It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WMD found in Iraq after all, Bush was right: Pentagon 'hid' chemical weapons?

page: 1
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
WMD found in Iraq after all, Bush was right: Pentagon 'hid' chemical weapons?


It's been 11 years since George W. Bush ordered an American invasion of Iraq after the 911 World Trade Center attacks. Then, President Bush was convinced Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, had an active chemical weapons program. However, no weapons of mass destruction were found, as reported by the Administration at the time. Nonetheless, a shocking report out Tuesday by the New York Times says that WMD were found in Iraq after all, but the Pentagon did its best to hide the truth.

Watch video above of Huff Post Live talking about how weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq

Sources, namely former and retired U.S. and Iraq veterans, shared appalling stories of U.S. troops coming across dangerous abandoned chemical munitions during a span of time from 2004 to 2011. One such incident took place in 2008 with a team of military technicians charged with disposing of artillery left behind in the toils of war.

They told of handling shells that oozed of some pungent liquid that smelled acrid. "That doesn't look like pond water," said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling. And after swabbing the discharge, the color indicated the presence of the agent mustard, a potent chemical weapon outlawed from past a war, that burns the skin, eyes, and airway of anyone exposed.

The sergeant gave the order: "Get the hell out." He knew the dangers of the WMD, and from that point on, an alleged government cover up ensued as officials tried desperately to keep the finding of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq from getting out to the public. The Times weighed in.

'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."

Recently, through the Freedom of Information Act, the truth finally came out: There were chemical weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, but not from an active Iraqi program at the time Bush ordered the famous, “Shock and Awe” invasion. All told, some 5,000 or more WMDs were located by military techs even when Pentagon officials say they were inert and posed no harm to humans.


Click link for remainder of article..

It turns out wikileaks was correct in stating WMD's were found in Iraq starting from 2003.

The weird part is the Pentagon told troops who came into contact with those wmd's that they were inert and posed no threat to humans. The issue is many of the soldiers who came into contact with these items have suffered side effects. If the items were inert then what caused the issues with the soldiers.

Bush invaded Iraq based on a WMD platform. Why hide it if they were found? A FOIA request was made to obtain the records.

Secondly the article invokes ISIS, stating the information about the WMD's was classified to prevent ISIS from gaining access to them. Since ISIS was able to obtain nuclear material from some of the universities / colleges I am at a loss as to why ISIS was even invoked.

Something seems out of place with this latest revelation.




posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I don't doubt the fact that they've found WMDs in Iraq all along. I understand that compartmentalization is important but to just send all those troops over there and lying to them that the WMD's posed no threat to them when they were in contact?!? Sad that these poor troops are nothing but pawns, because we all know those politicians wouldn't even think about sending their own children over there.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Then, President Bush was convinced Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, had an active chemical weapons program. However, no weapons of mass destruction were found, as reported by the Administration at the time. Nonetheless, a shocking report out Tuesday by the New York Times says that WMD were found in Iraq after all, but the Pentagon did its best to hide the truth.

Bush was convinced? I thought the whole government, media and Pentagon was desperately convincing us of the veracity of Chemical weapons in Iraq?

I Remember… It was all about Yellow cake, aluminum tubes, centrifuges, Chemical Ali, mobile bio weapons laboratories, and little vials held up in the UN.

Now they are saying they had secret information of the reality all along?

Suuure, I believe them now, too.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I found another article about this subject as well. President G.W Bush DID NOT LIE about WMD. Here is the link I found.
www.nationalreview.com...



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I think, from this point forward, I'm going to assume the government is lying. I held out a long time, but I can't do it anymore.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
From what i gathered their defense is them saying these weapons are from three wars ago and that sounds silly givin that the weapons were in the hands of iraq when we decided that they had wmd's.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Why didn't the USG reveal the chemical arms found during the Iraq WMD goose chase?

Because the USG was the one that supplied Iraq the chemical weapons 10 years earlier. They were old, decaying and wouldn't have supported the narrative of active chemical weapons program.

FFS. Certain people will cling to a lie forever if their whole value system depends on it.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Xcathdra
From what i gathered their defense is them saying these weapons are from three wars ago and that sounds silly givin that the weapons were in the hands of iraq when we decided that they had wmd's.


That's not what was meant. Mustard gas was last used in WWI. That's what was meant.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Xcathdra



Why didn't the USG reveal the chemical arms found during the Iraq WMD goose chase?



