Here is my question...if there was as it seems to have been a cover up that WMD's were found and according to WikiLeaks a few labs as well, WHY WAS IT COVERED UP?

 

You'd think that the Pentagon and White House would want that info out there. Especially since we were already hearing "Bush Lied People Died" at that point.

 

Speculation is that it was hushed because the US and other western powers supplied illegal WMDs to Saddam in the 70s to be used against Iran.

Kind of interpreting your own idea there, aren't you. I read stockpiles of weapons, which of course there now appears that there were. With no access allowed how would we know if they were capable of being used? This is a very long way from the 'no WMD's in Iraq" argument.

 

When you say there were stockpiles of weapons are you a)referring to WMDs and b)referring to active WMDs?

 

The only WMDs I read about in the NYT piece were those that Iraq was forced to destroy and/or bury that were not able to be used.

To be clear , is anyone saying that President Bush was referring to the buried/destroyed/decaying WMDs when his administration made the claim? Why would he do that since it was no secret that those were already in the ground? That's not news.

When you say there were stockpiles of weapons are you a)referring to WMDs and b)referring to active WMDs?

 

The only WMDs I read about in the NYT piece were those that Iraq was forced to destroy and/or bury that were not able to be used.

 

That is not what the article said. It stated that some were in a condition that they could be used. It also never stated they were the ones that Iraq was forced to destroy or bury. They were ones that Iraq had used against the Kurds and Iran and they were trying to hide. Not the massive amount the CIA led everyone to believe, but hidden nonetheless.

 

The soldiers indicated some of those found could have been used. I'll defer to them since they were there.

That is not what the article said. It stated that some were in a condition that they could be used. It also never stated they were the ones that Iraq was forced to destroy or bury. They were ones that Iraq had used against the Kurds and Iran and they were trying to hide. Not the massive amount the CIA led everyone to believe, but hidden nonetheless.

 

The soldiers indicated some of those found could have been used. I'll defer to them since they were there.

 

 

Mea culpa: I somehow thought the article ended much earlier than it did. So I just finished reading the entire article. Not sure how I missed that.

 

The article did say that all of the weapons found appeared to had been buried prior to 1991.

 

I didn't read anything(may have missed it though) that said they were still viable WMDs.

 

So we're back to the main point: Nothing from this report changes anything in regards to the long-held thought that there was no active program in place as claimed.

 

This story does nothing to "help" the President. It actually hurts whichever President was in office at time these discoveries were made and soldiers were injured.

Mea culpa: I somehow thought the article ended much earlier than it did. So I just finished reading the entire article. Not sure how I missed that.

 

The article did say that all of the weapons found appeared to had been buried prior to 1991.

 

I didn't read anything(may have missed it though) that said they were still viable WMDs.

 

So we're back to the main point: Nothing from this report changes anything in regards to the long-held thought that there was no active program in place as claimed.

 

This story does nothing to "help" the President. It actually hurts whichever President was in office at time these discoveries were made and soldiers were injured.

 

I said that they were not the WMD's the CIA lied about.

 

Here are excerpts from the article.

 

"All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said." Produced, not buried.

 

"By 2006, the American military had found dozens of these blister-agent shells in Iraq, and had reports of others circulating on black markets, several techs said. Tests determined that many still contained mustard agent, some at a purity level of 84 percent, officials said."

Those are usable rounds.

 

I am not trying to "help" Bush. I am pointing out what the article states.

FWIW in the first post I Bolded the quote where the officer was basically saying he was told to cover it up. I thought that was a big deal that's why I Bolded it!

 

That's the part I don't get. Why would the Pentagon cover it up? Their leaders were using this very idea to support the need for war in Iraq.

That's the part I don't get. Why would the Pentagon cover it up? Their leaders were using this very idea to support the need for war in Iraq.

 

Some of the weapons discovered had been developed with help from the West. Just pure speculation but they probably didn't want the black eye that some would try to give the administration at the time for that.

I read this morning that Karl Rove was the main driver of the "keep it quiet" line.

Some of the weapons discovered had been developed with help from the West. Just pure speculation but they probably didn't want the black eye that some would try to give the administration at the time for that.

 

Even though it would justify the WMD rationale? I would think that would be more worthwhile. Everyone knew the West had armed Iraq in the past.

Even though it would justify the WMD rationale? I would think that would be more worthwhile. Everyone knew the West had armed Iraq in the past.

 

Food for thought:

 

Was Iraq's decision to change payment for its oil from dollars to euros a reason for the US to attack Iraq? - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org

 

"Until November 2000, no OPEC country dared violate the dollar price rule. So long as the dollar was the strongest currency, there was little reason to as well. But November was when French and other Euroland members finally convinced Saddam Hussein to defy the United States by selling Iraq’s oil-for-food not in dollars, ‘the enemy currency’ as Iraq named it, but only in euros...

This little-noted Iraq move to defy the dollar in favor of the euro, in itself, was insignificant. Yet, if it were to spread, especially at a point the dollar was already weakening, it could create a panic selloff of dollars by foreign central banks and OPEC oil producers. In the months before the latest Iraq war, hints in this direction were heard from Russia, Iran, Indonesia and even Venezuela...All indications are that the Iraq war was seized on as the easiest way to deliver a deadly pre-emptive warning to OPEC and others, not to flirt with abandoning the Petro-dollar system in favor of one based on the euro.

Iraq was not about ordinary chemical or even nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The ‘weapon of mass destruction’ was the threat that others would follow Iraq and shift to euros out of dollars, creating mass destruction of the United States’ hegemonic economic role in the world."

 

 

There are two leaders in the Middle East who wanted to 'go off the petro-dollar' - Hussein in 2000 in Euros and....Gaddafi in 2011 when he offered to sell oil in gold.

 

 

Oh, and Hussien threatened 41's life...adding a little personal fuel to 43's fire.

I read this morning that Karl Rove was the main driver of the "keep it quiet" line.

What would be the motivation for that? Other than that the one recovered were old US or other NATO munitions...none of this make sense.

 

There are of course conspiracy theories, which almost always turn out to be much more outrageous than the truth.

Oh, and Hussien threatened 41's life...adding a little personal fuel to 43's fire.

 

I think something like 15 or so people were arrested and convicted in Kuwait for a planned car bomb plot to kill GHWB on a visit to Kuwait after he left office...I don't dismiss that going after Hussein was in some way personal as well.

I think something like 15 or so people were arrested and convicted in Kuwait for a planned car bomb plot to kill GHWB on a visit to Kuwait after he left office...I don't dismiss that going after Hussein was in some way personal as well.

 

I remember W saying something like "He tried to kill my Dad." I do not believe that alone would be motivation. But if you are creating reasons to launch a war you can use every thing that makes the target look evil.

 

The question is - if the evidence of WMDs was created or exaggerated - why? There was no real threat, not even much saber rattling - militarily. So why pick the fiight? It was not needed - militarily. But keeping oil traded in dollars is key to keeping the US dollar the worlds reserve currency.

This thread brings back great Dave Chappelle memories. :lol2: :lol2:

 

Some language in the video.