Man! This is just so embarassing. They did find WMDs in Iraq.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Well...there they go again. They were wrong and now they want to hang their hats on technicalities and weasel words. A stockpile is a stockpile whether you want to argument the meaning of the word "active" or not. We don't build cruise missiles every day of the year but we have a stock pile of them....so we have a cruise missile program.

BUSH WAS RIGHT!

Bullshit. Read your article again. The weapons were old, corroded, and not deployable. Meaning that the only way they posed a threat to the United States was if we sent soldiers over there to muck around and dig them up.

Bush was/is an idiot or a liar. More likely the former....letting himself be led around by the nose by Cheney and the rest of the necons.

The issue is a loser for you admiral....it always has been. Your article changes nothing...in fact, as noted above, it simply reinforces what the rest of us already know and that you and the rest of the halfwits refuse to accept: Saddam and Iraq did not pose a threat to the US. The war, the 5,000 dead, the scores of thousands wounded, the trillion dollars spent....all premised on a fantasy. And, now we're reaping the result of those incredibly stupid miscalculations by Bush/Cheney: a middle east in turmoil.

Oh, by the way....our cruise missiles function and pose a threat to whoever we aim them at..... That's why your silly analogy is....silly.

Fuck you, admiral.

[JD Barleycorn]

The democrats on hearing that there were WMDs.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Bush was right in what covering it up?

The same thing that Clinton was right about apparently. You're not going to say that Clinton lied now are you EVA?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The same thing that Clinton was right about apparently. You're not going to say that Clinton lied now are you EVA?

Clinton invaded Iraq? Damn Judy that is news.

[JD Barleycorn]

Clinton fired cruise missiles into Iraq and declared victory.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The New York Times has a story that the US military did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the war. You know, chemical weapons and some soldiers got hurt because of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...pons.html?_r=0

There are some here who owe the rest of us a huge apology but I'm not holding my breath. Doing the right thing is not number one on their list of character strengths. Suffice it to say, BUSH WAS RIGHT!

This from your own link!


The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.
Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.
All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

[boardman]

Those were just the ones that Syria refused to take...

[timpage]

That NYT Story On Abandoned Munitions Doesn't Prove Bush Was Right About WMD

Posted: 10/15/2014 1:05 pm EDT Updated: 1 hour ago

Some people didn't manage to understand the basic claims of C.J. Chivers' New York Times story on abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq, and instead thought it somehow vindicated President George W. Bush's decision to go to war. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) | ASSOCIATED PRESS

The New York Times' C.J. Chivers has an invigorating longform piece up today about the American and Iraqi soldiers who "repeatedly encountered, and at times were wounded by" ancient chemical weapons produced in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq War era, subsequently left hidden and moldering by Saddam Hussein's regime. Chivers puts a human face on the troops who performed the dangerous job of seeking out and disposing of these abandoned munitions, and with war in the region blooming anew, points out that this "long-hidden chronicle illuminates the persistent risks of the country's abandoned chemical weapons."

Unfortunately for lovers of reading comprehension, a few people skimmed this piece and allowed themselves to indulge in some serious flights of fancy:
Ha, no, Brad Dayspring. We're not talking about the active WMD program that famously failed to materialize. We're talking about what amounts to long-forgotten munitions Superfund sites that weren't a danger to anyone until they were unearthed, at which point it became necessary to dispose of the contents of those caches, lest they find their way into the makeshift bombs that were all the rage among insurgents. (The new concern is that there may be remnants for the Islamic State to use against their opponents in Iraq and Syria.) The soldiers who were harmed by exposure to these dumps weren't so much the victims of an Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction program" as much as they were harmed by an American "strategy of mass-R.E.M.F. stylings" popularized by those who administrated the war in Iraq. To wit:

The American government withheld word about its discoveries even from troops it sent into harm’s way and from military doctors. The government’s secrecy, victims and participants said, prevented troops in some of the war’s most dangerous jobs from receiving proper medical care and official recognition of their wounds

Yeah, this is the sort of story that Brad Dayspring maybe regrets tweeting about now.
Chivers, for his part, takes great care to provide facts which distinguish these decaying weapons -- a product of that period of time when the United States and Saddam Hussein were besties -- from the imaginary armaments that spooked a nation into war with Iraq years later. And after Chivers does so, he draws big, bright red circles around these facts to make things crystal clear, like so:

The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West

And...