Because the USG was the one that supplied Iraq the chemical weapons 10 years earlier. They were old, decaying and wouldn't have supported the narrative of active chemical weapons program.



FFS. Certain people will cling to a lie forever if their whole value system depends on it.
What about the claims that people were denied the purple heart because they were sick from the claimed outdated weapons.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm confused. Why would they hide this while Bush was president if they found the wmd's? Bush took a huge lashing because these wmd's were never found, so why hide the truth? Also, why did the Pentagon allow this to come out now and then somehow tie in ISIS? Is this to make us more afraid of ISIS and add to the list of reasons why we need a ground war? Is this to get the American public behind a ground war again?

Ya seriously have to question everything that comes out of the mouths of our leaders!

All the more reason I have to laugh at our ATS members who constantly defend our government and act as if they would never do anything to hurt us. There's never a valid conspiracy, right?



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Ya the guy who wrote this story for the ny times was on colbert last night and said that these were weapons from the Iran iraq conflict and were provided by........ the Usa.

So if these were the weapons we went to war for, we planted the stuff on them and then punished them for it
edit on thFri, 17 Oct 2014 12:52:19 -0500America/Chicago1020141980 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper You pose a good question. Per the article they reported on the weapons caches up until 04 and some members of ats back up the claims that they personally were part of teams that would destroy the caches or if chemicals were found they would tag it and it would be removed. I believe that the gulf war syndrome is tied directly with all this and could be part of the reason for the cover up.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: suz62

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Xcathdra
From what i gathered their defense is them saying these weapons are from three wars ago and that sounds silly givin that the weapons were in the hands of iraq when we decided that they had wmd's.


That's not what was meant. Mustard gas was last used in WWI. That's what was meant.


What about the mustard gas used against the Kurds by Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war? For the purpose of genocide.

Source



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Seems crazy. What was Bush expecting the army soldiers to find? Giant red wooden cargo boxes labelled "ACME Weapons of Mass Destruction - Do Not Open"?

So when the soldiers start examining regular old tank shells, they discover they are filled with strange liquids and even that brief exposure could cause long term damage? Then the Pentagon has to cover this up to avoid lawsuits for ill health?



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Important to note that those chemical weapons were from earlier conflicts ( in particular, with Iran ) ... these are remnants from long ago... the Bush administration's claim was that they had "active" WMD programs ... which was false, and remains false.

I think it's pretty common knowledge that Iraq still had chemical weapons from before.. it was a program they had in the 1980s .. they even used some of those chemical weapons against their own people in 1991 ... so we knew they had them stockpiled..

BUT again... our justification for war was to stop Saddam's ACTIVE WMD program... that didn't exist.. they pointed to satellite photos of mobile labs and all that jazz as proof that they were actively seeking to produce WMDs ... they also alleged Saddam was trying to start a nuclear program if I remember correctly, but that was also of course not true.
edit on 10/17/2014 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
This talk with Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh is well worth the talk when considering WMD's in the middle east



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Xcathdra


FFS. Certain people will cling to a lie forever if their whole value system depends on it.


If this is directed at me then may I respectfully suggest you read my comments in the OP. I questioned the validity of the information.
edit on 17-10-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
More tripe, the U.S. knew all along what chemical weapons Iraq had as they sold them most and obviously when the purpose suited they became WMD's in order to sell the story to the people (notice in the run up, the words 'chemical weapons' were never used, big scary 'WMDs' was the word of the day).
edit on -180002014-10-17T12:54:15-05:00u1531201415102014Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:54:15 -0500 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
What a wicked web we weave...

G.Orwells 1984 comes to mind. History rewritten on the fly...

Å99



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
More tripe, the U.S. knew all along what chemical weapons Iraq had as they sold them most and obviously when the purpose suited they became WMD's in order to sell the story to the people (notice in the run up, the words 'chemical weapons' were never used, big scary 'WMDs' was the word of the day).


Well again.. the Bush administration's justification for war was not that Saddam had pre-existing chemical weapons, we already knew that.. it wasn't secret to the public.

The justification for the war was that Saddam had an active WMD program and nearing the ability to produce them.. they showed all of those fancy satellite images supposedly containing photos of mobile labs which was all nonsense... the claim that they had an active WMD program was the justification, and that justification was false.. they wanted to create a sense of urgency that we needed to stop it before they had them.
edit on 10/17/2014 by miniatus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join