Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Lindsey Graham: ‘I blame Obama for Iraq, not Bush


Recommended Posts

Lindsey Graham: ‘I blame Obama for Iraq, not Bush’

 

BY DAVID LIGHTMAN

 

McClatchy Washington BureauMay 16, 2015

 

 

bHMCd.AuSt.39.jpeg

 

 
 

 

Blame President Barack Obama, not his predecessor, for the turmoil in Iraq, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told New Hampshire’s WMUR.com.

The Iraq war began in 2003, led by President George W. Bush. It ended in December, 2011, during Obama’s presidency. Graham is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination, and spoke as his potential rivals weighed in on whether they would have authorized American involvement in the war.

“I blame Obama for Iraq, not Bush,” Graham said as he toured New Hampshire. “Bush made mistakes. He corrected his mistakes. Obama leaving Iraq, ignoring the advice of all of his military commanders –he was told what would happen if you leave Iraq with no troops left behind."

Graham, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Bush invaded Iraq with “faulty intelligence...but with intelligence the entire world believed. So when you look at the mistakes of Iraq, the one I blame the most is Barack Obama, not George W. Bush.”

Graham also told WMUR.com he’s now “99.9 percent” certain he’ll run for president, though he would not confirm reports that he’ll do so on June 1.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Om. Lead me from the unreal to real;

lead me from darkness to light;

lead me from death to immortality.

Om...Peace, peace, peace.__;"

 

Bridhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.3 2839

 

One of the most beautiful Upanishads!

 

Thank you, KS :wave::salute:

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Om. Lead me from the unreal to real;

lead me from darkness to light;

lead me from death to immortality.

Om...Peace, peace, peace.__;"

 

Bridhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.3 2839

 

One of the most beautiful Upanishads!

 

Thank you, KS :wave::salute:

Yes it is! I wish I could keep it in my mind and life all the time, but I'm just not able to break free of my worldly concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad to say the world and environment in which we live has.... how shall I say it well,  distract even the most disciplined human being.

 

Try, I am certain is the  watchword of all Masters, Avatars and Christ.

 

God Bless America!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,

 

It sounds like you need to throw your hats in the ring and get busy diligently working for change. Actions speak louder then

words but sitting back in an easy chair or in front of the computer will  never bring anything but more of the same.

 

"The real poverty of the poor is poverty of their aspirations." -John Adams

 

God Bless America!

 

Jac :shrug:

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen,

 

It sounds like you need to throw your hats in the ring...

HEY! What about me? I think President Whatshername has a nice ring to it! There's no racial or ethnic bias associated to it, the public seems open to leadership from a female (rational, hormonally-balanced but with a mother's low threshold for BS) and let's face it... I have all the answers!!! BIG ;) WINK

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you blame the liberal American people who were so gung-ho about withdrawing troops before we had everything under control there. We pressured Obama admin with reelection threats to bring the troops home and not leave a single group of "training" military personnel to keep things under control? Sad, sad…

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Om. Lead me from the unreal to real;

lead me from darkness to light;

lead me from death to immortality.

Om...Peace, peace, peace.__;"

 

Bridhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.3 2839

 

One of the most beautiful Upanishads!

 

Thank you, KS :wave::salute:

And the only way possible is through Jesus Christ.

This man Graham, is not to be trusted, at all.

Let God be found true and every man a liar.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush made the decision based on faulty intelligence (?) reports.  CIA, FBI, ASA, DHS, and whatever else has anything to do with calculating and reporting strategic information to those making the decision gave faulty, incomplete, inaccurate, and biased information.  And we are at fault for believing it.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I make an effort to remember Franklin's words whenever I am punching keys, I do believe they go like this...

 

"Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing." -Ben Franklin

 

Bye for now! :wave:

 

God Bless America!
 

Jac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Om. Lead me from the unreal to real;

lead me from darkness to light;

lead me from death to immortality.

Om...Peace, peace, peace.__;"

 

Bridhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.3 2839

 

One of the most beautiful Upanishads!

