The CIA was even able to buy 400 Borak rockets filled with pure Sarin gas. And on top of that, our troops found 5,000 WMDs that the Pentagon kept secret until last year.
The CIA is still not talking about buying WMDs in Iraq in 2005 and 2006. They do acknowledge the number and the fact that the gas was extremely active, even though it had some age on it. They refuse to discuss specifics.
...
That led to more discoveries
including one cache of 2600 rockets armed with chemical weapons. At the
time, Jarrod Lampier, a now retired Army major said that he was ordered
to make a statement downplaying the find:
“’Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say.”
...
The Times found 17 servicemen and 7
Iraqi policemen who were injured by these weapons and it was discovered
that American soldiers found it difficult to impossible to get treatment
for injuries not recognized by the Pentagon.
In 2008 MSNBC reports the US removed 550 metric tons of yellowcake
(Used to make nuclear weapons) from Iraq. This is the same yellowcake
Joe Wilson, husband of Valerie Plame said Saddam never tried to get.
The piece ends withGeorge W Bush accepted the lies and criticisms against him because he felt it might be harmful to the morale of our troops and could hurt our intelligence community if the details got out.
Yeah, because it's not harmful to morale to have the media and lefties screaming about the President lying us into a war because 'there are no WMDs!', and that the intelligence community is either lying or incompetent.
2 comments:
I don't even know where to start with this. It's your page, and you can believe what you want, of course, but.....
1) the "yellowcake" that you claim Joe Wilson said Saddam never tried to get:
If you click the MSNBC link you posted, you will learn that those "550 metric tons" were all ancient, aging left-over stuff from BEFORE THE '91 GULF WAR.
Wilson was referring to "more" yellowcake, which, again, the MSNBC article clearly points out: "Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger — and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims.."
So Saddam DID NOT try to buy any "MORE" yellowcake. And the stuff he did have, was ancient, useless, and well-known to the UN/US/etc... Nobody ever said he didn't have any. Everyone knew about this stash, because it was declared after the Gulf War.
Wilson was referring to additional purchases, NOT to this ancient pile.
AND... the entire site was under guard by US forces since shortly after the invasion:
"U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the 23,000-acre site — surrounded by huge sand berms — following a wave of looting after Saddam's fall that included villagers toting away yellowcake storage barrels for use as drinking water cisterns....."
2) those alleged "2,600 rockets armed with chemical weapons"..... let's read the facts:
"Many rockets were in poor condition and some were empty or held a nonlethal liquid, the officials said. But others contained the nerve agent sarin, which analysis showed to be purer than the intelligence community had expected given the age of the stock."
And...
"These munitions were remnants of an Iraqi special weapons program that was abandoned long before the 2003 invasion...."
AND
"The purchases were made from a sole Iraqi source who was eager to sell his stock, officials said..."
So, the truth is that ONE corrupt unnamed Iraqi man (probably an officer or military intel-type) had managed to steal and cache a lot of chemical weapons, and he parleyed into a fortune by selling it piecemeal to the CIA.
At NO TIME was any of this weaponry in the hands of the Iraqi military, at no time was it available for use by insurgents, etc...
So, yes, "a lot of stuff" was out there, but it seems it was very securely under lock and key and never even a remote threat to be used against US troops.
3) ALL of the chemical weaponry found was ANCIENT, and was ALL from BEFORE THE 91 GULF WAR.
Which means that the entire premise for the invasion, the "smoking gun", the "active chemical weapons plants" and all that other talk, it was all lies.
Deliberate lies.
Again, this is your page, and you can believe and post what you want. But if you will take a few minutes to look up this stuff from something other than neo-con pro-invasion sites, the facts are out there.
ALL the chemical weapons found were old, old stuff. NONE of them were part of any current program, and most of it was unknown to the Iraqi military or political leadership, so they couldn't have turned it in even if they had wanted to comply with whatever demands were being made.
Yes, small caches of ancient stuff were found, and a handful were turned into makeshift IED's and used, early on in the invasion. I know some folks who experienced this first-hand.
NO-ONE, I repeat no-one, claims there were "NO" chemical weapons in Iraq.
We all claim that Bush and his puppet-masters deliberately LIED about Iraq having a CURRENT, viable NBC/chemical program.
Yes, Bush did lie. Deliberately.
Saddam did not "possess" WMD's/nukes/chemical weapons, etc. nor did he have a program to make any, use any, etc.
And the stuff we did find was ancient, old stuff, stolen and/or forgotten about, not under the control of any military or political figures, with the exception of a tiny handful of old artillery shells that were found and rigged into IED's.
'other than neo-con pro-invasion sites'.
Like maybe the New York Times, among others?
I've heard too much from people who were in Iraq who found WMDs- and not all 'ancient'- to buy the 'There was no WMD program' line. Especially with all those convoys from known sites to Syria, etc.
As to 'Bush lied!', how 'bout something from that well-known neo-con 'kill 'em all!' sort, Bob Woodward:
'[Y]ou certainly can make a persuasive argument it was a mistake. But there is a time that line going along that Bush and the other people lied about this. I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq. And lots of mistakes, but it was Bush telling George Tenet, the CIA director, don't let anyone stretch the case on WMD. And he was the one who was skeptical. And if you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. The war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end, people were saying, hey, look, it will only take a week or two. And early on it looked like it was going to take a year or 18 months. And so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there is an abundance of evidence. But there was no lying in this that I could find.'
Post a Comment