In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures
It's not in the tweet. If you read the tweet you'd certainly think the untold story was finding all the warheads.
the tweet indicates that at least someone at the new York times thinks finding said warheads is newsworthy.
I'm usually all snuggled up in my American flag with an assault rifle slung around my neck but I agree with Uni on this. There is nothing in this article that changes any aspect of the criticism that was levied against the war in Iraq.
it went well beyond any justification for war. It was a rallying cry for the left. still is. Uni arguing that it's irrelevant, or not newsworthy, that WMD did exist is rather silly.
If so, (and I don't think that's the case here, anyway) then that Tweeter is a moron who doesn't read his own newspaper and validates my low opinion of Twitter. Why some dude putting a few words on the lowest form of communication we have today means anything whatsoever in comparison with the actual article is beyond me.
Bumper stickers? Really? The only thing that is really going on here is that you are desperately holding on the semantic argument that there were really WMDs while ignoring the reality that this "discovery" (that was made and reported on 10 years ago) in no way supports the rhetoric which led to the war or justifies any of the endeavor we made into Iraq. I'm also not arguing that the fact that we found some aging canisters of chemicals is irrelevant, but that you are missing the real newsworthy point of the story in order to win this semantic argument.
Yes really. We've heard for years and years about how there were zero WMD. now we find out there were many thousands and people like you say "what? what does it matter?" really? From the article: The United States had invaded Iraq to reduce the risk of the weapons of mass destruction that it presumed Mr. Hussein still possessed. And after years of encountering and handling Iraq’s old chemical arms, it had retroactively informed the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in 2009 that it had recovered more than 4,500 chemical weapons.
We heard 10 years ago about this stuff. It was reported everywhere, as I noted. Not that it will register in your head, but finding decades old canisters of decaying and useless chemicals is not the smoking gun of "WMDs found in Iraq!!" I found a Civil War bullet once in my yard. I guess that means I'm now armed and dangerous.
Bush right again! Terrorists did find and use Hussein's WMD. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/isis-chemical-weapons-_n_5987106.html
I'll ask it again. if it was widely reported why is it now world wide news? and the cover up is not what is making the news. I find no place the word "active" came out of bush's mouth. useless? if they can harm out troops just by being near them you seriously are telling me that even if every single bomb was inoperative (which is HIGHLY questionable) that those chemicals couldn't be used as WMD in the future or used by terrorists? puh-lease check out the article I just posted and tell me that that stuff wasn't dangerous.
Same site. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/bush-iraq-wmds_n_5990624.html Never thought the day would happen when I would see you use the NY Times and Huffington Post to try and justify your point. More evidence Bush was continuously, and disastrously, wrong. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/10/15/iraq-wmd-does-the-new-york-times-probe-reflect-what-administration-officials-claimed/
the phrase "active program" never occurred in any bush speeches. it's a nice moving of the goal posts by the liberals.