 

Thank you, KS :wave::salute:

Grazie...Glad you know Upanishad... Started ( tried) to read some of it many years ago but had to quit as it was kind of complex .... But it does fascinate me  and the Vedas too...Ciao from Italy

Edited by umbertino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush made the decision based on faulty intelligence (?) reports. CIA, FBI, ASA, DHS, and whatever else has anything to do with calculating and reporting strategic information to those making the decision gave faulty, incomplete, inaccurate, and biased information. And we are at fault for believing it.

Nope! Just ain't true. No one has the advantage of hind sight when deciding to commit to war.

Everyone had the same info as Mr Bush, every country that was in the then "coalition" had the same information. All the U.N. Countries that approved the decision to go to war had the same information. Everyone in the flipping world believed Saddam had the weapons of mass destruction because Saddam boldly declared he had them, as he simultaniously was flipping off the world. Everyone saw the destruction of these weapons as he gased the Irannians in the Iraq Iran war. Plus the body count of the Kurds, children, women, and men, lung and old Saddam gased wth said weapons.

The fact that we never found weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq means he snuck them into neighboring Syria for safe keeping, assuming he would survive in power from Iraq War II. The other reason why we did not find them is the direct result of Iraqi governmental corruption. They were there, just ask the Irannians and Kurds. Saddam believed they had hundreds to thousands more as he stated. Saddam believed this because when he looked at his inventory lists of these weapons the lists said he had xyz amount more. When he asked his frontline advisors and Generals how many more weapons of mass destruction he had they pointed to the same inventory lists. What he did not know, because he would have shot them and their families, was that for every weapon of mass destruction they made or bought on paper, they would only actually make or buyone half to one third of them, bill Saddams government for the full count and pocket the difference. Bottom line he used up most of, if not all of, the weapons of mass destruction he had. Falsely thinking he had more and could use them again.

The outside world did not know this fact then. Saddam did not know this fact then. The decision to invade Iraq was valid as they get and had the backing of the majority of the countries of the world. It was the toughest right thing to do. Anyone who dis-agrees with my opinion is a appeaser and believes that this country needs to apologize for itself, still. Before you say I am wrong look at what Abadi uncovered after he came into power as it relates to the culture of corruption in Iraq; anyone remember the 50,000 strong ghost army Maliki and crew had going? Do ya! So there and in your face.

Jac, educate me please, what the heck is the bridiayakarria hydrophobia any way? Don't bother answering, I don't really care. Sounds like a pacifistic eastern religion jumbo jumbo. The type that when you come into their neighborhood with a bible and a calling will jump you and cut your hands off because they know Christians raise their hands to God often. But I may be wrong. I admit I don't know Jac about bridiayakarria anyway .

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lindsey Graham is right. No he is not a viable candidate for President, for either party. Scott Walker is a proven commodity that does what is tough and right. Look how he has improved things for his state by shrugging off the propaganda of the powers that "knew" . Scott Walker has shown that he can and will fight for the good of the people of this country as the elected representative of the majority of the people.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I blame all the leaders in Washington! Including Lindsey Graham!

 

Yes, America does have a failed policy & Yes, America does have a dysfunctional government!

 

Is the fault on Obummer? Sure is but he is not alone in the blame!

 

Unfortunately, Obummer won because America wanted change from the greed driven operation in Washington and it has only gotten worse! I pray that Hilary does not get the big chair because the Republican's can not show any real leadership!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope! Just ain't true. No one has the advantage of hind sight when deciding to commit to war.

Everyone had the same info as Mr Bush, every country that was in the then "coalition" had the same information. All the U.N. Countries that approved the decision to go to war had the same information. Everyone in the flipping world believed Saddam had the weapons of mass destruction because Saddam boldly declared he had them, as he simultaniously was flipping off the world. Everyone saw the destruction of these weapons as he gased the Irannians in the Iraq Iran war. Plus the body count of the Kurds, children, women, and men, lung and old Saddam gased wth said weapons.

