October 16, 201411 yr Googled "WMD" just to see what came up. First link explains the false narrative. No, There's Still No Evidence There Was an Active WMD Program in Iraq | Mother Jones Mother Jones? Yeah, their not partisan are they?
October 16, 201411 yr Author Googled "WMD" just to see what came up. First link explains the false narrative. No, There's Still No Evidence There Was an Active WMD Program in Iraq | Mother Jones Mom Jones very biased site...FWIW
October 16, 201411 yr Mother Jones? Yeah, their not partisan are they? I always know a post is legit when the first response is to attack the source. They're not breaking new ground here. They're simply pointing out the obvious. The narrative that President Bush has somehow been justified in his administrations' claims that Saddam was building or had built an active program is simply not true. Don't throw a red herring out there by blasting the source. Show us where you take exception to the facts posted.
October 16, 201411 yr Author I was driving so I had to be brief. The article clearly states that the WMDs found were inactive and from the 70s, 80s, and up to about 1990. So these were not active WMDs. The UN ordered the Iraqis to dispose of their WMDs which they did. These corroded WMDs mentioned in the article were not the WMDs that were used as justification for the war. They were inactive and corroding. The soldiers that were injured were injured may say differently.
October 16, 201411 yr Author I always know a post is legit when the first response is to attack the source. They're not breaking new ground here. They're simply pointing out the obvious. The narrative that President Bush has somehow been justified in his administrations' claims that Saddam was building or had built an active program is simply not true. Don't throw a red herring out there by blasting the source. Show us where you take exception to the facts posted. Worst Logic that you've ever displayed. You have to realize there are very slanted "News Sources" out there on both sides of the political spectrum. Mom Jones is one of the most biased. But FWIW Mother Jones went from saying for years and years that there were NO WMDS to now saying well there wasn't an active program.
October 16, 201411 yr The soldiers that were injured were injured may say differently. Technically they would be wrong. The WMDs were not active. The fair question to pose is was there a coverup of their injuries and any resulting illnesses. That, though, is not what people are talking about. They're saying the initial claims were correct. They were not.
October 16, 201411 yr Worst Logic that you've ever displayed. You have to realize there are very slanted "News Sources" out there on both sides of the political spectrum. Mom Jones is one of the most biased. But FWIW Mother Jones went from saying for years and years that there were NO WMDS to now saying well there wasn't an active program. Ok. I'll ask you as well. What do you dispute that would show that the initial claim in post #1 is correct? Ignore the source. Dispute the claims made. Anyone that said there were no WMDs did so meaning no active WMDs. The inactive WMDs were not a secret.
October 16, 201411 yr Author The narrative that President Bush has somehow been justified in his administrations' claims that Saddam was building or had built an active program is simply not true. Don't throw a red herring out there by blasting the source. Show us where you take exception to the facts posted. The article from the NY Times states that But various reports from 2009 and 2010 show reports of soldiers discovering new chemical weapons stockpiles. A 2010 Wired article, for example, reported, “…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.”
October 16, 201411 yr Author Ok. I'll ask you as well. What do you dispute that would show that the initial claim in post #1 is correct? Ignore the source. Dispute the claims made. Anyone that said there were no WMDs did so meaning no active WMDs. The inactive WMDs were not a secret. The first article states that active WMD's and Labs were found...does that not count?
October 16, 201411 yr Author Technically they would be wrong. The WMDs were not active. The fair question to pose is was there a coverup of their injuries and any resulting illnesses. That, though, is not what people are talking about. They're saying the initial claims were correct. They were not. Who says they weren't active? Secrets recovered from Wiki-Leaks seem to say otherwise...unless you want to disregard the NY Times article.
October 16, 201411 yr The first article states that active WMD's and Labs were found...does that not count? Here's the link that supposedly supports their claim. Chemical Weapons, Iranian Agents and Massive Death Tolls Exposed in WikiLeaks' Iraq Docs | WIRED What did I miss?
October 16, 201411 yr THIS is what we should have been upset about 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. “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.
October 16, 201411 yr Author Here's the link that supposedly supports their claim. Chemical Weapons, Iranian Agents and Massive Death Tolls Exposed in WikiLeaks' Iraq Docs | WIRED What did I miss? I'd guess it was in one of the nearly 392,000 U.S. military reports from Iraq that bring a new depth and detail to the horrors of one of America’s most controversial wars ever. NY Times may have linked that Wired Article because it discussed the leaks and the source of the info.
October 16, 201411 yr Author THIS is what we should have been upset about 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. “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. I agree
October 16, 201411 yr I always know a post is legit when the first response is to attack the source. They're not breaking new ground here. They're simply pointing out the obvious. The narrative that President Bush has somehow been justified in his administrations' claims that Saddam was building or had built an active program is simply not true. Don't throw a red herring out there by blasting the source. Show us where you take exception to the facts posted. Edit. You clarified in a later post.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.