PDA

View Full Version : NYT Bombshell: Chemical Weapons Were Found in Iraq But the Public Never Knew Until Now




cajuncocoa
10-15-2014, 08:03 AM
//

Carlybee
10-15-2014, 08:06 AM
Why would they have that dog and pony show by Colin Powell if they knew all along? Remember the drawings depicting the mobile weapons carriers and the "possible" yellow cake uranium? No photos...just drawings.

AuH20
10-15-2014, 08:10 AM
Of course, there were chemical weapons in Iraq. We supplied them with the materials and know-how. Now whether those weapons were (a) functionally maintainable over the years and (b) theoretically usable by a rogue force would be an entirely different conversation completely.

sparebulb
10-15-2014, 08:13 AM
I read the NYT/Drudge version of this last night and it was a good read. I remember small reports for years of them finding sarin and mustard munitions. I remember thinking that this fell short of their claimed threat of WMD's. They promised that Saddam had weapons that were much worse than these.

As always, the bombshell is the systemic, coordinated coverup from the top.

enhanced_deficit
10-15-2014, 08:34 AM
Were they found under the behind of ugly Judith "yellow cake" Miller of NYT who helped jumpstart US Iraq invasion?

http://media.salon.com/2004/05/not_fit_to_print.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbN5YgdnI5MDlP6DRDE8XLJmjr88pBK 2weI0l7CNVqNsuC-KDK


Where is Judith Miller's mug shot? (Did she get one?)
Jul 26, 2005 - Question: When you're hauled off to jail for contempt of court, don't you ... I ask because we haven't seen a mug shot for Judith Miller, ...

acptulsa
10-15-2014, 12:00 PM
Of course, there were chemical weapons in Iraq. We supplied them with the materials and know-how. Now whether those weapons were (a) functionally maintainable over the years and (b) theoretically usable by a rogue force would be an entirely different conversation completely.

This. And it wasn't kept secret, either. They said they found some, said they were old and left over from the Iran-Iraq war of the eighties, said they were unreliable, said Saddam wasn't using them and said they were going to destroy them. Someone mentioned that the U.S. had a hand in the development of them, and the story was buried six feet deep overnight.

I remember that. Those weapons were common talk for a while. Why is the Times pretending it was never revealed?

56ktarget
10-15-2014, 12:19 PM
If you read the article correctly you would have find out that the chemical weapons in question were those from the 80s and 90s, during Saddam's war with Iran and the Kurds. NOT the WMDs Bush was fearmongering about. Can Paulites even read?

Pericles
10-15-2014, 12:47 PM
This. And it wasn't kept secret, either. They said they found some, said they were old and left over from the Iran-Iraq war of the eighties, said they were unreliable, said Saddam wasn't using them and said they were going to destroy them. Someone mentioned that the U.S. had a hand in the development of them, and the story was buried six feet deep overnight.

I remember that. Those weapons were common talk for a while. Why is the Times pretending it was never revealed?


Some $ had to be spent on that article - got to get something for it. Failure to care for the vets is good enough for me.

GunnyFreedom
10-15-2014, 12:57 PM
If you read the article correctly you would have find out that the chemical weapons in question were those from the 80s and 90s, during Saddam's war with Iran and the Kurds. NOT the WMDs Bush was fearmongering about. Can Paulites even read?

Considering that "Paulites" already said that above you in the thread, it calls into question your very connection to reality.

Zippyjuan
10-15-2014, 01:17 PM
They apparently were only dangerous to those who found them- they weren't in "usable" conditions. Militarily, they were worthless. From the NY Times article itself:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0


Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

The Times was actually complaining about the medical treatment (or lack) for the soldiers exposed to them.


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.

acptulsa
10-15-2014, 01:22 PM
Considering that "Paulites" already said that above you in the thread, it calls into question your very connection to reality.

In any case, I think it settles the question of who can--and who can't--read...

jbauer
10-15-2014, 01:24 PM
If you read the article correctly you would have find out that the chemical weapons in question were those from the 80s and 90s, during Saddam's war with Iran and the Kurds. NOT the WMDs Bush was fearmongering about. Can Paulites even read?

Can you? It seems the entire thread prior to your post says they were from the 80s. Guess trolls got to be trolling!!