The fact that we never found weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq means he snuck them into neighboring Syria for safe keeping, assuming he would survive in power from Iraq War II. The other reason why we did not find them is the direct result of Iraqi governmental corruption. They were there, just ask the Irannians and Kurds. Saddam believed they had hundreds to thousands more as he stated. Saddam believed this because when he looked at his inventory lists of these weapons the lists said he had xyz amount more. When he asked his frontline advisors and Generals how many more weapons of mass destruction he had they pointed to the same inventory lists. What he did not know, because he would have shot them and their families, was that for every weapon of mass destruction they made or bought on paper, they would only actually make or buyone half to one third of them, bill Saddams government for the full count and pocket the difference. Bottom line he used up most of, if not all of, the weapons of mass destruction he had. Falsely thinking he had more and could use them again.

The outside world did not know this fact then. Saddam did not know this fact then. The decision to invade Iraq was valid as they get and had the backing of the majority of the countries of the world. It was the toughest right thing to do. Anyone who dis-agrees with my opinion is a appeaser and believes that this country needs to apologize for itself, still. Before you say I am wrong look at what Abadi uncovered after he came into power as it relates to the culture of corruption in Iraq; anyone remember the 50,000 strong ghost army Maliki and crew had going? Do ya! So there and in your face.

Jac, educate me please, what the heck is the bridiayakarria hydrophobia any way? Don't bother answering, I don't really care. Sounds like a pacifistic eastern religion jumbo jumbo. The type that when you come into their neighborhood with a bible and a calling will jump you and cut your hands off because they know Christians raise their hands to God often. But I may be wrong. I admit I don't know Jac about bridiayakarria anyway .

? What did you think I said?  

WE WERE CORRECT IN GOING TO WAR!  But the information that was given did not pan out.  No weapons were found.  If they were moved, hidden, or destroyed is not the point.  The point is that they were not found.  Nada.  

If the information had been reliable and FRESH, the weapons would have been there.  Now, unless you can produce the evidence then you are just speculating.  Believe what you want, the evidence was not found.  Produce it an you might have a case.  

The paragraph you stated as fact opens the door for a great deal of speculation and guessing.  1.  He stuck them into Syria.  Maybe he did, but there is no proof of that.  2. Corrupt government.  They certainly have one; as do most of the governments of men.  But that does not mean that they had weapons of mass destruction.  You even state that Saddam was given false reports on the number or amount he had. So the amount is speculation.  3.  He used them up.  If so, he  did not have any more!  

Did Saddam use weapons of mass destruction?  Of course!  He used them on the Kurds and his own people, but he was lied to by his own people that there was more . . . and there was not!  Thus making the information given to the US and nations was faulty.  

 

Should we have gone into war with Iraq?  Yes, based on the evidence that was given them.  Had we good information then, we would need to reconsider based on the facts that the WMD were gone. Our decisions to go to war may have been entirely different.  

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

09:25: 05/19/2015
usarmy-1-7-2014-bbb.jpg
 
Khandan - called a senior lawmaker from the Republican Party, Lindsey Graham, to increase the American military presence in Iraq to confront organization "Daash" terrorist to ten thousand fighters, blaming President Barack Obama - and not his predecessor George W. Bush - the responsibility of offering organization in Iraq and Syria.Graham said, in an interview with CNN, the US, the war in Iraq "were not a mistake," and that he had doubted that the ground invasion is the only solution, saying: "If I knew what I know today (not Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction) to be considered the ground invasion of Iraq a valid solution. " He continued Graham saying that Saddam Hussein's regime, he has a long record of violations and destabilize the security of the region, adding that it was necessary to remove him from power by using the "other compression means" did not clarify the nature, adding: "At the end of the day, I carry responsibility for the chaos in Iraq and Syria to President Obama, not President Bush. " He criticized Graham Obama's decision not to leave the US military forces in Iraq after the withdrawal in 2011, stressing that it is in no-elected to the presidency Vsicom increase the number of US troops in Iraq elements of the three thousand soldiers to ten thousand troops from in order to "respond to the threats of rising to organize Daash." He acknowledged Graham possibility that such an increase lead to the fall of the American casualties, but he responded by saying: "Whenever we left the organization Daash alive in Iraq, Syria has increased the risk of carrying out an attack on us in America .. I think that the publication of ten Thousands of US troops in Iraq will allow us to train Iraqi forces faster and provides for Baghdad capabilities currently lacking .. the deployment of thousands of our soldiers there (in Iraq) will protect millions of citizens here in America. "

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

? What did you think I said?  