In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

And...

Participants in the chemical weapons discoveries said the United States suppressed knowledge of finds for multiple reasons, including that the government bristled at further acknowledgment it had been wrong. “They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds,” Mr. Lampier said. “And all of this was from the pre-1991 era.”

And...

The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.

Basically, Chivers did what he could to make this article a safe space for the witless. Like a playground swaddled in a 2-foot-thick cushion of the finest Nerf, there should have been no opportunity for anyone to fall down and get hurt. Alas! Here's a whole article in the IJReview that gamely manages to omit the most relevant information from Chivers' piece, while billing it as the Golden Ticket that proves President George W. Bush was right. Naturally, it assiduously omits the text I've cited above.
Meanwhile, the hits just keep on coming.

A safe space for the witless. I guess he should have tried harder for the admiral's sake.

[Guest051115]

Barleycorn is 100% certifiable

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Clinton fired cruise missiles into Iraq and declared victory.

Missed the word invaded?

[boardman]

So Bush lied to us about there being WMDs in Iraq and then lied to us again when they found them?

[Guest051115]

Originally Posted by boardman

So Bush lied to us about there being WMDs in Iraq and then lied to us again when they found them?

BINGO!!!!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Missed the word invaded?

While your dumb-ass missed what constitutes the definition of "invasion", Ekim the Inbred Chimp:

in•va•sion (ɪnˈveɪ ʒən)

n.

1. an act or instance of invading, esp. by an army.

More U.S. troops were on the ground invading Iraq for Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's Operation Desert Fox to "degrade Iraq's capability to use weapons of mass destruction" than the Japanese had on the ground at Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

"Hundreds of our Special Operations Forces troops also deployed to carry out their assigned missions."

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/t...nscriptid=1792

[boardman]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

While your dumb-ass missed what constitutes the definition of "invasion", Ekim the Inbred Chimp:



More U.S. troops were on the ground invading Iraq for Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's Operation Desert Fox to "degrade Iraq's capability to use weapons of mass destruction" than the Japanese had on the ground at Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941, Ekim the Inbred Chimp.

Now that's funny!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by timpage

[B]Some people didn't manage to understand the basic claims of C.J. Chivers' New York Times story ....

This line is about as bad as the weeks following an Obaminable bullshit statement in which the media and some White House "mouth pieces" start explaining what Obaminable "REALLY MEANT TO SAY" .... !!!

It's an "affliction" that liberals have ...

..... can't talk sense so they have to have it explained by everyone else!!!

"You can keep your doctor if you like your doctor" .... You can .....

and it was a video that started the "riot"!!!

Now we got: "Don't worry about Ebola" ... "It's the nurses fault for getting it"!

The nurse didn't follow the protocols .... that were in place for the Ebola that could not come to this country and get anyone infected with the Ebola virus.

There were no WMD's in Iraq to justify the invasion, because they weren't really WMD's, just a stock pile of old rusted cases containing mustard gas, which is why the U.N. didn't find them while the INSPECTORS were there, and they failed to mention them in their reports .... so we can continue to say Bush was lying, and then if they are found, we can say that he knew they were there all along, so he wasn't lying back then, but now he is lying by not telling everyone WMD's were found in Iraq, even though it was published in the newspaper that no one ever reads.

All of the above demonstrates how intellectually superior are liberals ....

... so they believe.

Then President Clinton ... December 16, 1998:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

"Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html