Did you miss the fact that I linked the same ****ing story from a CNN report in 2004? And, I wonder what a few right wing political "honks", like yourself, think about my political leanings? When was this? You resort to this shit because your argument is dog shit. One, it's not a new story and, two, the article you based this thread on doesn't say what you purport is says. Thatt's the ultimate reality of this thread, not your nonsense logical fallacies.
What does the age of the story have to do with anything? I'm not claiming vindication of all things bush, I'm claiming vindication of "no wmds!!!"
Because you are claiming this story refutes the idea of the media's claims there were no WMDs when the same media reported this exact story 10 years ago. So, you are claiming that they didn't report something that they actually did. How is this stuff always so difficult for you?
Who said anything about them not reporting anything? You act like everyone in the media is the same person. One outlet reported something that obviously was ignored by 99 percent of the media and the population and that means what exactly?
Yeah, "one outlet". http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/05/17/sarin-mustard-gas-discovered-separately-in-iraq/ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jan/11/iraq http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/international/middleeast/17CND-SARI.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html
I still don't see your point. I would have gladly posted this years ago if I had the information. Why do you think this is NOW becoming a story if this story was known by all? Perhaps it was the detailed information by the ny times? Perhaps it wasnt as widely disseminated as you are arguing? Are you trying to imply this is a non story in the first place?
I posted stories from a host of the main and most widely read news sources of the time. The fact that you didn't know about it is irrelevant to your false assertion that only "one outlet reported it". I knew about this for years and is common knowledge. The reason that it isn't the smoking gun now is the same reason it wasn't then, as outlined in this thread. I think you need to re-read the story if you think the point of the story is that the WMD story is now, suddenly, true. The reason for the story is that the soldiers got sick and the government covered it up. It's a pretty obvious theme.
If it was common knowledge how come it is NOW a major story? I read the story. I see a stockpile of wmds. Something all your breatheren claimed didn't exist.
The New York times tweet about it: https://twitter.com/davidfurstnyt/status/522208419953246209 And I quote "everyone knows we didn't find wmd in Iraq, right? Think again." But yeah the newsworthy part was the cover up. Might want to tell the New York times that.
That's not the NY Times tweet, it's a photographer that works there's personal account. ****ing hell, do you get anything right?
I just said why it was now a major story. Are you really to believe that the NY Times forgot they ran the same story of these canisters 10 years ago? How many circles are we going to run? Of course you see stockpiles of WMDs in these canisters that were so degraded that these guys got sick just by handling them and were clearly in no way used by Hussein as WMDs. They were decaying canisters of chemicals we sold to them two decades previously. There's not a chance in hell we would have gone to war based upon some old, unused cans of chemicals lying under a few feet of sand in the desert.
The story said "many" of the wmds were unusable. That certainly implies some were usable. Let's be generous to you and say 80 percent were unusable. That still leaves hundreds of useable chemical weapons. And once again, not disposing of his wmds, any of them, let alone thousands, is a direct violation of the treaty and absolutely something that could be used as justification for action.
Here's the New York times official Twitter: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/522477071889866753 Notice it says the "untold story" and mentions finding wmds in the title, not the cover up.
It says "abandoned chemical weapons" from decades earlier, nothing different than what was told 10 years earlier and still in line with the idea that Hussein wasn't producing WMDs, as claimed by the Bush regime. The "untold story", for the 50th time, is the soldiers getting sick and the government covering it up.
There's not a chance in hell we go to war over some buried chemicals in the Iraqi desert that we sold them two decades earlier and were considered utterly useless. The clear statement made by the author in the article that sums this whole thing up is "The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale."