WE WERE CORRECT IN GOING TO WAR!  But the information that was given did not pan out.  No weapons were found.  If they were moved, hidden, or destroyed is not the point.  The point is that they were not found.  Nada.  

If the information had been reliable and FRESH, the weapons would have been there.  Now, unless you can produce the evidence then you are just speculating.  Believe what you want, the evidence was not found.  Produce it an you might have a case.  

The paragraph you stated as fact opens the door for a great deal of speculation and guessing.  1.  He stuck them into Syria.  Maybe he did, but there is no proof of that.  2. Corrupt government.  They certainly have one; as do most of the governments of men.  But that does not mean that they had weapons of mass destruction.  You even state that Saddam was given false reports on the number or amount he had. So the amount is speculation.  3.  He used them up.  If so, he  did not have any more!  

Did Saddam use weapons of mass destruction?  Of course!  He used them on the Kurds and his own people, but he was lied to by his own people that there was more . . . and there was not!  Thus making the information given to the US and nations was faulty.  

 

Should we have gone into war with Iraq?  Yes, based on the evidence that was given them.  Had we good information then, we would need to reconsider based on the facts that the WMD were gone. Our decisions to go to war may have been entirely different.  

 

WMDs Were Found in Iraq…CIA Bought 400 Rockets Filled With Sarin Gas

 

 

One of the biggest knocks against George W Bush is that he lied about WMDs in Iraq.  Even today, liberals still spew those lies.  Before the Iraq War started under Bush, trailer load after trailer load of what is suspected to have been WMDs were moved from Iraq to Syria.  But even with all that movement, large amounts of weapons of mass destructionwere found in Iraq.  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.

Last year, The New York Times did an investigative piece on WMDs found by our soldiers.  Here are parts of a story I did on the subject at the time:

The New York Times has run an investigation into the large cache of WMDs found in Iraq during the war.  The Times has documented at least 5,000 weapons of mass destruction that were found and subsequently covered up by the Pentagon.  In the Times article written by C.J. Shivers describes the first time U.S. troops discovered such weapons:

The soldiers at the blast center sensed something was wrong.

It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.

Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.

The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.

All three men recall an awkward pause. Then Sergeant Duling gave an order: “Get the hell out.”

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 itself tried to downplay it, saying that the weapons were older ones and not newly manufactured.  To that I ask, “Are you more dead when you are run over by a 2014 BMW than when you are hit by a 1964 Ford Falcon?

Or I could quote Marisa Tomei from the movie My Cousin Vinny, when Joe Pesci ask if the pants he was wearing would be good for hunting.  Tomei said:

Imagine you’re a deer. You’re prancing along, you get thirsty, you spot a little brook, you put your little deer lips down to the cool clear water… BAM! A f###in bullet rips off part of your head! Your brains are laying on the ground in little bloody pieces! Now I ask ya. Would you give a f##k what kind of pants the son of a ***** who shot you was wearing?

I’m sorry, I just don’t see the distinction matters.  And the victims of this policy are the American soldiers who came into contact with these materials.  First of all, since the Pentagon was hiding the existence of these weapons, soldiers who stumbled upon them did not have protective clothing and the medics did not carry the proper medicines needed to treat them.

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.

 

George 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.  Can even one of you say that Obama would do that?  Anyone who says yes is a liar or a fool.

 

                                

                                 Does this count as evidence ?

 

                                   Or how about this one ?

 

 

 

Do Reports of WMD Found in Iraq Vindicate George W. Bush? WMD were found in Iraq but does it matter?

 

The New York Times published an article this week that has re-ignited a 12-year-old debate: Was then-President George W. Bush right about Iraq? The report examined U.S. service personnel's encounterswith abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq – and some conservatives were quick to pounce on the story as evidence that claims by Bush in the lead-up to the war that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction were true and that the United States' 2003 invasion was justified.

