New York Times: Chemical Weapons found in Iraq (1 Viewer)

[Righetti]

Maybe Little Bush was right??

@nytimes: During the Iraq War, U.S. troops found thousands of chemical weapons. The war's untold story: http://t.co/ksfkwjsySC http://t.co/jy49WTAygF

 

[Sand]

Interesting article, for sure.

 

[cstu]

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.

On November 1, 1983, a full month before Mr Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad, Secretary of State George Shultz was officially informed that the CIA had discovered Iraqi troops were resorting to 'almost daily use of chemical weapons' against the Iranians.

Nevertheless, Mr Rumsfeld arranged for the Iraqis to receive billions of pounds in loans to buy weapons and CIA Director William Casey used a Chilean front company to supply Iraq with cluster bombs.

According to the Washington Post, a Senate committee investigating the relationship between the US and Iraq discovered that in the mid-1980s - following the Rumsfeld visit - dozens of biological agents were shipped to Iraq under licence from the Commerce Department.

They included anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare programme.

The newspaper says: 'The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html#ixzz3GBXXFRSJ

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

More on how the U.S. aided Saddam in the use of chemical weapons against Iran.

 

[cstu]

My question about these weapons is whether they were being kept by Saddam to potential later use or if he considered them 'destroyed' where they were?

 

[Mr. Retukes]

The lede buried in paragraph 10:

The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

 

[timschochet]

Even if Saddam's regime had had brand spanking new chemical weapons, all shiny and ready for use stored in Baghdad, it still would not have made sense for us to invade that country in 2003. It was the wrong decision, and had nothing to do with the presence or absence of WMDs.

 

[squistion]

The lede buried in paragraph 10:

The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

Blake Hounshell ‏@blakehounshell 2h

If your key takeaway from that @cjchivers article is "Saddam did so have chemical weapons!" you probably didn't read it.

 

[jamny]

Goalposts officially moved.

 

[beer 30]

The lede buried in paragraph 10:

The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

I read that as well as the article about the CIA's complicity in the manufacture, aiding and use of those chemical weapons during the Iraq-Iran war. Interesting look behind the curtain but not particularly earth shattering IMO.

Sad that once again our troops have to suffer because of decisions made in Washington. Just that much more respect for our fighting men & women out there, God bless you all.

 

[Bucky86]

A bunch of my right wing facebook friends seem to be patting themselves on the back for this.

 

[Righetti]

not sure anybody should pat anybody on the back for this.. there are servicemen now suffering from neurological issues in addition to the hundreds of thousands suffering from PTSS, amputations, life altering injuries and death

 

[D_House]

Interesting article, some more tidbits:

The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the governments invasion rationale.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the worlds risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.

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.

In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the wars outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

More:

Participants in the chemical weapons discoveries said the United States suppressed knowledge of finds for multiple reasons, including that the government bristled at further acknowledgment it had been wrong. They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds, Mr. Lampier said. And all of this was from the pre-1991 era.

Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.

 

[D_House]

Goalposts officially moved.

Unpack this a bit please?

 

[squistion]

Joe Strupp ‏@JoeStrupp 3h

No, Bush was not right about Iraq: How conservatives misread new Times bombshell

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/15/no_bush_was_not_right_about_iraq_how_conservatives_misread_new_times_bombshell/ … via @Salon

 

[glumpy]

Goalposts officially moved.

Unpack this a bit please?

I'd say it means that the situation with ISIL in that region just took on a whole new dimension.

 

[TheIronSheik]

not sure anybody should pat anybody on the back for this.. there are servicemen now suffering from neurological issues in addition to the hundreds of thousands suffering from PTSS, amputations, life altering injuries and death

Are those servicemen R's or D's? I don't know how to react until I get an answer on this.

TIA

 

[pantagrapher]

Pretty clever of the NYT to troll conservatives like this.

 

[Righetti]

not sure anybody should pat anybody on the back for this.. there are servicemen now suffering from neurological issues in addition to the hundreds of thousands suffering from PTSS, amputations, life altering injuries and death

Are those servicemen R's or D's? I don't know how to react until I get an answer on this.

TIA

mostly R's

 

[grateful zed]

This has been known for a long time. I think the NYT has been running versions of this story since 2005.

It was also on Chapelle's Show:

Audience Member: Negrodamus, why is President Bush convinced there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Negrodamus: Because he has the receipt.

 

[Bucky86]

My right-wing friends seem to think this is all new. They follow this guy on Facebook.

 

[Fennis]

This has been known for a long time. I think the NYT has been running versions of this story since 2005.

It was also on Chapelle's Show:

Audience Member: Negrodamus, why is President Bush convinced there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Negrodamus: Because he has the receipt.

 

[Bucky86]

My right-wing friends seem to think this is all new. They follow this guy on Facebook.

I wonder if some of our posters here may actually be Michael Yon.

Read his fear mongering on Ebola. When he gets called out with facts, he responds like some FBG's.

 

[fatness]

The lede buried in paragraph 10:

The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

Blake Hounshell ‏@blakehounshell 2h

If your key takeaway from that @cjchivers article is "Saddam did so have chemical weapons!" you probably didn't read it.

Didn't read it, or are willfully ignorant.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Joe Strupp ‏@JoeStrupp 3h

No, Bush was not right about Iraq: How conservatives misread new Times bombshell

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/15/no_bush_was_not_right_about_iraq_how_conservatives_misread_new_times_bombshell/ … via @Salon

It's weird that you would link - as proof that conservatives are wrong - an article from a far left website who number one sole mission is to lambaste conservatives and celebrate progressive talking points.

I'm not sure that proves anything.

 

[flysack]

The only news here is that Saddam still had some dusty caches of them. Back in 1988 the world had clear proof he was gassing the Kurds when 5 people were flown to Britain by Iran for treatment and proof that Saddam was indeed not only gassing Iranians, but his own citizens as well.

 

[Josie Maran]

Joe Strupp ‏@JoeStrupp 3h

No, Bush was not right about Iraq: How conservatives misread new Times bombshell

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/15/no_bush_was_not_right_about_iraq_how_conservatives_misread_new_times_bombshell/ via @Salon

It's weird that you would link - as proof that conservatives are wrong - an article from a far left website who number one sole mission is to lambaste conservatives and celebrate progressive talking points.

I'm not sure that proves anything.

Just read the actual Times article.