Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The press quoted what President Bush, and vice pres Cheney and condi rice, and rumsfeld and wolfowitz said..... if what the president and the administration implied about Nukes was not important, then why did the administration push the idea?So the far left press sold the idea of Nukes? Even though Powell cited chemical weapons and mobile chemical labs?
isn't it funny how they forget that judy miller did baby bush's bidding and lied in her NY Times articles?
BASED ON THE LIES OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. but why should they let facts get in their way
So the far left NYTimes prints an article that was wrong! Go figure that one.
However one far left blog site does not the media make.
And as always the far left shows that the history of Iraq began in 2003 to them.
No, they are claiming they always knew he had chemical weapons. That is what they are claiming, like the miserable fucking liars they are.
Nope, he didn't have them. They were all destroyed in 91'.
True story.
STATUS OF VERIFICATION OF IRAQ'S BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAMME
Executive Summary
1. Iraq did not acknowledge its proscribed Biological Warfare (BW) weapons programme until July 1995. From the first UNSCOM inspections in 1991 until 1995 Iraq denied it had a BW programme and has taken active steps to conceal it from the Special Commission. These steps included fraudulent statements, forged documents, misrepresentation of the roles of people and facilities, and other specific acts of deception.
2. Since its first revelations in July 1995, Iraq has submitted three "Full, Final and Complete Disclosures" (FFCDs) of its proscribed biological programme. The first of these, presented in August 1995, was declared null and void by Iraq itself. The second, submitted in June 1996, was subjected to intensive efforts to verify its accuracy and completeness through eight inspections and other technical discussions. In March 1997 an international panel of experts reviewed that FFCD and recommended its rejection because of the inadequacy of the material presented throughout the document.
Introduction
17. Iraq's offensive BW programme was among the most secretive of its programmes of weapons of mass destruction. Its existence was not acknowledged until July 1995. During the period from 1991 to 1995 Iraq categorically denied it had a biological weapons programme and it took active steps to conceal the programme from the Special Commission. These included fraudulent statements, false and forged documents, misrepresentation of the roles of people and facilities and other specific acts of deception. For example, Iraq claims to have destroyed much of the documentation and overt evidence of the programme. At the same time Iraq maintained other aspects of the programme such as the equipment, supplies (e.g., bacterial growth media), and personnel as an intact entity and facilitiesof the programme such as the Al-Hakam facility that produced BW agents.
18. In 1995, when Iraq was confronted with evidence collected by the Commission of imports of bacterial growth media in quantities that had no civilian utility within Iraq's limited biotechnology industry, it eventually, on 1 July 1995, acknowledged that it used this growth media to produce two BW agents in bulk, botulinum toxin and Bacillus anthracis spores, between 1988 and 1991. It was not, until August of 1995, however, that Iraq acknowledged that it had weaponized BW agents, and had undertaken weapon tests from 1987 onwards. This admission only occurred after Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel Hassan departed. Shortly afterwards, Iraq released a considerable quantity of documents concerned with its weapons of mass destruction programmes. The documents relating to biology represented just 200 documents with some pages out of a total of more than a million pages. Many of the biological documents were scientific reprints from foreign journals. Clearly, they represent only a minor portion of a BW programme that ran from 1973 until at least 1991.
19. Since July 1995, the Commission has conducted 35 biological inspections directly or indirectly related to investigations of Iraq's proscribed BW programme. In addition, two inspections devoted to the destruction of sites, known to be integral components of the programme, have been undertaken. The past programme investigations have concentrated on issues that are directly related to disarmament and have attempted to validate these aspects of Iraq's Full Final and Complete Disclosure (FFCD), generally without success. This considerable effort has been negated by Iraq's intransigence and failure to provide cooperation concerning its biological weapons since January 1996.
20. After Iraq's acknowledgement of its BW weapons programme , Iraq has submitted three FFCDs of its BW programme
You really don't like the Truth, do you?No, it was not about chemical weapons that put America behind the President, it was about a NUCLEAR WMD threat that was hyped by the administration....it was about yellowcake andThat's a lie Greenbean....it WAS about WMD'S, in the form of waking up to the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud....NUKES
it WAS about yellowcake....for NUKES
it WAS about NUKES that could hit us in 45 minutes...
It is you that has conveniently forgotten what we were being told by the administration at the time....
Look everyone, liberals are now trying to claim chemical weapons were not part of the WMDs.
They also deny that saddam was putting that information out on purpose about nukes, and it was confirmed by defectors, including his two son in laws.
They clearly deny that the country simply enforced the policy of the country that had been signed by Clinton. The Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.
They clearly will not allow themselves to see that the WAR ON TERROR was always going to be about more than getting al qaeda or bin laden.
They are shifting like the sands of Egypt right before our eyes.
Valerie Plame's husband exposing the LIE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING ON IT.... it was about waking up to a Mushroom cloud...
WE KNEW saddam had chemical weapons, and chemical weapons that were deteriorating...
