Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Bad news....there really were WMDs in Iraq
Date:	10/15/2014 9:19:10 AM

It is indeed a sad day for left wing nuts to have lost all their mojo about WMDs in Iraq. And from the NY Times no less.......which of course makes me somewhat skeptical about its accuracy. But y'all love the Times so I will let you weep away having lost your entire mantra about Bush lying. Must be a real jolt to your self esteem to realize how stupid you have been acting all these years.  As for me, I knew they were there and had either been moved to Syria or hidden. Turns out they were hidden...

And let me guess, you probably didn't see this on pmsnBS or HuffnPuff did you?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=1

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Chemical Weapons, not WMD.
Date:	10/15/2014 9:53:23 AM

Not WMD - they found old chemical weapons.  Deadly, just the same, but not the same as WMD.  There is a distinction between WMD and Chemical weapons.  Article is definitely worth a read.  Article rings true to what someone who was in a position to know, told me a few months ago.  The Army ended up procuring a German mobile chemical weapon lab, on an expedited basis to deal with this.  What disturbs me the most is the way that the Army failed to treat those that were affected.  Shameful. 

WMD, needing enriched uranium, is very different from chemical weapons.  They never found WMD, but they did find chemical weapons from Saddam's old chemical weapons programs, which he used against his citizens and in the War with Iran.  There was no indication that he was still producing them, but had them stockpiled in a number of places, some buried, as the article points out. 

Name:	Council Rock Doc -	Reply
Subject:	Chemical Weapons, not WMD.
Date:	10/15/2014 11:01:37 AM

Hound,

Do you remember that on the eve of Clinton's impeachment, he attempted to delay the House vote by bombing Baghdad, stating unequivocally that it was because of Saddam's stockpile of WMD.  And after the fact, ABC News reported that "we have inflicted significant damage on Sadam's WMD programs" ( statements made by the Sec of Def and the Clinton WH).  We all were to assume that this meant warheads and the Chem WMD program.  So to say that Chemical weapons were not WMD's is a little wordsmithing, sure everyone knew that Saddam had chemical weapons, heck he used them on the Kurds.  But the Clinton administration had categorized the chemical weapon machine as WMD's.  

I wonder why this is just coming out now.  My suspicion is that it may help justify boots on the ground in Irag to fight ISIS.  But why did GWB not scream this from his bully pulpit is perplexing to me.  He and the Republican party have sustained enormous damage from the "no wmd's found" crowd in the MSM.  Something is afoot and I don't like it one bit.......

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Chemical weapons are WMD by definition
Date:	10/15/2014 11:43:42 AM

Don't believe me check this out. 

http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/weapons-of-mass-destruction/

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	Liberal fallback position
Date:	10/15/2014 1:02:19 PM

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	LOL, you gotta love Slick Willie
Date:	10/15/2014 1:48:41 PM

He has left us with so many new lexicons for lying and sex that it is hard to keep up.  It is indeed sad that when you lose your mantra of over a decade to the truth you try to redfine said truth.  Its not like they weren't warned.  Saddam had used WMDs on the Kurds and no one disputed that.  To think he simply got rid of them was foolish at best and more likely delusional as they suffer from BDS.  What amazes me though is that the Bush administration, rather than proving all those Dems like Billary were abject liars, simply kept quiet.  The truth only came out when the NYT wins some FOIA battle.  Can't understand why they didn't publicly defend themselves with this information but it does explain their insistence that they did the right thing in removing Saddam.  Sad that Obola has pissed that all away for what we now know was a legitimate fear of the US, including Dems in the know like Billary.  All the more sad that she has lied repeatedly about that ever since.....but certainly not surprising.  No wonder she is the presumptive nominee on the Dem side, she has all the attributes they seem to prefer in a leader, a proven liar, demonstrably incompetent, totally ineffective, willing to sacrifice the lives of others to maintain political power, etc.  

Must be a gut wrenching day for left wing nuts that will never be able to say Bush lied and people died anymore.  What am I saying?!?!?  95% of them will never hear this truth and the other 5% will ignore it.  Such is the life of liberals.....believing so much that just isnt true.  It is indeed a great day to be able to say, "See, I told you so!"  A bittersweet victory at best.  I'll bet that article put a smile on Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's face.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Set aside definitions for a moment
Date:	10/15/2014 5:02:49 PM

Okay. lets set aside definitions for a moment. We'll agree that both nuclear material and chemical weapons are both bad things.   The thing is this - we knew he had the chemical weapons because he used them on his own people and he used them against the Iranians.  But, the thing that Bush Administration used to justify the war was that he was working on a nuclear program - remember the "intel" that said that he was seeking yellow cake to enrich uranium?  Remember concern that he would make bombs, either strategic or tactical and provide them to terrorists.  We knew he had he capability to manufacture chemical weapons, but we never did see that he was still manufacturing them and he certainly wasn't anywhere close to having a nuclear capability. 

All of the chemical weapons that were found, according to the article, were manufactured prior to 1991 and either in remote sites or buried.  So I will continue to stand on my original comment that we didn't find WMD,i.e. nuclear material. 

But the real tragedy is that members of our military were harmed by these things, while the Army refused to acknolweldge it.  Now why would the Army (and the administration) classify the discovery of these chemical weapons if they proved their reason for going into Iraq?  Seems to me that this would have been headlines.  And all the subsequent reports that were done on Iraq stated that they didn't find WMD. 