See:


Of course, there were chemical weapons in Iraq. We supplied them with the materials and know-how. Now whether those weapons were (a) functionally maintainable over the years and (b) theoretically usable by a rogue force would be an entirely different conversation completely.

jmdrake
10-15-2014, 01:26 PM
If you read the article correctly you would have find out that the chemical weapons in question were those from the 80s and 90s, during Saddam's war with Iran and the Kurds. NOT the WMDs Bush was fearmongering about. Can Paulites even read?

Why do you bother posting here? Seriously? All you ever do is show your own ignorance. Nobody here is supporting the "This justified the Iraq war" line. The question you should be asking yourself is why is the "liberal" New York Times pushing such a misleading article that seems to support war? Could it be because Obama is about to try to get us back into Iraq?

jllundqu
10-15-2014, 01:27 PM
Yeah my team found some mustard shells in Anbar when I was there. They were all munitions that WE gave them decades ago and were not usable in a military sense. Why would Bush and company want to brag about 'finding WMD in Iraq' that we gave them 30 years prior? Yes I read the thread and know it's been stated already ;)

Just sayin my piece.

acptulsa
10-15-2014, 02:31 PM
I love the Broken Window Fallacy. It seems to have progs who live in glass houses convinced it's their moral duty to throw stones.

And, of course, since Obama and Reid's Senate have half a dozen wars going on and are trying to start more, and have given the Department of Agriculture to Monsanto for Christmas, and are taxing and borrowing and spending but can't begin to fix the economy, and on and on, all progs live in glass houses these days.

twomp
10-15-2014, 02:47 PM
Well that settles it, time to send in the ground troops!

twomp
10-15-2014, 02:48 PM
If you read the article correctly you would have find out that the chemical weapons in question were those from the 80s and 90s, during Saddam's war with Iran and the Kurds. NOT the WMDs Bush was fearmongering about. Can Paulites even read?

I think your hatred of us has caused you to find a way to oppose yourself.

ZENemy
10-15-2014, 03:09 PM
Say it with me..................SCUMBAAAAAAAAAAG



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpSjwBUnj0Q

acptulsa
10-15-2014, 03:10 PM
This is bizarre.

So, they were found, it was reported, I remember it. I feel sure the Times reported it; it would have been noteworthy if they had not. Then it was discovered that certain members of the military industrial complex might have been complicit, despite the fact that they're all in nations which signed treaties promising to have nothing to do with chemical warfare. So, it all got flushed down the memory hole. And there can be no doubt at all that the Times was complicit in that.

Now they're reporting it, and mistakenly or falsely stating that it was never reported in the first place. Is this a mistake? Are they so thorough in flushing stuff down the memory hole they don't even keep track of what they dare not talk about? Or is this a setup for--what?

Gives me a headache...

Lucille
10-15-2014, 03:36 PM
Related:

The New York Times Has Always Been Evil
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?461419-The-New-York-Times-Has-Always-Been-Evil

GunnyFreedom
10-15-2014, 03:54 PM
This is bizarre.

So, they were found, it was reported, I remember it. I feel sure the Times reported it; it would have been noteworthy if they had not. Then it was discovered that certain members of the military industrial complex might have been complicit, despite the fact that they're all in nations which signed treaties promising to have nothing to do with chemical warfare. So, it all got flushed down the memory hole. And there can be no doubt at all that the Times was complicit in that.

Now they're reporting it, and mistakenly or falsely stating that it was never reported in the first place. Is this a mistake? Are they so thorough in flushing stuff down the memory hole they don't even keep track of what they dare not talk about? Or is this a setup for--what?

Gives me a headache...

Actually, I think they were just trying to give this 56k fella a reason to claim that we are all racist, or something.

HOLLYWOOD
10-15-2014, 04:31 PM
'Baby milk factory' James Bamford and the "Pretext To War"

So let's continue the government propaganda by CIA embedded corporate rag print media...

http://kwout.com/cutout/f/mh/g9/4x5_bor.jpg

mosquitobite
10-15-2014, 04:31 PM
I laughed when I read this.....who is going to believe this nonsense? The Bush administration wouldn't have wanted it widely known that they found WMDs in Iraq. Riiiiiiight. Oh by the way, the Easter Bunny said "hi".


Oh you'd be surprised who believes it. Baaaaaaah!

http://i61.tinypic.com/2n0lzqx.jpg

AngryCanadian
10-15-2014, 04:41 PM
Nothing then trying to save the failed legacy of GW Bush by creating stories by claiming that WMDs were found, i am sorry but whose a fool enough to believe this again?

thoughtomator
10-15-2014, 04:51 PM
As always, the bombshell is the systemic, coordinated coverup from the top.

