Jump to content

Why the world did not know about WMD in Iraq


AFTiger

Recommended Posts

Will the Bush haters ever change their meme on this admit that Bush didn't lie?

After U.S. Central Command called on us to help transport, from Iraq, enough yellowcake uranium to make several atomic bombs stored at Saddam’s nuclear weapons complex, I realized why neither the Pentagon nor the White House advertised the presence of this WMD precursor: safety and security.

Before the U.S. military moved in to secure the facility after the 2003 invasion, looters had been there first. Even though the universally recognized yellow-and-black radioactivity warnings were posted on the bunkers, locals had ripped open the storage areas and stolen casks of yellowcake with many sickened as a result. More importantly, we did not want the insurgents alerted to the exposed stockpile as they might attack the facility.

This is also why the George W. Bush administration did not crow about the approximately 5,000 chemical munitions that U.S. forces uncovered throughout Iraq, as recently reported by the New York Times. That is a serious quantity of WMD, by any standard. Interestingly, the Bush team could have diluted near-uniform shock at the failure to find WMD by highlighting these discoveries instead of allowing the narrative we all know to solidify: “no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq found except a few dozen old, mustard-gas artillery shells left over from the 1980s Iran-Iraq War.” Yet President Bush and his advisors chose to protect the troops and the mission rather than score political points back on the war’s second front, the American body politic. (None of this, however, mitigates any unpreparedness by the Pentagon to treat service members exposed to chemical weapons.) More: http://townhall.com/columnists/carterandress/2014/11/18/why-the-world-did-not-know-about-wmd-in-iraq-n1920136

Link to comment
Share on other sites





BS

Care to explain or blindly stick to talking points.

i don't believe this. I get the precautionary reasons for not immediately exposing the weapons. No reason to hide it for over a decade. Secure the threat, then expose the findings to justify an otherwise unjustifiable aggression. It's bs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not buying it either. Nice try by the author: "Yet President Bush and his advisors chose to protect the troops and the mission rather than score political points back on the war’s second front, the American body politic. (None of this, however, mitigates any unpreparedness by the Pentagon to treat service members exposed to chemical weapons.)"

The fact remains that servicemembers were suffering as a result of exposure to these weapons. The White House, through its actions, influenced actions by the Pentagon and the VA to look past and hide these issues and left these servicemember alone on an island to deal with their symptoms.

It's not different than their actions in dealing with Burn Pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not buying it either. Nice try by the author: "Yet President Bush and his advisors chose to protect the troops and the mission rather than score political points back on the war’s second front, the American body politic. (None of this, however, mitigates any unpreparedness by the Pentagon to treat service members exposed to chemical weapons.)"

The fact remains that servicemembers were suffering as a result of exposure to these weapons. The White House, through its actions, influenced actions by the Pentagon and the VA to look past and hide these issues and left these servicemember alone on an island to deal with their symptoms.

It's not different than their actions in dealing with Burn Pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Corrct me if mistaken but, are you on the one hand saying you don't buy the article and, on the other, acknowledging that vets did suffer from exposure to these weapons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not buying it either. Nice try by the author: "Yet President Bush and his advisors chose to protect the troops and the mission rather than score political points back on the war’s second front, the American body politic. (None of this, however, mitigates any unpreparedness by the Pentagon to treat service members exposed to chemical weapons.)"

The fact remains that servicemembers were suffering as a result of exposure to these weapons. The White House, through its actions, influenced actions by the Pentagon and the VA to look past and hide these issues and left these servicemember alone on an island to deal with their symptoms.

It's not different than their actions in dealing with Burn Pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Corrct me if mistaken but, are you on the one hand saying you don't buy the article and, on the other, acknowledging that vets did suffer from exposure to these weapons?

I'm not buying the cover job this article proposes. I completely buy the the Pentagon screwup as mentioned in the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not buying it either. Nice try by the author: "Yet President Bush and his advisors chose to protect the troops and the mission rather than score political points back on the war’s second front, the American body politic. (None of this, however, mitigates any unpreparedness by the Pentagon to treat service members exposed to chemical weapons.)"

