whole truth to come out, it would have come out long before this. That goes for Leon Panetta when HE was SecDef, and for his predecessor George Tenet (who was kept over from the Bush administration).

We're being asked to believe that after 6 years in office, the Obama administration is "shocked, shocked!" to find out that WMD existed in Iraq.

That implies the Obama administration's either unprecedentedly stupid or unprecedentedly crooked.

Of course, "both" is always a possibility.

If it was wrong for Bush's people to keep the existence of Iraqi WMD a secret and the injury of our people by WMD a secret and deny them appropriate care, it was just as wrong for the Department of Defense to continue doing that under the Obama administration.

Obama's lied to us so many times, his "Teflon®" has worn off. He can't spin this into a negative story for the Bush administration without admitting for 6 years, he was just as guilty of doing the same things - PLUS perpetuating his own party's lie of "no WMDs in Iraq."

Who is putting out this....fake propaganda....1 month before the US 2014 elections?

And FAKE PROPAGANDA it is....READ the articles....They say US troops in Iraq for so far 1 year in 2004 found some outdated defunct 'past' chemical weapons in 'rusted, leaking shells' and 'garbage heaps' having been there since the 1991 Gulf War, 12 years prior and now just unusable toxic chemicals not WMD's (that is WMD's being usable Weapons of Mass Destruction).

No usable weapons of Mass Destruction existed when Cheney-Bush and the US invaded in 2003 all past remnant weapons having been put in the trash by the Iraqi's 12 years earlier 1991/1992.

The lefty's are sure out on this one, claiming that this was erroneous or that the weapons found were outdated. The fact remains, that weapons were found back then, reported by a person who was in uniform and was told to lend a blind eye to the incident.

Whether this find was cause for an invasion is questionable because those weapons were probably provided by the US to begin with, in support of Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war. US intelligence knew all along that Saddam had chemical weapons and if this was its excuse for invasion, then it would rival the Gulf of Tonkin incident as reason for invasion !

Eh, what's new?

The truth is, it was a grudge between Jr. and Saddam. Saddam flipped his nose at Jr.'s Daddy, and Jr. had to respond. No doubt that Jr. knew that the weapons were there and hoped to find them and bluff his way through claiming they were new weapons. But, when they found the old stocks, unusable, he knew he couldn't fake it. He would have to send in teams to "clean them up" and his cover would be blown. So, it was just easier to deny finding them, order troops to keep it secret, and take the heat over a lie about WMD.

Proof works two ways, to condemn and exonerate. Which would this have done to Jr.? Now, if the weapons were in good shape, then he could at least bluff his way through that they were a real threat and justify his invasion. The worst he would have to do is claim Ron was a bad man for giving the weapon to Iraq in the first place. That would admit that they were US weapons (isn't that a no-no anyway) and that they were pre-war. A threat is a threat, after all.

Honestly, I'm surprised that he didn't send in a CIA or SF team to blow them in place and then blame Saddam. It would have also made it easier to cover up exposure to them, in both wars. Remember Gulf War Syndrome? I know it wasn't about the casualties, as no American president cares about the lost lives of the American soldiers or the victims of his actions on civilians in the war zone.

The weapons found in Iraq during the US occupation were all manufactured prior to 1992. These weapons were provided to Iraq by the US and Britain in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq War. There is still no evidence of wmd manufacturing in Iraq after the 1991.

First of all, there is no such thing as a "weapon of mass destruction" outside of a nuclear warhead. Chemical and biological weapons are NOT weapons of mass destruction. Those are so difficult to deploy, in fact, that they almost never saw use in World War Two and were not deployed even once in our war in Vietnam.

If released in a confined space, such as a subway tunnel, it's possible for a gas attack to kill or maim hundreds - but we have conventional bombs that can do that as well - and we don't call those bombs "weapons of mass destruction". The term WMD is nothing more than a scare tactic used as a political tool by scumbags who don't have any real issues or ideas to put forward. Don't let the political hacks make a sucker of you, especially when those weapons under discussion were from BEFORE the whole line of bull about WMDs was even invented! They were there prior to 1991. Sorry, but you can't use them to put a fresh glow on the Bush administration - no matter how much lipstick you put on it, it's still a pig.

I don't believe there were WMD's in Iraq for two very big reasons. Number one is because Saddam Hussein already knew what the US was capable of after Desert Storm. So why didn't he defend himself against us with them? If he had them, why didn't he use them to defend his own country instead of running off and hiding in a hole? And number two, If they were found, then it would have made Bush a hero. Don't tell me Bush would let that chance slip by with his rating dropping. He was the commander in chief. How could he NOT know if WMD's were found? They simply don't exist for those two very big reasons.

The chemical weapons found by the US soldiers in Iraq were useless and in poor shape. If you want a hostile country with a dangerous nuclear weapon program, North Korea would be your best choice.

They were expired chemical weapons that were already declared and under UN seal. Those aren't the WMD's the Bush administration invaded Iraq to find. The Bush administration alleged that they were actively developing nuclear and biological weapons. They weren't.

Both sides are giving out misleading information, but why is anyone surprised? Politicians from both sides of the party operate under their own agendas with little regard for the American people. Politics is all about power and money. You are kidding yourselves if you think otherwise. I am not saying that there are not politicians who do genuinely wish to do the right thing, because obviously there are exceptions to every rule, but they are few and far between.