A "systemic, coordinated coverup from the top" seems to be more Situation Normal than not these days.

thoughtomator
10-15-2014, 04:53 PM
Nothing then trying to save the failed legacy of GW Bush by creating stories by claiming that WMDs were found, i am sorry but whose a fool enough to believe this again?

You have to wonder if the argument is now "Saddam Hussein was evil because he took the weapons we were so eager to give him"?

twomp
10-15-2014, 05:10 PM
The media is all over this right now. From the front page of yahoo: (notice the Bush was right caption). Que it up. Fox News will claim Bush was right as its newest talking point and pave the way for ground troops back into Iraq. And the GOP sheep will go, "umm.... baaah.... ISIS so scary.... baaahhh"

http://oi57.tinypic.com/2z99qh3.jpg

JK/SEA
10-15-2014, 05:32 PM
If you read the article correctly you would have find out that the chemical weapons in question were those from the 80s and 90s, during Saddam's war with Iran and the Kurds. NOT the WMDs Bush was fearmongering about. Can Paulites even read?

my understanding is, they found a few cases of aerosol brake cleaning fluid and wasp killer.

donnay
10-15-2014, 05:38 PM
They kept them secret so they could sell them to ISIS.

twomp
10-15-2014, 06:01 PM
They kept them secret so they could sell them to ISIS.

All the more reason to send in ground troops. Gotta secure the weapons of mass destruction and keep them out of the hands of ISIS. Wait, sending in ground troops to Iraq to secure WMD's.... Where have I heard this before?

sparebulb
10-15-2014, 06:43 PM
Let's turn on the Way-Back Machine and take a look.....


http://www.mydemocracy.net/war_crimes/images/wmd_trailers_un_iraq.jpeg

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbV3BTHqAj_jkRhei1kEVhzOdR2QY8q oARA0Ob72KqtVuRB6mo

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IYBA9JD5oW4/hqdefault.jpg

http://cryptome.info/0001/dia-iraq/dia-iraq14.jpg

devil21
10-15-2014, 07:29 PM
It's a setup piece so they can then claim that 'ISIS' has control of some of those undisclosed WMDs. I don't even need to read the article to see where this is going, since I predicted it a few weeks ago. Look for any articles in the next day or two claiming 'ISIS' now has bioweapons or yellow cake or something. Same old playbook....

mosquitobite
10-15-2014, 09:02 PM
How f$#*~g stupid are the masses?

Even if we take them at face value that there really was! No really! WMD in Iraq and we kept it "secret" how f&$%#£~g stupid are people not to go "well even if we found them, WHY the hell did we leave them there????"

Is there that big of a disconnect on people's inability to QUESTION?

PaulConventionWV
10-15-2014, 09:13 PM
we are all racist

There you go, straight from the horse's mouth. All of RPFs is racist! :eek:

mosquitobite
10-15-2014, 09:18 PM
Here you go... The dumbest of dumb partisan sheep!

https://www.facebook.com/positivelyrepublican/posts/10152467324856733

56ktarget
10-15-2014, 09:18 PM
I laughed when I read this.....who is going to believe this nonsense? The Bush administration wouldn't have wanted it widely known that they found WMDs in Iraq. Riiiiiiight. Oh by the way, the Easter Bunny said "hi".

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t270/cajuncocoa/Emoticons/Rofl2-1.gif

More:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/14/new-york-times-bombshell-chemical-weapons-were-found-in-iraq-but-the-public-never-knew-until-now/
Try again paulites. The op clearly states he did not read the article.

mosquitobite
10-15-2014, 09:28 PM
It's a setup piece so they can then claim that 'ISIS' has control of some of those undisclosed WMDs. I don't even need to read the article to see where this is going, since I predicted it a few weeks ago. Look for any articles in the next day or two claiming 'ISIS' now has bioweapons or yellow cake or something. Same old playbook....

Called it!

http://nypost.com/2014/10/14/isis-reportedly-used-chemical-weapons-on-kurds/

pcosmar
10-15-2014, 09:34 PM
It's a setup piece so they can then claim that 'ISIS' has control of some of those undisclosed WMDs.

They tried that in Syria,, The "moderate insurgents" used them,, and then blamed Assad.

They were busted with them in Turkey.. And again inside Syria. UN investigators deemed the mercenaries to be the likely culprits in the Syria gas attacks.