The fact remains that servicemembers were suffering as a result of exposure to these weapons. The White House, through its actions, influenced actions by the Pentagon and the VA to look past and hide these issues and left these servicemember alone on an island to deal with their symptoms.

It's not different than their actions in dealing with Burn Pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Corrct me if mistaken but, are you on the one hand saying you don't buy the article and, on the other, acknowledging that vets did suffer from exposure to these weapons?

I'm not buying the cover job this article proposes. I completely buy the the Pentagon screwup as mentioned in the article.

Would you mind explaining the that? If vets are, indeed, suffering from exposure to these weapons how do you not buy the proposition that the weapons were? actually? there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good gosh, I buy lock stock and barrel that the chemical weapons were there. I do not buy the reason for not going public that this article proposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good gosh, I buy lock stock and barrel that the chemical weapons were there. I do not buy the reason for not going public that this article proposes.

http://www.aufamily....eapons-in-iraq/

I was just curious because so many here have outright stated that Geo Bush intentionally lied about the WMD in order to go to war in Iraq just to secure cheap oil from the region. Thats all. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good gosh, I buy lock stock and barrel that the chemical weapons were there. I do not buy the reason for not going public that this article proposes.

http://www.aufamily....eapons-in-iraq/

For many reasons you don't go public with it while it is in country...live (like mine) would have been in danger if this was known publicly...you would have every yahoo terrorist coming after us while we were trying to get the crap out of the country....oh by the way we couldn't bring it back to the US because it would have looked really bad on the US...you had to find a buyer that could use it in a nuclear energy program...yeah there aren't too many of those in the world that can use yellow cake and make it into fuel...so now let's tackle some of the reason that folks got sick....let's see you had the Army rampaging through and finding cache's of weapons, etc...so in Army logic...blow up in place and don't find out what is in them...well turns out some of the stuff was chemical...so these guys blow up chem weapons in big bunches...oh, they also don't believe some of there chem guys nor do they wait for them to check it out before...because SGT says...I have to blow this up....same mentality for the road side bombs...govt put this stuff on the humvee...so and so go blown up with this on....so I won't turn mine on...well some of those didn't follow the training or turn on these devices...thus sometimes they went boom....now turn and look at the vets...sad that some aren't getting the treatment that they deserve but without it being documented (by blowing it up) there is no proof of exposure unless you were running point for the WMD guys who documented what was found...and some of the stuff is still there buried in full concrete...it just couldn't be extracted properly and safely...so now the VA says no proof so you weren't affected...the Bush admin wasn't about publicity in I told you so...actually some of the stuff was printed in the media...I think it was on page 19 or 20 (facetious) of the the NYT...the yellow cake sale made the newspapers but wasn't bandied about as it didn't fit their agendas....so you can call BS all you want but some of us know the truth...oh and we laughed about it after it made the press...we could then talk somewhat about it like this and to our families...the evidence is there you just have to know how to put the pieces together and it helps if you know how or was there...that is about all I can say and believe me or don't...it doesn't matter to me...I know what happened...it may come out in about 20-40 years...but the yellow cake was real...as that made the press...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure there's a point in between all the ... I just can't comprehend it.

Looks like either you have served in the Navy or are still serving. I have been in the Navy for over 26 years. If you ever have to serve with the Army in the field, you would understand what I am talking about. They are a different breed when working CBRNE issues with them. No offense to the Army but it is just a different mentality because mostly main Army's job is to blow stuff up and kill the enemy. Sometimes they get overzealous and do more harm than good. That is all I am saying. Plus the point that there was WMD in Iraq whether you want to believe it or not. Most people have bought into the media hype that it wasn't there. If you weren't part of the group that had to plan, secure and move it out of the country then you probably aren't that aware until after the fact, which means we did our jobs well and that is good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still in and have 13 months logged BOG in Iraq. I fully accept the presence of chemical weapons in Iraq. The author in the OP's post tries to offer an opinion as to why that fact was covered up. My opinion is BS. So while DoD, the White House and Congressed vacillated, our service members were left to suffer their symptoms of exposure to these weapons. From the NYT article

