It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 11:20 PM
Wow, we keep stepping in so much do-do, hard to see the top of your socks.
Not good, just plain not good.

posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 11:26 PM
a reply to: Rezlooper
If I wanted to justify a new war I would do just that: relieve people's minds of the last one, say that we were right all along and thus must be right now, and create a new enemy so evil that the previous villain is sickened, and utilise that "Retroactive continuity" - insert the new villain into a history when they didnt even exist!

posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 11:34 PM
The coverup came from the Bush Admin itself:

Insiders Blame Rove for Covering Up Iraq’s Real WMD

There’s one man, some Republicans say, who kept the public from learning about the chemical shells littered around Iraq. He was Bush’s most important political adviser.

Report: It was Karl Rove behind cover-up of aging chemical weapons found in Iraq

The Daily Beast’s Eli Lake reports that the individual responsible for covering up the discovery of chemical weapons in Iraq in 2004 was Karl Rove.

Iraq’s WMDS did exist, Karl Rove blamed for coverup

The "lie" was that Saddam had an active chemical weapon program. The coverup is that the WMDs Saddam had were the ones supplied by the USA during the years 1981-1987 - by Reagan - to Iraq and that soldiers were still finding during the invasion.

Oops, can't have the son of Reagan's VP exposing the war crimes of his administration - better just cover it all up. Nice shift in blame OP, away from Rove.

posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:10 AM
a reply to: Xcathdra

The article I read about this stated a few reasons why Bush kept quiet, one of the main reasons is because the majority of those chemical weapons were products of the US & EU. They also kept it under wraps because they were endangering troops lives while telling them there's nothing to worry about.

posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:37 AM

On Tuesday, The New York Times published a thunderclap of an article titled "The Secret Casualties of Iraq's Abandoned Chemical Weapons." The gist of it, in short, is that Iraq was littered with thousands of chemical munitions the US and other countries had sold them before 1991. US troops were tasked to police them up and destroy them, a process that injured many of them in ways they still endure today, but because the Bush administration wanted to keep these munitions secret, the troops who happened to scoop up a leaking mustard gas shell and woke up the following day covered in boils and unable to breathe never received proper medical treatment.

Karl Rove:

Starting in 2004, some members of the George W. Bush administration and Republican lawmakers began to find evidence of discarded chemical weapons in Iraq. But when the information was brought up with the White House, senior adviser Karl Rove told them to "let these sleeping dogs lie."

The issue of Iraq's WMD remnants was suddenly thrust back into the fore this week, with a blockbuster New York Times report accusing the Bush administration of covering up American troops' chemically induced wounds.

To people familiar with the issue, both inside that administration and outside, the blame for the coverup falls on one particular set of shoulders: Rove's.

Some points made:

The Bush administration didn't announce the existence of these decrepit munitions to the world because the US sold them to Iraq during the last Bush administration, and because pretending they weren't there meant the VA could blow off the affected soldiers.

The New York Times said there were a bunch of shells in Iraq from before 1991 that George Herbert Walker Bush sold to Saddam Hussein which George W. Bush used as an excuse to plunder the treasury and sink us into permanent war in the Mideast and win some elections [snip]

And people still say 'Bush was right all along...' Morons.
edit on 18-10-2014 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 01:11 PM
Odd that they say they have them now!
now that ISIS can get then and use them.
sounds like an excuse to to some thing?

posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 06:51 PM
According to this article, the good news is that Bush didn't lie. And the bad news is that Bush didn't lie!

You guys make some good points. What I find interesting is that the media is making next to nothing over this! I had absolutely no idea of any of this until a friend who served several tours in the military was over to dinner the other day and told me. If they are trying to make a big propaganda deal out of this now they are not doing a very good job!

posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 06:54 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra

How long after the fact?

With the amount of technology we have to search for WMDs?

BULL [snip] is what I call.

posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 07:01 PM

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.

We found rusting, dry forgotten remnants of chemical weapons. We did not find anything they could have used. I doubt they even knew the stuff was rotting away in most of these locations. I say 'we' as in I was there taking part.

Next silly story...

posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 07:03 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra

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.

Actually from what I found the WMDs were sold/furnished to Iraq by the USA and allies during the war with Iran.. I even did a thread about it last year ? Plenty of reason to keep the WMD issue out of sight out of mind... None found blame it on intel.... If found there could be all kinds of repercussions from who made what and who furnished the stockpile and who allowed the sale..

Nothing is as it seems, or so the story goes, No?

posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 09:24 PM
a reply to: 727Sky

and yet people still maintain Iraq never had them...

nice to see the ignored the wmds Syria has.

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in