New York Times report on chemical weapons in Iraq rekindles debate over WMDs
http://twitter.com/#!/exjon/status/522205969108197377
The New York Times’ tweet Tuesday night claiming that U.S. troops found thousands of chemical weapons during the Iraq War already has conservatives and liberals re-fighting that conflict on Twitter.
During the Iraq War, U.S. troops found thousands of chemical weapons. The war's untold story: http://t.co/ksfkwjsySC pic.twitter.com/jy49WTAygF
— The New York Times (@nytimes) October 15, 2014
@NoahCRothman Wait a minute. The NYT is now admitting WMDs in Iraq? What's the game here?
— Charlie (@charlieseattle) October 15, 2014
Don’t be fooled into thinking that the New York Times is contributing in any way to the rehabilitation of President Bush’s legacy, though. The Times’ report is on soldiers who were injured by chemical weapons — thousands of them — left behind since the early ’90s.
We didn’t find an active WMD program in #Iraq – our troops found the rusty remnants of an old one. By @cjchivers: http://t.co/nkcEpxQaZr
— Molly Hunter (@mollymhunter) October 15, 2014
@nytimes What a TOTALLY FREAKING MISLEADING TWEET. There were no USEABLE WMDs! Tweet should be US soldiers injured disposing of rotting WMD!
— David Gondek (@mutex7) October 15, 2014
@nytimes Chemical weapons, NOT WMDs. There's a difference. Read the article!
— Faith (@Noudidant) October 15, 2014
This is what many people wrongly believe. https://t.co/HXzWSO8y4I
— Gomes (@GomesBolt) October 15, 2014
@GomesBolt guess chemical weapons can't massively destruct humans or something.
— Milkshakes Anytime (@MomMilkshake) October 15, 2014
@MomMilkshake a grenade can be considered WMD, a satchel charge, a pressure cooker with nails. All WMDs. Some people are meatheads.
— Gomes (@GomesBolt) October 15, 2014
Speaking of:
Of course Saddam had WMDs stupid! He just didn't use them because his evil master plan was to get killed. Duh.
— John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) October 15, 2014
Unfunny and unhelpful as usual, Mr. Fugelsang.
@JohnFugelsang he couldn't use them because shock and awe disabled his communications.
— Gomes (@GomesBolt) October 15, 2014
The presence of even these weapons wasn’t a secret to many of those who were there in Iraq.
@exjon we knew about this in the Military. I inventoried some stuff in full chem gear. "Just count the barrels!"
— Gomes (@GomesBolt) October 15, 2014
@exjon Also there were a few chem mines that vehicles hit. Some were hits on Chem resistant buffalo vehicles.
— Gomes (@GomesBolt) October 15, 2014
@beybeyskid @New_Narrative @nytimes I told people my own experience and people did the same "huh? I didn't think there were chem weapons."
— Gomes (@GomesBolt) October 15, 2014
@GomesBolt Man, that sucks! All because there was a narrative to keep. @New_Narrative @nytimes
— TroublesMcGillicutty (@beybeyskid) October 15, 2014
@beybeyskid @New_Narrative @nytimes The Admin believed their narrative to the point they didn't secure these when we left.
— Gomes (@GomesBolt) October 15, 2014
@GomesBolt Yep. Guess who has them now? @New_Narrative @nytimes
— TroublesMcGillicutty (@beybeyskid) October 15, 2014
@beybeyskid @nytimes Admin "those things don't exist" Troops "yes they do, what do we do with them." Admin "do with what?"
— Gomes (@GomesBolt) October 15, 2014
Remember the Saddam Regime Change push was about the fact he had a tendency to use his chemicals more than anyone else. Killed 1M in 10 yrs.
— Gomes (@GomesBolt) October 15, 2014
True.
The New York Times is vastly, vastly overstating the claim that the justification for the Iraq War was an "active weapons program."
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 15, 2014
In 2002 and early 2003, the major concern was that Saddam Hussein was violating the inspections regime established to disarm his old weaps.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 15, 2014
Saddam was rumbling that he would restart his programs for chemical and nuclear warfare, and denying access to the inspection teams.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 15, 2014
As Saddam Hussein threatened to end inspections and restart his programs, Bush 43 attempted to get the UN to enforce stronger restrictions.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 15, 2014
The UN refused to step up inspections or sanctions and Bush 43 determined that a war coalition would deal with the threat instead.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 15, 2014
No intelligence estimate of an "active weapons program" ever made up the rationale for the Iraq War. That's a liberal invention.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 15, 2014
All three speeches, at the UN, the SOTU, the war eve speech, mentioned Hussein's ambition and his prior weapons programs.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 15, 2014
And those prior weapons are exactly the weapons the NYTimes has suddenly "discovered" today.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 15, 2014
In sum, the Democrats have invented a lie for you to believe, that the Iraq War was aimed at an "active weapons program." Don't fall for it.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 15, 2014
Meanwhile we have President Peace Prize in his third week of airstrikes with zero congressional or UN approval.
— S.M (@redsteeze) October 15, 2014
Incoming NY Times narrative: Hillary was right to authorize war in Iraq while in the Senate.
— S.M (@redsteeze) October 15, 2014
Comments are closed.