Two lies in one sentence. Par for the course with this drivel. The UN did not monitor any stockpiles, and they were not "thrown out".
Um, then what was UNMOVIC doing over there all that time, and what did Bill Clinton launch cruise missiles at? Here is chapter III of one of UNMOVIC's reports, giving the location of chemical weapons plants, production facilities, capabilities, and outputs. It goes on for 343 pages, and it even has pictures. Mustard, Sarin, VX, Tibun. Those reports continued up through 2007, and make interesting reading. They kept finding chemical weapons, both before and after the war. The nerve agents, however, degraded pretty quickly (Iraq had purity problems) but the mustard agents stored quite well. The were also concerned about all the knowledge that the Iraqi scientists possessed, which could easily be used by non-state actors.
They were tasked with ensuring that Iraq complied with UN resolutions on WMD - namely the destruction of same and ensuring that there was no further development. You know, asking a question with an implied answer that one knows to be a lie is just as dishonest as lying outright. At what point does it support your claims?
The whole way through, if you include the follow-up annexes. There was no way they were going to destroy all the weapons. There were simply too many (Iraq had produced about 130,000 of them). But as Scott Ritter said, they and the UN had probably gotten 90 to 95% of them. What we were concerned about was that their factories at one time could turn out tons per day. What was left was largely degraded, and we found none that were built much after 1991. However even those were somewhat usable, and we did have two soldiers injured with a chemical IED, an old 155mm binary sarin shell. As recently as 2009 Iraq declared it still had several bunkers of chemical weapons munitions and precursor chemicals, along with 5 production plants, just so it could join the chemical weapons convention. Interestingly, in a poll about whether WMD was found in Iraq, PBS/NPR viewers came out as the most misinformed, with only 11 percent knowing that we did.
Bush in 2008 admitting no wmds were found in Iraq. You can bet if they were found he would have been trumpeting it but the FACT remains that none ever were found. I'm sure we will no be told Bush was in on the conspiracy. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...EgvIeGMzfErTbjII0tEoBWA&bvm=bv.77648437,d.cGU
Another liberal screaming that Bush didn't lie. This is so much fun. Lots of random WMD munitions were found, things that had been overlooked, forgotten, and older stuff that was hardly fit for use, but no signs of recent production. No vast secret stockpiles with tens of thousands of warheads, and no new and secret manufacturing facilities for biological and nuclear weapons. Thus, no WMD, even though we found WMD - and other prohibited munitions, all over the place. Saddam was prohibited from possessing all sorts of weapons that he kept importing. As we rolled in our reporters covered some of the finds, like late model (1999 or so) French and German missiles, new gas masks and chemical suits, etc. Once you make a chemical projectile, nobody wants to touch it - because they're dangerous. They're hard to safely destroy because they have bursting charges, so you have to take them apart for disposal. It's easier just to throw some dirt on them. Bill Clinton threw a lot of dirt on a lot of WMD sites with a bunch of missile attacks. I don't think anyone was really motivated to pick up a shovel and start digging for live chemical munitions. And then there's the problem of munitions spirited away and hidden by the Iraqis themselves, so they wouldn't get caught by the UN inspectors and then get in trouble with Saddam - which was a bad, bad thing. What Bush and the world's intelligence communities expected to find was a massive WMD program and a massive arsenal, hidden in his palaces or underneath them. That wasn't there. It was a fiction Saddam was putting out to fool the Iranians.
No, dullard. We're pointing out Bush did lie, that he admitted he was completely wrong, and that you are a delusional half wit for claiming their is a conspiracy to hide wmds. Is that clear enough for you?
Not really. I'm not claiming there was a conspiracy to hide WMDs. That was the New York Times spin on their revelation that there are still a lot of WMD's in Iraq, which are now in the hands of ISIS.
So you weren't claiming that "we were always running across Saddams WMD" or that the media was all secretly involved in hiding that fact? I ask because that is EXACTLY what you claimed, dullard. Read the damn quote.