Chemical weapons could not reach us here in the USA, they were of no threat to the USA that required us to start a war against a sovereign nation, and put our men out there to die for....
STOP rewriting history to make yourselves 'feel' better....now that all our guys are DEAD and MAIMED.
You are on ignore you miserable, double talking lying piece of shit.
truth is anathema to rightwingnuts
You really don't like the Truth, do you?No, it was not about chemical weapons that put America behind the President, it was about a NUCLEAR WMD threat that was hyped by the administration....it was about yellowcake andLook everyone, liberals are now trying to claim chemical weapons were not part of the WMDs.
They also deny that saddam was putting that information out on purpose about nukes, and it was confirmed by defectors, including his two son in laws.
They clearly deny that the country simply enforced the policy of the country that had been signed by Clinton. The Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs.
They clearly will not allow themselves to see that the WAR ON TERROR was always going to be about more than getting al qaeda or bin laden.
They are shifting like the sands of Egypt right before our eyes.
Valerie Plame's husband exposing the LIE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING ON IT.... it was about waking up to a Mushroom cloud...
WE KNEW saddam had chemical weapons, and chemical weapons that were deteriorating...
Chemical weapons could not reach us here in the USA, they were of no threat to the USA that required us to start a war against a sovereign nation, and put our men out there to die for....
STOP rewriting history to make yourselves 'feel' better....now that all our guys are DEAD and MAIMED.
You are on ignore you miserable, double talking lying piece of shit.
truth is anathema to rightwingnuts
Say something intelligent. Emotion is not impressive.
You seem to be operating under the impression that I do not include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.Nolo contendere.If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.
The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.
Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.
His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.
Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.
Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.
Unfortunately, that never happened.
Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.
Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.
This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.
I do, indeed, include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.
I merely hold that the casus belli (the reason for going to war) for the Iraq War was NUCLEAR weapons - and their pursuit by the Iraq regime of those times.
This is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.
It is also a documented historical fact that no such weapons - nor their weaponized precursor components - were ever found.
Creating a condition in which the casus belli for the Iraq War proved to be false.
This, too, is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.
It was a false alarm - and, quite possibly, an intentionally contrived falsehood.
I don't like that any more than you do, but it is what it is.
I suppose then that Saddam was planning a very big birthday party with all of that yellow-cake.
I think that this revelation is a prime example of the difference between what is documented and what is reality.
"Yellow Cake"?If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.
The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.
Wrong. Chemical weapons were the primary concern.
Wahhhhhhhhhh.................wah......................
You lost a couple of elections. You will lose more. And get old and die, just like the rest of us. Lifes a bitch, isn't it.
Saddam did not have enough chemical or biological weopons to be a threat to anyone. The whole damned debacle was based on a lie. And you continue that lie.
39. Iraq has declared, that 200 R-400 aerial bombs were manufactured for BW purposes. However, Iraq acknowledges that the numbers of bombs filled with particular BW agents are "guesses".
40. Iraq's accounts concerning the development of the R-400 bomb for BW purposes have changed since 1995. In 1995 when the personnel who conducted the programme were explaining the programme, they described it in considerable detail. There was a series of field trials using a total of six R-400 bombs, two each charged with Clostridium botulinum toxin, Bacillus subtilis and aflatoxin. Many animals were said to have been used. These field trials were reflected in the June 1996 FFCD. Subsequently, Iraq has denied that any such trials were conducted. It is very difficult to reconcile this change with very specific accounts of R-400 trials given by scientists, the attendant veterinary surgeon and workers, at what was said to be the site, namely Al-Mohammediyat. There was also a trial in August 1990 to determine the size of 'booster charge' charge required to disperse the agent. All attempts by Iraq to locate the exact site at Al-Hakam and find any evidence have failed.
41. Iraq initially claimed that 166 R-400 bombs were filled with BW agents. It was stated that three agents were used: agent 'A' (Clostridium botulinum toxin), agent 'B' (Bacillus anthracis spores), and agent 'C' (aflatoxin). Subsequently, to accommodate a document provided by Iraq that suggested that 157 R-400 bombs were destroyed, the figures were adjusted by a new claim by Iraq that only seven, and not 16 R-400 bombs were filled with aflatoxin.
42. Evidence of the destruction of three botulinum toxin filled R-400 bombs was found in 1997 when and remnants of another 20 R-400 bombs in the same area were identified. Remnants of another 25 R-400 bombs were also found in 1991, by a Commission inspection team, at a time when Iraq was declaring a total of only 40 R-400 bombs (stated to be all CW) at Al-Azzizziyah. It cannot be determined whether all these weapons had ever been filled. The figure of "157" R-400 bombs is based on a document provided by Iraq that suggests that 157 were destroyed. There is no evidence to support that these were in fact biological bombs.
You really don't like the Truth, do you?No, it was not about chemical weapons that put America behind the President, it was about a NUCLEAR WMD threat that was hyped by the administration....it was about yellowcake and
Valerie Plame's husband exposing the LIE THE ADMINISTRATION WAS SAYING ON IT.... it was about waking up to a Mushroom cloud...
