TexasCHLforum.com

Answer: ISIS

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

sjfcontrol wrote: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

anygunanywhere wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: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

Yes, I am aware. One of Bush's arguments for going to war was that those weapons could be taken over by insurgent forces. And now they have been. Its not clear if they're still viable.

Betcha Sadam is having a good belly-laugh in Hades. ( + )

anygunanywhere wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: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.

Some Chemical weapons are easy to make. There is still living people who know about those things in Iraq.

Much was found that was reported as false or photo shopped, such as the case of the 25+ MIG Jet's discovered buried in the Iraqi desert.

I consider the liberal mm one of the biggest threats to our national security.

From an article by Larry Elder | Dec 09, 2010 Regarding the 400K documents released by Wikileaks

The WikiLeaks de facto declassification of privileged material makes it case closed: Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- and intended to restart his program once the heat was off.

Put aside that the British still stand by the intelligence on which Bush made the claim. And put aside that the anti-Bush Washington Post, in an editorial, concluded that Wilson had lied about not finding evidence to support the Iraq-in-Africa-for-uranium claim, since he told the CIA the opposite when he reported back from Africa.

But WikiLeaks' newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction (emphasis added). ... Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict -- and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."

In 2008, our military shipped out of Iraq -- on 37 flights in 3,500 barrels -- what even The Associated Press called "the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program": 550 metric tons of the supposedly nonexistent yellowcake.

Bush, hammered by the insidious "Bush Lied, People Died" mantra, endured one of the most vicious smears against any president in history. He is owed an apology.

When Hollywood makes "The Vindication of George W. Bush," maybe Sean Penn can play the lead.

http://townhall.com/columnists/larryeld ... /page/full

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

The Annoyed Man wrote: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.

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

Youre much more generous than I. Poser penn, sissy boy matt damon and punk clooney should have to care for an ebola victim. They need to learn to walk their talk.

I never understood why Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and the Bush administration didn't point to the chemical weapons and yellow cake as supporting their arguments for going to war. As the NY times article demonstrates, they knew about this. So why did they take the bashing they took. I never unstood that.

stroo wrote:I never understood why Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and the Bush administration didn't point to the chemical weapons and yellow cake as supporting their arguments for going to war. As the NY times article demonstrates, they knew about this. So why did they take the bashing they took. I never unstood that.

I can't figure that one out either, unless whoever was running the Pentagon at that time didn't inform the administration about their existence. Hard to imagine, but who was running that place back then? And denying soldiers' trips home to be cared for is beyond comprehension.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: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.

The article points out that all of the weapons that were being discovered were making the administration look bad and that's why the cover-up started. The article pointed out that all of the chemical weapons found were manufactured before Desert Storm for the Iran/Iraq war and most were made with Western help. It also points out that these weapons were supposed to be secured and destroyed long before we decided to go to war in 2003. The article again points out that the weapons being discovered were not the "WMD" everyone told us to fear before invading but they were degraded munitions that posed a limited threat compared to the ones we were told Saddam had and was actively working toward producing. We never found huge stockpiles of freshly made weapons of mass destruction, yellowcake or facilities that could readily make anything nuclear.

Sorry but this still doesn't vindicate the Bush administration.

I haven't heard anything about degraded uranium being found, but I have heard of Sarin gas being found. That's some nasty stuff.

Seeing as how barry obola has been in the white house for 6 years, I can envision the obola white house squashing this information. Can't say for sure before he took over.

I remember information about the uranium yellow cake a long time ago.

Anygunanywhere