Look I am glad you have cowardly ran away from your previous absurd conspiracy claim but stop insulting our intelligence by pretending that wasn't what you said.
Fact free fantasy land. Remember this folks next old feller claims both the left and the right are identical. You just don't find 70% of liberals endorsing nonsense that isn't factually true the way you have vast majorities of the right wing agreeing with total finction. FACT! Yet you do find conservatives saying they believe factually untrue nonsense in huge majorities on topic after topic after topic.
Ran, dude. As in you have ran away. Try again, genius. Seriously, dude, you're trying to be a grammar Nazi yet you are completely failing at it. Shit, even without this stupid touch screen keyboard I make a ton of typos yet you, stupidly, decided to pick out a word which was correctly spelled with the proper syntax? How fucking stupid are you?
Patently false. CBRN != WMD. Note the M, that stands for mass. An 82mm mortar round with a bit of degraded chlorine gas that had been buried for 20 years doesn't create mass destruction.
The past participle of "run" is "run." You use that to make the present perfect. Also, grammar Nazis are left-wing, not right-wing.
We had a football player facing charges of using WMD for setting off 2-liter Diet Coke and Mentos bombs. The definition was stretched beyond all usefulness. But that's why Bush said we didn't find WMD, even though we found thousands of old chemical weapon shells. They're basically the coughing and choking version of a pipe-bomb, because the nerve agents were iffy when they were new (generally about 50 percent purity because Iraq had production problems) and degraded quickly. We had 17 soldiers exposed with zero fatalities. In one case of a sarin shell, the chemicals didn't even mix well enough to do much. A 155mm shell with regular explosives would've blown some limbs off. What we found was generally not in good enough condition to use, except for some of the mustard shells, but for mustard and similar blister agents to have a profound effect you have to drench an area with it so people can't just hold their breath, pull up their coat, and run out of the cloud. One of the reasons it was useful in close combat like WW-I is that close combat is one of the places you can't really do that, and the goal is really just to get you to move out of your super nice dug-in position. We were far more worried about his biological and nuclear programs, and he was hiding information about those, because they didn't still exist. He ruled by fear, and people who do that are terrified of admitting that there's really nothing to be afraid of, because that's when their people and all their enemies rise up and whack them.
No WMDs, but a whole lot of prohibited chemical munitions containing Mustard gas and nerve agents like Tibun, VX, and Sarin.
The fact that old stockpiles of chemical weapons were found is no surprise. They were supplied to Saddam by the west to be used against Iranians. They were never going to be much use, they are just old rusting shells from an old war. They probably would be more dangerous to the user than anyone they were aimed at. They were certainly not 'WMD's', or a good excuse to invade Iraq. Yet again (for the 4 millionth time) Ill quote from Robin Cooks resignation speech from before the war. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2859431.stm Anyone who supported the stupid invasion should read the whole thing if you want to learn something.
You trying to give gturner a run for derp of the thread award? The west never gave Saddam WMD. We sold him 'dual use' materials and equipment. Many of the chemicals and equipment needed for modern agriculture and manufacturing can also be used to produce WMD.
Knowing full well, exactly what they would be used for. Tell me, what do you think Saddam would use anthrax agents and chemical munitions factories for during the Iran Iraq war?
See? The right wing lives in a fact free alternate reality where conspiracy theories are valued more highly than facts or reality. FACT: THERE WERE NO WMDS IN IRAQ IN 2003. Yet we have FF claiming some how ISIL has gotten these nonexistant WMDs in Iraq in 2014. The babbling idiocy never ends, one conspiracy theory is built upon another, and the right wing conservatives never stop to figure out their entire world view is based upon lies & factually untrue beliefs.
Hrm... So how did ISIS get their hands on Iraqi chemical weapons in 2014, and why did Iraq declare having them in 2009, and why did the Pentagon say we were finding lots of them in 2006, and why did the Iraq Survey Group and the UN write reports that they were finding such munitions in 2004? Are they ALL in on the vast conspiracy?