They don't need old decrapitated weapons. They can make new ones.

HOLLYWOOD
10-15-2014, 10:00 PM
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fjoecrubaugh.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F04%2FTenetSlamDunk.jpg&f=1

devil21
10-15-2014, 10:28 PM
Called it!

http://nypost.com/2014/10/14/isis-reportedly-used-chemical-weapons-on-kurds/

Yep. That one is a couple days old actually. Just saw this one pinned to the top of google news in the last couple hours. It's all too predictable once the playbook becomes clear. Rinse and repeat. Expect a ramp up in media fervor over 'ISIS' threat to US troops and homeland from WMDs for the rest of the week.

ISIS has dirty bomb capability
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/15/isis-capable-of-making-dirty-bombs-with-abandoned-chemical-weapons-cache-in-northern-iraq-former-british-colonel-warns/

The operation has been named "Operation Inherent Resolve".

anaconda
10-15-2014, 11:17 PM
No photos...just drawings.

this was my fave for drawings:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGhGHxw0mSo

Anti-Neocon
10-16-2014, 04:11 AM
Let's turn on the Way-Back Machine and take a look.....


http://www.mydemocracy.net/war_crimes/images/wmd_trailers_un_iraq.jpeg

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbV3BTHqAj_jkRhei1kEVhzOdR2QY8q oARA0Ob72KqtVuRB6mo

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IYBA9JD5oW4/hqdefault.jpg

http://cryptome.info/0001/dia-iraq/dia-iraq14.jpg
Public opposition to the original Iraq war is the main reason why the Washington plutocrats are afraid of sending in ground troops.

So naturally if you get enough idiots to believe that "Bush was right", they can follow through with the neocon dream plan - the second mass invasion of ground troops and decades of occupation.

How much info was just revealed showing "Bush was right". Zero. Absolutely zero; no ifs, ands or buts. But yet these blatant falsehoods keep getting pumped through. As if we needed any more proof that the media has an agenda.

Anti-Neocon
10-16-2014, 04:14 AM
oops

mosquitobite
10-16-2014, 07:16 AM
It's clear that you didn't read the article or you would see that the weapons they mentioned were not found in usable form, nor considered a present danger except for to the people stumbling across them.

Except they know the public won't dig that deep.

So now they can supply ISIS with NEW chemical weapons and point and say "they were the ones Bush left behind in Iraq" and the sheeple will nod and demand we go to war.

osan
10-16-2014, 08:17 AM
I laughed when I read this.....who is going to believe this nonsense? The Bush administration wouldn't have wanted it widely known that they found WMDs in Iraq. Riiiiiiight. Oh by the way, the Easter Bunny said "hi".

Just another expression of the depth of contempt in which Theye hold us because one would have to assess another as a completely worthless moron in order to offer up such a story and expect it to be accepted as true. But more importantly, this is perhaps a tentative first step in rewriting the history, which speaks to Theire longer-term vision. If Theye are to have more perfect consent for their ongoing hegemonic tyranny, "history" will have to remember their forebears with endless kindness.

Perhaps none of us will live to see it, but if nothing fundamental changes, I predict that in decades hence not only will the likes of the Shrubs and Bammy be painted in the kindest pastels, the conflicts between the parties will also be whitewashed in such a way as to make it seem that the tensions were not real, but only apparent and due to the various "anti-revolutionary" elements, to use the old communist parlance. If the current order survives, in 50 years we will read in the official histories that Shrub and Bammy were gay lovers, secretly married in a world where hateful, narrow-eyed, white racist Christian pigs made the beauty of their love a forbidden thing that had to be hidden lest the full force of God's Annointed fall squarely upon them... blah blah and so on ad vomitum.

The revision of history is an ancient trick in the tyrant's toolkit. I would not be at all surprised if in another 100 years we will be told how the world has been all rainbow unicorns and gumdrop smiles for the past 3439 years and that the stories of Stalin, Mao, and all the other collectivist tyrants were naught but myths perpetrated by the only truly evil factors that have ever existed in the human plane. They were called Individualists, shunned the Holy Collective, and were devils in the flesh. Rand's depiction of the world in Anthem will have come to pass.

staerker
10-16-2014, 09:56 AM
It's a setup piece so they can then claim that 'ISIS' has control of some of those undisclosed WMDs. I don't even need to read the article to see where this is going, since I predicted it a few weeks ago. Look for any articles in the next day or two claiming 'ISIS' now has bioweapons or yellow cake or something. Same old playbook....