The article by Times reporter C.J. Chivers focused on U.S. soldiers who suffered from exposure to the sulfur mustard and other nerve gases which emitted from the bombs. According to the story, about "5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs" were found scattered across Iraqi soil. The U.S. government buried the cases from both the public and the troops. As a result, injured soldiers did not receive proper medical treatment.     

                  

                    No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WMDs Were Found in Iraq…CIA Bought 400 Rockets Filled With Sarin Gas

 

 

One of the biggest knocks against George W Bush is that he lied about WMDs in Iraq.  Even today, liberals still spew those lies.  Before the Iraq War started under Bush, trailer load after trailer load of what is suspected to have been WMDs were moved from Iraq to Syria.  But even with all that movement, large amounts of weapons of mass destructionwere found in Iraq.  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.

Last year, The New York Times did an investigative piece on WMDs found by our soldiers.  Here are parts of a story I did on the subject at the time:

The New York Times has run an investigation into the large cache of WMDs found in Iraq during the war.  The Times has documented at least 5,000 weapons of mass destruction that were found and subsequently covered up by the Pentagon.  In the Times article written by C.J. Shivers describes the first time U.S. troops discovered such weapons:

The soldiers at the blast center sensed something was wrong.

It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.

Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.

The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.

All three men recall an awkward pause. Then Sergeant Duling gave an order: “Get the hell out.”

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 itself tried to downplay it, saying that the weapons were older ones and not newly manufactured.  To that I ask, “Are you more dead when you are run over by a 2014 BMW than when you are hit by a 1964 Ford Falcon?

Or I could quote Marisa Tomei from the movie My Cousin Vinny, when Joe Pesci ask if the pants he was wearing would be good for hunting.  Tomei said:

Imagine you’re a deer. You’re prancing along, you get thirsty, you spot a little brook, you put your little deer lips down to the cool clear water… BAM! A f###in bullet rips off part of your head! Your brains are laying on the ground in little bloody pieces! Now I ask ya. Would you give a f##k what kind of pants the son of a ***** who shot you was wearing?

I’m sorry, I just don’t see the distinction matters.  And the victims of this policy are the American soldiers who came into contact with these materials.  First of all, since the Pentagon was hiding the existence of these weapons, soldiers who stumbled upon them did not have protective clothing and the medics did not carry the proper medicines needed to treat them.

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.

 

George 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.  Can even one of you say that Obama would do that?  Anyone who says yes is a liar or a fool.

 

                                

                                 Does this count as evidence ?

 

                                   Or how about this one ?

 

 

 

Do Reports of WMD Found in Iraq Vindicate George W. Bush? WMD were found in Iraq but does it matter?

 

The New York Times published an article this week that has re-ignited a 12-year-old debate: Was then-President George W. Bush right about Iraq? The report examined U.S. service personnel's encounterswith abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq – and some conservatives were quick to pounce on the story as evidence that claims by Bush in the lead-up to the war that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction were true and that the United States' 2003 invasion was justified.

The article by Times reporter C.J. Chivers focused on U.S. soldiers who suffered from exposure to the sulfur mustard and other nerve gases which emitted from the bombs. According to the story, about "5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs" were found scattered across Iraqi soil. The U.S. government buried the cases from both the public and the troops. As a result, injured soldiers did not receive proper medical treatment.     

                  

                    No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise

 

I stand corrected.  I had not read this information.  Thanks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WMDs Were Found in Iraq…CIA Bought 400 Rockets Filled With Sarin Gas

 

 

One of the biggest knocks against George W Bush is that he lied about WMDs in Iraq.  Even today, liberals still spew those lies.  Before the Iraq War started under Bush, trailer load after trailer load of what is suspected to have been WMDs were moved from Iraq to Syria.  But even with all that movement, large amounts of weapons of mass destructionwere found in Iraq.  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.