And not that it matters, I have never heard the military refer to chem/bio weapons as "weapons of mass destruction". 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	No idea why
Date:	10/15/2014 5:08:28 PM

This is coming out now.  I suspect that there is a concern that since the U.S. Army did not destory all these chemical weapons that ISIS may gain access to them and find some way to use them.  Or it may have to do with disgruntled vets who have lasting effects from the exposure and decided to go public.   I'm not much into larger conspiracy theories.  Either way, it is not good news. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	LOL, you gotta love Slick Willie
Date:	10/15/2014 5:15:46 PM

I don't see this as a Liberal vs. Conservative issue.  In my mind, we still should not have invaded Iraq.  As Colin Powell told Bush "you break it, you bought it" and he was right.  We're still paying for it. 

Until now, by virtue of the Army classifying this, these veterans are likely not getting the treatment or the benefits they deserve.  And that is the crime of it all.  Remember Gulf War Syndrome and the Army refused to acknowledge that. Turns out it was caused by exposure to depleted uranium tank rounds. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	No, lets not.....
Date:	10/15/2014 5:37:43 PM

I understand what you are saying but I clearly remember during all the clamor over WMD that proponents of the war specifically pointed out that Saddam had used them against the Kurds.  No one, not Bush, Cheney or anyone else claimed he had nuclear weapons.  Only that he was trying to obtain the material for them (i.e., the infamous yellow cake and the so-called outing of Valerie Plame).  You are trying to rewrite history and have it all wrong.  But they did claim he had chemical and potentially biological weapons and on the former they were telling the truth.  

Whatever you may have considered WMD is immaterial because it is clear that your definition is not what is commonly accepted.  I get that you opposed the war in Iraq.  And as I have said many times there is reasonable room for debate about the merits of that particular decision by the Bush administration.  But at least based on these revelations any reasonable person would agree that the mantra about WMDs not being found and that Bush lied is patently and demonstrably false.  So I say to those that opposed the war in Iraq to find another reason to oppose it and forget the WMD canard.  As for me, Saddam having WMD and his willingness to use it is enough for me.  But reaosnable people can disagree on that point.  Reasonable people can no longer claim that Saddam didn't have WMD and that Bush lied about it.  That's a fact.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	But its all politics.
Date:	10/15/2014 5:43:47 PM

It is a liberal versus conservative issue because the left specifically used the lie that no WMD were found to pillory McCain in 2008 since he supported the war.  And it has been a continuous refrain from so many on the left to malign Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others and it turns out they were wrong.  Will they apologize?  Not likely because the WMD issue was just an avenue for them to pursue their partisan hatred of that administration.  And it was a good one leaving those of us that could not believe they would make this up scratching our heads.  

As for the lack of proper care for the people in the military exposed to WMD when they were in Iraq I am hard pressed to believe it could be the case and completely unkown after all these years.  But then again, we saw the lies told by the VA over treatment so who knows.  If that is the case it is a disgrace and should be rectified.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Have it your way
Date:	10/15/2014 8:12:37 PM

Even though you are wrong.  What happened, happened, and it is hardly relevant at this point.  Let's see if anyone from the Bush Adminstration comes forward to gloat.  I'll be very surprised if they do.  Because the Iraq war was never about WMD.  That is just what they used for the justification.  And I don't really care if you believe me or not.  I know what I know and it has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.  Remember I worked for Rumsfeldt, Wolfowitz and Feith, as did many others who also know the truth.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	As opposed to your way?
Date:	10/15/2014 9:18:25 PM (updated 10/15/2014 9:25:56 PM)

I am actually not talking about their motivation for invading Iraq, I am talking about the vitriole of those that opposed it.  No I do not think they are going to gloat, why should they?  They were right about WMD and all the ignoramuses that criticized them were wrong.  Is it really that hard to admit it?

Just curious, did you work directly for them or did you work for someone three levels below them?  

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	As opposed to your way?
Date:	10/16/2014 9:53:25 AM

Not really.  People believe what they believe.  My boss was a direct report to Feith and Wolfowitz. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	As opposed to your way?
Date:	10/16/2014 9:57:17 AM

No doubt that is true but I believe what I have seen and heard over the last umpteen years on the issue of WMD.  As it turns out Saddam had WMD which should put to rest the nonsense from the left......but it won't.  I can guarantee you they will still be saying it years from now either out of ignorance due to where they get their information or pure malevolence toward the Bush administration.  Either reason it will still be false.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	We can Agree to Disagree
Date:	10/16/2014 10:11:39 AM

on this issue. The good news is that he wasn't manufacturing Chemical Weapons or Weapon grade nuclear material at the time of the invasion.  It appears that our own troops did not have widespread exposure to chemical weapons that were buried or abandoned.  All we can do is hope that ISIS doesn't find this stuff and figure out a sinister way to use it. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	On that I agree
Date:	10/16/2014 12:19:42 PM

Probably never see eye to eye on the politics of this or the merits of the invasion. But I do agree with your sentiments on what was found and what was thankfully not found. I do fear ISIS already has chemical weapons. Hope they never figure out how to use them before they are destroyed. 

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	No idea why
Date:	10/17/2014 3:44:53 PM

ISIS is already in control of the base that held the largest and most dangerous stockpile of the WMD's that was found.  Thousands of shells loaded with chemicals.  There was one bunker that was guarded 24/7 with strict orders against entry.  The marines that guarded it refered to it a 'dragons egg' but the official designation was bunker 13.

Once again, diversify your reading and you would know these things.