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.

http://www.nytimes.c...al-weapons.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, chemical weapons exposure wasn't the only thing covered up. Burn pit exposure is raising its ugly head as well. I recommend reading James Risen's new book 'Pay any Price,' specifically the chapter titled 'Too Big to Fail.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BS

Care to explain or blindly stick to talking points.

i don't believe this. I get the precautionary reasons for not immediately exposing the weapons. No reason to hide it for over a decade. Secure the threat, then expose the findings to justify an otherwise unjustifiable aggression. It's bs.

Karl Rove. Said the fight had already been fought, and he didn't have the heart to refight it all over again. Said he wanted to " move forward " and advance the remainder of W's agenda ( what ever the hell that was ) and the WMD issue would only bog that all down.

I posted this stuff a few weeks ago, but may not have been here. Oh well.

Not ' b.s. ' though. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to "World Net Daily"? Seems like Townhall.com has taken it's place.

Only you, homer....only you. LOL

The weapons were there....what happened after that remains a mystery to me as well.....I don't get morons in DC. They live in an alter universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to "World Net Daily"? Seems like Townhall.com has taken it's place.

Only you, homer....only you. LOL

The weapons were there....what happened after that remains a mystery to me as well.....I don't get morons in DC. They live in an alter universe.

Do you believe the WMD situation was exaggerated? How about the "ties to Al-Qaeda"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to "World Net Daily"? Seems like Townhall.com has taken it's place.

Only you, homer....only you. LOL

The weapons were there....what happened after that remains a mystery to me as well.....I don't get morons in DC. They live in an alter universe.

Do you believe the WMD situation was exaggerated? How about the "ties to Al-Qaeda"?

Possibly. I think it was a combination of poor assessments based on bad intel from the previous administration along with a hair trigger to 9/11. We had some indication that Saddam moved some of his weapons to Syria leading up to the war effort through satellite imagery. I don't think Saddam had "direct" ties to Al-Qaeda, but I do think they were training inside Iraq on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to "World Net Daily"? Seems like Townhall.com has taken it's place.

Only you, homer....only you. LOL

The weapons were there....what happened after that remains a mystery to me as well.....I don't get morons in DC. They live in an alter universe.

Do you believe the WMD situation was exaggerated? How about the "ties to Al-Qaeda"?

Exaggerated? Are you walking back all those unambiguous claims you've made that Bush and Cheney intentionally lied to the American people just to start a war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to "World Net Daily"? Seems like Townhall.com has taken it's place.

Only you, homer....only you. LOL

The weapons were there....what happened after that remains a mystery to me as well.....I don't get morons in DC. They live in an alter universe.

Do you believe the WMD situation was exaggerated? How about the "ties to Al-Qaeda"?

Exaggerated? Are you walking back all those unambiguous claims you've made that Bush and Cheney intentionally lied to the American people just to start a war?

I don't think he is. He was just asking me if I thought it was. Personally, having served in the area once before...I find it possible. Now, I will state that I "believe" the yellow cake caught the Bush administration a bit off guard but that's my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to "World Net Daily"? Seems like Townhall.com has taken it's place.

Only you, homer....only you. LOL

The weapons were there....what happened after that remains a mystery to me as well.....I don't get morons in DC. They live in an alter universe.

Do you believe the WMD situation was exaggerated? How about the "ties to Al-Qaeda"?

Exaggerated? Are you walking back all those unambiguous claims you've made that Bush and Cheney intentionally lied to the American people just to start a war?

No, I was asking someone I respect for their opinion.

To be clear, I consider exaggerations such as centrifuges, aluminum tubes, suitcase nukes, dirty bombs as lies. I have never speculated on the intentions of the administration and, I believe that whatever the agenda, it was likely that of Rumsfeld and Cheney, not President Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...