Last year, The New York Times did an investigative piece on WMDs found by our soldiers.  Here are parts of a story I did on the subject at the time:

The New York Times has run an investigation into the large cache of WMDs found in Iraq during the war.  The Times has documented at least 5,000 weapons of mass destruction that were found and subsequently covered up by the Pentagon.  In the Times article written by C.J. Shivers describes the first time U.S. troops discovered such weapons:

The soldiers at the blast center sensed something was wrong.

It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.

Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.

The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.

All three men recall an awkward pause. Then Sergeant Duling gave an order: “Get the hell out.”

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 itself tried to downplay it, saying that the weapons were older ones and not newly manufactured.  To that I ask, “Are you more dead when you are run over by a 2014 BMW than when you are hit by a 1964 Ford Falcon?

Or I could quote Marisa Tomei from the movie My Cousin Vinny, when Joe Pesci ask if the pants he was wearing would be good for hunting.  Tomei said:

Imagine you’re a deer. You’re prancing along, you get thirsty, you spot a little brook, you put your little deer lips down to the cool clear water… BAM! A f###in bullet rips off part of your head! Your brains are laying on the ground in little bloody pieces! Now I ask ya. Would you give a f##k what kind of pants the son of a ***** who shot you was wearing?

I’m sorry, I just don’t see the distinction matters.  And the victims of this policy are the American soldiers who came into contact with these materials.  First of all, since the Pentagon was hiding the existence of these weapons, soldiers who stumbled upon them did not have protective clothing and the medics did not carry the proper medicines needed to treat them.

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.

 

George 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.  Can even one of you say that Obama would do that?  Anyone who says yes is a liar or a fool.

 

                                

                                 Does this count as evidence ?

 

                                   Or how about this one ?

 

 

 

Do Reports of WMD Found in Iraq Vindicate George W. Bush? WMD were found in Iraq but does it matter?

 

The New York Times published an article this week that has re-ignited a 12-year-old debate: Was then-President George W. Bush right about Iraq? The report examined U.S. service personnel's encounterswith abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq – and some conservatives were quick to pounce on the story as evidence that claims by Bush in the lead-up to the war that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction were true and that the United States' 2003 invasion was justified.

The article by Times reporter C.J. Chivers focused on U.S. soldiers who suffered from exposure to the sulfur mustard and other nerve gases which emitted from the bombs. According to the story, about "5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs" were found scattered across Iraqi soil. The U.S. government buried the cases from both the public and the troops. As a result, injured soldiers did not receive proper medical treatment.     

                  

                    No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise

 

Thank you for taking the time to research and post this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SIS In Iraq Find Saddam Hussein’s WMD Stockpiles Of Chemical Weapons… George W Bush Was Right?

Did the ISIS in Iraq find Saddam Hussein’s WMD stockpiles of chemical weapons? While the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has been confirmed to have seized an old chemical weapons plant there seems to be a dispute over whether or not the remaining tons of chemical weapons like sarin and mustard could still be weaponized into a dangerous form.

 

In a related report by The Inquisitr, former CIA director Michael Hayden is claiming that the ISIS in Iraq have essentially won the war at this point and that it is very likely the nation will be split into three sections. Due to the Iraq crisis oil prices have jumped and some Americans may wonder whether this means U.S. gas prices will be rising soon, as well. But as it turns out China has a lot more to lose if Iraq’s oil supply is blocked even though America spent trillions of dollars on the Iraq war.

After the end of the Iraq War, Saddam’s missing WMDs were very controversial, leading some to claim President George W Bush lied about Iraq’s WMD programs. As one of the reasons for going to war, Bush had argued Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction might end up in the hands of terrorist groups like ISIS. The main problem with Bush’s claim was that after the world’s intelligence services had underestimated Hussein’s WMD capabilities before Desert Storm they mistakenly compensated by overestimating the progress Saddam had made in rebuilding his weapons program. There was also a lot of controversy over the outing of Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson’s investigation into whether Saddam had managed to procure a new source for nuclear weapons materials.

After Iraq was occupied, reports from the CIA in 2005 concluded they found much of Iraq’s WMD development programs, which included a very limited development nuclear weapons program, 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium dating from before 1991, maintenance of dual-usage chemical weapons technology, and an unexpected air force buried in the sand, but no large stockpiles of chemical weapons or other major WMDs… at first.