WE KNEW saddam had chemical weapons, and chemical weapons that were deteriorating...
Chemical weapons could not reach us here in the USA, they were of no threat to the USA that required us to start a war against a sovereign nation, and put our men out there to die for....
STOP rewriting history to make yourselves 'feel' better....now that all our guys are DEAD and MAIMED.
You are on ignore you miserable, double talking lying piece of shit.
truth is anathema to rightwingnuts
Say something intelligent. Emotion is not impressive.
you didn't understand the word anathema? or is truth a concept totally beyond your ken?
now why don't *you* post something intelligent. your deflection is unimpressive. I also didn't particularly see any emotion in my post. perhaps you're just confused.
The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons
From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.
In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
- MAY 2004 Two soldiers exposed to sarin from a shell near Baghdad’s Yarmouk neighborhood.
- SUMMER 2006 Over 2,400 nerve-agent rockets found at this former Republican Guard compound.
- JULY 2008 Six Marines exposed to mustard agent from an artillery shell at an abandoned bunker.
- AUGUST 2008 Five American soldiers exposed to mustard agent while destroying a weapons cache.
- 2010 OR EARLY 2011 Hundreds of mustard rounds discovered in a container at this Iraqi security compound.
You seem to be operating under the impression that I do not include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.Nolo contendere.Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.
His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.
Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.
Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.
Unfortunately, that never happened.
Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.
Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.
This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.
I do, indeed, include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.
I merely hold that the casus belli (the reason for going to war) for the Iraq War was NUCLEAR weapons - and their pursuit by the Iraq regime of those times.
This is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.
It is also a documented historical fact that no such weapons - nor their weaponized precursor components - were ever found.
Creating a condition in which the casus belli for the Iraq War proved to be false.
This, too, is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.
It was a false alarm - and, quite possibly, an intentionally contrived falsehood.
I don't like that any more than you do, but it is what it is.
I suppose then that Saddam was planning a very big birthday party with all of that yellow-cake.
I think that this revelation is a prime example of the difference between what is documented and what is reality.
The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a "secret" cache that was recently "discovered" by the U.S, and the yellowcake had not been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades-old nuclear reactor projects that had put out of commission many years earlier: One reactor at Al Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Moreover, the fact that the yellowcake had been in Iraq since before the 1991 Gulf War was plainly stated in the Associated Press
snopes.com Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq
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.
From the OP link. This is not the "smoking gun" that exonerates Bush.
You seem to be operating under the impression that I do not include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.Nolo contendere.Chemical weapons were always included under the umbrella of WMDs. Also, it has been proven that saddam deliberately put out information that he was trying to establish nuclear capability.
His two son in laws revealed a long time ago that saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons. They were executed.
Finding chemical weapons there was no surprise.
Finding nuclear weapons (or precursor components) would have validated the 2003 casus belli for invading Iraq.
Unfortunately, that never happened.
Again,, chemical weapons are certainly WMDs. Also, saddam put out false information (most likely on purpose) that he was in the process of attempting to get nuclear materials. That was probably true. He saw Iran as a true threat and he knew he would be in real danger if Iran became a nuclear power.
Again, his two son in laws revealed what he was wanting to do and the reasons why he kept his infrastructure for WMD production.
This was also clearly revealed by UNSCOM the UN independent council.
I do, indeed, include chemical weapons under the WMD banner.
I merely hold that the casus belli (the reason for going to war) for the Iraq War was NUCLEAR weapons - and their pursuit by the Iraq regime of those times.
This is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.
It is also a documented historical fact that no such weapons - nor their weaponized precursor components - were ever found.
Creating a condition in which the casus belli for the Iraq War proved to be false.
This, too, is not up for debate - this is a documented historical fact.
It was a false alarm - and, quite possibly, an intentionally contrived falsehood.
I don't like that any more than you do, but it is what it is.
I suppose then that Saddam was planning a very big birthday party with all of that yellow-cake.
I think that this revelation is a prime example of the difference between what is documented and what is reality.
The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a "secret" cache that was recently "discovered" by the U.S, and the yellowcake had not been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades-old nuclear reactor projects that had put out of commission many years earlier: One reactor at Al Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Moreover, the fact that the yellowcake had been in Iraq since before the 1991 Gulf War was plainly stated in the Associated Press
snopes.com Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq
Wahhhhhhhhhh.................wah......................
You lost a couple of elections. You will lose more. And get old and die, just like the rest of us. Lifes a bitch, isn't it.
Bush's own team stated that Iraq had no WMD. So what are you silly asses trying to prove stating otherwise?
If memory serves correctly, I don't think anyone disputed the idea that Saddam's Iraq possessed chemical weapons.
The dispute was over nuclear weapons and their weaponized precursor components - none of which have been found, unless I've missed something.
No. The dispute was over WMD's which includes chemical weapons. The Liberals crucified Bush over his claim that Saddam had WMD's. Bush was right.
Bush's own team stated that Iraq had no WMD. So what are you silly asses trying to prove stating otherwise?
