George W. Bush: The Gift That Keeps On Giving
US Army soldiers take samples from items found
in a weapons cache, Baqubah, Iraq, January 3, 2009.
(Photo: The US Army)
George W. Bush: The Gift That Keeps On Giving
By William Rivers Pitt
Truthout | Op-Ed
Saturday 18 October 2014
Thirteen years ago, after the Towers came down but before the war started, I wrote a book that claimed there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and therefore there was no reason to go to war there. That book has stood the test of time, but as it turns out, there were WMD in that shattered, battered and bombed-out nation...just not in the way it was explained to us.
On Tuesday, The New York Times published a thunderclap of an article titled "The Secret Casualties of Iraq's Abandoned Chemical Weapons." The gist of it, in short, is that Iraq was littered with thousands of chemical munitions the US and other countries had sold them before 1991. US troops were tasked to police them up and destroy them, a process that injured many of them in ways they still endure today, but because the Bush administration wanted to keep these munitions secret, the troops who happened to scoop up a leaking mustard gas shell and woke up the following day covered in boils and unable to breathe never received proper medical treatment.
But wait, hold the phone: Wasn't the whole point of the exercise about the presence of WMD in Iraq? If US troops found thousands of chemical shells, which they dealt with at their peril, why didn't the Bush administration bellow the fact to the heavens?
Ask Karl Rove:
Starting in 2004, some members of the George W. Bush administration and Republican lawmakers began to find evidence of discarded chemical weapons in Iraq. But when the information was brought up with the White House, senior adviser Karl Rove told them to "let these sleeping dogs lie."
The issue of Iraq's WMD remnants was suddenly thrust back into the fore this week, with a blockbuster New York Times report accusing the Bush administration of covering up American troops' chemically induced wounds.
To people familiar with the issue, both inside that administration and outside, the blame for the coverup falls on one particular set of shoulders: Rove's.
Some very stupid people heralded the Times' article as vindication of their long-embraced belief that Iraq actually did have WMD, and therefore George W. Bush's calamitous war was justified. There are several problems with this premise: 1. One actually has to read the article, which is long and full of words, several of which explain that the chemical munitions discovered were from 1991 or before, and were utterly useless as designed when found during the war; 2. None of it was worth fighting a decade-long war over; 3. The Bush administration didn't announce the existence of these decrepit munitions to the world because the US sold them to Iraq during the last Bush administration, and because pretending they weren't there meant the VA could blow off the affected soldiers.
The rhetoric, circa March 2003: Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile biological weapons labs, and uranium from Niger for use in a "robust" nuclear weapons programs.
The rhetoric in this brave new year of 2014: THE NEW YORK TIMES SAID THERE WERE A BUNCH OF SHELLS IN IRAQ FROM BEFORE 1991 THAT GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH SOLD TO SADDAM HUSSEIN WHICH GEORGE W. BUSH USED AS AN EXCUSE TO PLUNDER THE TREASURY AND SINK US INTO PERMANENT WAR IN THE MIDEAST AND WIN SOME ELECTIONS WHICH MEANS WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG YOU GUYS.
Fail.
(snip)
I have said this many times before, and will have to say it many times again until either these people are in jail or I am wrapped in my shroud: The single greatest strength of the American right is their utter and complete lack of shame. They will say anything - literally anything - if it moves the political ball even a few inches down the field.
P.S. The region of Iraq where the majority of these pre-1991 US-made chemical munitions can still be found is currently under the control of ISIS.
Thanks, George. You're the gift that keeps on giving.
The rest: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/26898-george-w-bush-the-gift-that-keeps-on-giving
= new reply since forum marked as read
A Repub? Read?
Oh yes, I know that Iraqi families have had it much worse that I have. That does not mean that my family has not had our share of sorrow. We still deal daily with the aftermath of my husband's deployment in 2005. He was in the hot spots of that time (Ramadi, Fallujah). We are left to basically fend for ourselves without any support because "the war is over". Veteran's spouses are the last on the list.
Now we see reminders that maybe his time over there was useless - that helps. 
The fact that we still have to see W's smirking face makes me feel physically sick.
BFEE - There's never been a more appropriate acronym.
"We know they have WMDs because we've got the receipts."
About the original NYT article. It's not an alert on you. You need to click through.
The poster argued that Bush was apperently right., because the NYT article. When pointed out that, 'no,' poster continued to argue that point.
One juror stated that the poster was right because Saddam had gassed the Kurds, which is not what ANYONE was talking about. 
So, yeah, you are correct, severe reading comprehension problem, with not only the poster, but the jury, too, which was my point in posting this.
Apparently, we have to prove all over again (and again) here on Democratic Underground that Bush lied us into Iraq.
There were indeed WMDs in Iraq, but Bush decided to spend political capital and take hits to his reputation and be called a liar, because if he showed where these weapons were, they would have fallen into the wrong hands.
Some people just cannot be saved.