Wikileaks revealed in 2010 that during the occupation of Iraq the U.S. military discovered many small caches of chemical weapons, but others claimed that Russia had helped Hussein hide the most dangerous WMD stockpiles in Syria. The plot took a new twist when Syrian rebels began identifying weapons that came from Iraq last year. Then when Russia began to oversee Assad’s supposed disarmament of chemical weapons John A. Shaw, the former Pentagon official who claims to have tracked Iraq’s WMDs being moved out by Russian special forces, claimed that it was possible some of these chemical weapons were being hid back in Iraq.

 

image: http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/destroyed-iraqi-ariel-chemical-bombs.jpg

 

Iraqi officials inspect a pile of destroyed chemical bombs.

With that history behind us, now The Telegraph reports that Iraq’s WMD programs may in fact end up being used by the al-Qaeda linked terrorist group ISIS:

“The jihadist group bringing terror to Iraq overran a Saddam Hussein chemical weapons complex on Thursday, gaining access to disused stores of hundreds of tonnes of potentially deadly poisons including mustard gas and sarin…. Isis has shown ambitions to seize and use chemical weapons in Syria leading experts to warn last night that the group could turn to improvised weapons to carry out a deadly attack in Iraq.”

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commander of Britain’s chemical weapons regiment, believes ISIS will not be able to build a fully functional WMD using Iraq’s chemical weapon stockpiles since they’re buried in concrete but they could still be dangerous:

“It is doubtful that Isis have the expertise to use a fully functioning chemical munition but there are materials on site that could be used in an improvised explosive device. We have seen that Isis has used chemicals in explosions in Iraq before and has carried out experiments in Syria.”

Even back in 2006 Army Colonel John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee that the leftover chemical weapons constituted a security threat:

“These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes… they do constitute weapons of mass destruction…. Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent. Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic. Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal.”

Of course, how much of a threat anything ISIS manages to grab now is debatable. The State Department’s spokesperson Jen Psaki commented on the recent situation:

“We remain concerned about the seizure of any military site by the ISIL. We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials.”

Are you surprised that former President George W Bush may have been right about Iraq’s WMD programs created by Saddam Hussein?

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1309825/isis-in-iraq-find-saddam-husseins-wmd-stockpiles-of-chemical-weapons-george-w-bush-was-right/#VVwu3LCks6FZbWDD.99

With that history behind us, now The Telegraph reports that Iraq’s WMD programs may in fact end up being used by the al-Qaeda linked terrorist group ISIS:

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commander of Britain’s chemical weapons regiment, believes ISIS will not be able to build a fully functional WMD using Iraq’s chemical weapon stockpiles since they’re buried in concrete but they could still be dangerous:

“The jihadist group bringing terror to Iraq overran a Saddam Hussein chemical weapons complex on Thursday, gaining access to disused stores of hundreds of tonnes of potentially deadly poisons including mustard gas and sarin…. Isis has shown ambitions to seize and use chemical weapons in Syria leading experts to warn last night that the group could turn to improvised weapons to carry out a deadly attack in Iraq.”

Even back in 2006 Army Colonel John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee that the leftover chemical weapons constituted a security threat:

“It is doubtful that Isis have the expertise to use a fully functioning chemical munition but there are materials on site that could be used in an improvised explosive device. We have seen that Isis has used chemicals in explosions in Iraq before and has carried out experiments in Syria.”

“These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes… they do constitute weapons of mass destruction…. Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent. Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic. Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal.”

Of course, how much of a threat anything ISIS manages to grab now is debatable. The State Department’s spokesperson Jen Psaki commented on the recent situation:

“We remain concerned about the seizure of any military site by the ISIL. We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials.”

Are you surprised that former President George W Bush may have been right about Iraq’s WMD programs created by Saddam Hussein?

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1309825/isis-in-iraq-find-saddam-husseins-wmd-stockpiles-of-chemical-weapons-george-w-bush-was-right/#VVwu3LCks6FZbWDD.99

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.