Or, the 9/11 papers are close to being exposed.

cajuncocoa
10-16-2014, 10:01 AM
Try again paulites. The op clearly states he did not read the article.
My point was, if they had found those -- or ANY chemical weapons -- the public would have been made aware immediately, and FoxNews would have celebrated this as evidence that Bush/Cheney was right for the 2003 invasion. There's no way they would have sat on that information for 10 years.

And for added measure, I'm a "she" not a "he".

Pericles
10-16-2014, 10:57 AM
Just another expression of the depth of contempt in which Theye hold us because one would have to assess another as a completely worthless moron in order to offer up such a story and expect it to be accepted as true. But more importantly, this is perhaps a tentative first step in rewriting the history, which speaks to Theire longer-term vision. If Theye are to have more perfect consent for their ongoing hegemonic tyranny, "history" will have to remember their forebears with endless kindness.

Perhaps none of us will live to see it, but if nothing fundamental changes, I predict that in decades hence not only will the likes of the Shrubs and Bammy be painted in the kindest pastels, the conflicts between the parties will also be whitewashed in such a way as to make it seem that the tensions were not real, but only apparent and due to the various "anti-revolutionary" elements, to use the old communist parlance. If the current order survives, in 50 years we will read in the official histories that Shrub and Bammy were gay lovers, secretly married in a world where hateful, narrow-eyed, white racist Christian pigs made the beauty of their love a forbidden thing that had to be hidden lest the full force of God's Annointed fall squarely upon them... blah blah and so on ad vomitum.

The revision of history is an ancient trick in the tyrant's toolkit. I would not be at all surprised if in another 100 years we will be told how the world has been all rainbow unicorns and gumdrop smiles for the past 3439 years and that the stories of Stalin, Mao, and all the other collectivist tyrants were naught but myths perpetrated by the only truly evil factors that have ever existed in the human plane. They were called Individualists, shunned the Holy Collective, and were devils in the flesh. Rand's depiction of the world in Anthem will have come to pass.

Comrade, your anti-party deviationism has been noted.

acptulsa
10-16-2014, 12:03 PM
Try again paulites. The op clearly states he did not read the article.

So you condemn us all with the Broad Brush. Very just and wise.

Now we test your mad skillz in reading something you never read. How did that post prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're sexist?

Todd
10-16-2014, 12:19 PM
Doh! Washington Post beat you to it NYT.......by almost 10 years :rolleyes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

devil21
10-16-2014, 02:52 PM
Doh! Washington Post beat you to it NYT.......by almost 10 years :rolleyes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

They were some old Iran/Iraq war era gas canisters found, rusted out and inoperable as weapons. Same ones Saddam got from US labs that he allegedly used on the Kurds back then, which was the charge he was hung on.

CaptainAmerica
10-16-2014, 03:03 PM
u.s. designed, manufactured in europe, then moved to Iraq.

Zippyjuan
10-16-2014, 03:46 PM
Doh! Washington Post beat you to it NYT.......by almost 10 years :rolleyes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

NYT article was really about the treatment of veterans exposed to the chemicals found.

COpatriot
10-16-2014, 11:30 PM
I love how Breitfart and other neocon outlets are championing this as some grand vindication when it's quite the opposite. These were the weapons we had the fucking receipts for and today I hear Mark Levin and his moron callers saying "oh see? We were soooo right!"

http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

HVACTech
10-16-2014, 11:43 PM
did anyone else notice...


The American government, however, chose to not disclose the information to the public and even kept Congress only partly informed

therefore, congress is not a part of the american government?

acptulsa
10-17-2014, 09:43 AM
The trolls and their desperate attempts to derail this thread should be a clue to us how important this one is to us. In pursuit of whatever silliness they're preparing for next in Iraq, they are deliberately trashing the credibility of one of their most (mistakenly) venerated titles.

If they want to destroy the credibility of the New York Times then I say we need to help them. If we can trust Blaze and the Times really did say this, it's a Godsend. One photoshop of the Times contradicting the shit out of itself--and saying people didn't know something that was in its pages but eight years before works just fine--could be worth a thousand words per argument whenever some prog quotes the rag as some sort of definitive source for, well, anything...

Perhaps more importantly, if we can make the charge of lying shill stick to this ancient organ, and make people see it, then what propaganda outlet will be so old and venerated that it can still retain its 'teflon'?