JMHO Loc: Utah

It's a stunning revelation: American soldiers in Iraq came across thousands of chemical weapons -- and a number of them suffered long-term injuries after being exposed to mustard and sarin gas.

And today, ISIS controls the territory where these chemical weapons were found.

These facts are laid bare by New York Times reporter C.J. Chivers in a long article, “The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons.” How ironic that the left-leaning Times is presenting facts that are at odds with a favorite narrative of the anti-war left -- namely, that the mendacious Bush administration had lied about the existence of WMDs in Iraq.

Chivers, of course, can't very well say that Bush was right all along: His readers wouldn't stand for it. So he tosses a bone to them, claiming the Bush administration's goal in Iraq wasn't merely to disarm Saddam of his WMDs -- but to destroy “an active weapons of mass destruction program.” Instead he claims that American troops only found “remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West." Yet the fact remains that these chemical agents still had military value -- a fact that Chivers concedes. And while these chemical WMDs were not part of an "active" program, this does not refute the fact that Saddam was in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring him to account for and destroy his WMDs.

Looking past The Times' spin, the article nevertheless offers some disquieting revelations -- revolving around military and bureaucratic bungling, incompetence, and mistreatment of American troops who, thanks to the military's obsession with secrecy, were unnecessarily exposed to mustard and sarin gas when uncovering hidden arsenals of aging artillery shells and rockets.

Elaborating on the magnitude of Saddam's WMD sites, Chivers writes:

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Despite suggesting that all those aging chemical weapons had no military value, Chivers goes into much detail about how American troops who handled them suffered skin blisters and respiratory problems. Some initially received poor medical care, a problem attributed to the military's climate of secrecy. It was a policy that apparently was formulated in part to save the Bush administration from embarrassment that no “active” WMD programs were found.

In some cases, servicemen were denied Purple Hearts after suffering injuries from chemical stockpiles; and the military's secrecy regarding chemical WMDs contributed to military physicians initially misdiagnosing injuries they were seeing that had been inflicted by chemical agents. Or as Chivers writes:

The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified.

The secrecy fit a pattern. Since the outset of the war, the scale of the United States’ encounters with chemical weapons in Iraq was neither publicly shared nor widely circulated within the military. These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the Islamic State, a Qaeda splinter group, controls much of the territory where the weapons were found.

The American government withheld word about its discoveries even from troops it sent into harm’s way and from military doctors. The government’s secrecy, victims and participants said, prevented troops in some of the war’s most dangerous jobs from receiving proper medical care and official recognition of their wounds.

There is much blame to go around here both for the Bush and Obama administrations. And while The Times doesn't say so, the Obama administration obviously knew of this problem -- yet did nothing to make sure that chemical-weapons sites weren't cleaned up.

Obviously, the Obama administration was in an awkward spot, because to even have acknowledged the existence of these weapons would have given credence to the Bush administration's motives for invading Iraq. It is unclear why the Bush administration wouldn't have wanted discoveries of aging yet potent chemical weapons stockpiles to be publicized. How many of those chemical weapons were sent to Syria?

Chivers notes that when U.S. troops left Iraq, old stocks of chemical weapons were “still circulating” and that “finding, safeguarding and destroying these weapons was to be the responsibility of Iraq’s government. Iraq took initial steps to fulfill its obligations.”

Along these lines, three reporters from The Times visited a site last year named Al Muthanna, and they observed “a knot of Iraqi police officers and soldiers guarded the entrance” of two bunkers — one containing cyanide precursors and old sarin rockets."

Whatever became of that site? Chivers writes: “The Iraqi troops who stood at that entrance are no longer there. The compound, never entombed, is now controlled by the Islamic State.

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out during the next White House press conference.

It will be hard to say it was all Bush's fault.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/10/ny_times_admits_saddam_had_wmds.html#ixzz3GDas2oHn

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Great post. This is based on facts, as after the first Iraq war, slowly the facts came out and the "progressives" ignored them I am sure that they will chose to ignore them still, or claim that this information is part of the "vast right wing conspiracy" and is nothing but a lie, or maybe that Bush took WMDs and put them there after there was no Bush in office any more.

Molly2399 Loc: Ohio

This was the Democrats talking points. They told everyone that Bush was the culprit and that he started an unholy war. Obama has run on that for the whole time he has been in office. I keep saying that Obama is evil along with his group of devils. He refuses to close our borders and he does not care about Ebola in our country. We have our soldiers over in Africa where they have no knowledge of how to protect themselves from catching this terrible disease. Does anyone have any answers of how to get rid of this devil? Two more years of him and we will not have any
country that looks like the America we knew. Even if the Republicans win the Senate will they be able to dethrone this horrible human being?

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

They will lie like they always do and unfortunately the lie will probably work. Lets face it we have all seen the man on the street get asked 5th grade questions and have no clue. That is a big part of the voting public. Just look at the Liberals on this site. Doesn't matter what the lie, even when all the media have to admit the administration lied about something the wingnut left gives them a pass. Hell most make up excuses for their god in chief Obama Sickening.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

I wouldn't be surprised if MSNBC ran a special about how Bush41 and Bush42 commandeered old SR41s that Halliburton bought off the black market and ran WMD's into Iraq.

Cheney was of course the 'real' pilot of Bush's plane.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

I just had an evil thought (not the first one regarding this man and not a recommendation) perhaps he could get Ebola and spread it around the White House before succumbing to it. There must be an official from the heavily infected part of Africa coming to visit him shortly.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Imagine if Bush had gone around the country patting himself on the back like Obama did after Seal Team took out UBL.

Nahhh..

I prefer Presidents that put America over their own political ambitions.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

I'm wondering why Bush kept that secret? It would obviously have helped silence his critics, both then and now. It also begs the question of what all the special chemical weapons disposal teams did while in Iraq - clean latrines? I find "new" evidence suspect, especially now when ISIS is such a hot "by line" topic.

Ronald Hatt Loc: Lansing, Mich

Bush,is vindicated"! But, didn't lie,& still thousands died.......[ for the protection of America ].....& FOR "YOU & ME, & OUR FAMILIES!

Now, will the Liberals come out, & apologize to Bush, & America, for being "STUPID, & UN-AMERICAN" ?? ? ? ? ?........"No".......Sadly, that will not happen..."WHY?"......Because there is "no" honor in being Liberal! No personal responsibility, integrity, shame, or decency! Just Liberalsim, at it's finest. Embarassing politics, that Liberaslism......... :hunf:

Ricko Loc: Florida

JHMO-Great post. Those of us with common sense have known all along that if our intelligence sources, and those of our allies, say there were WMDs in Iraq you can bet they were there. I fully understand that sometimes the intelligence gathered in the field is massaged and even amended at the higher levels to suit an agenda. However, when dealing with something as deadly as WMDs I would not believe that anyone would attempt to sugar coat the issue. If I remember correctly, ISIS troops found some nuclear material in an old bunker in Iraq . This revelation vindicates Bush/Cheney as well as all who voted for the Iraq war including democrats. PS since Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds we knew he had some. Good Luck America !!!

JMHO Loc: Utah

Same liberal crap from Ipnmajor...nothing new, even when it is an article published by a very liberal newspaper.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

You're right. He clearly didn't keep the secret for political purposes. That pretty much leaves American national security. Kind of like the opposite of Obama and the Bin Laden assassination.

I imagine the chemical weapons disposal teams drilled and performed other duties... Or perhaps they disposed of other chemical weapons that are still classified.

Why in the world is the 'new' evidence suspect? You think Obama wants you to know he gave WMDs to ISIS by failing to do what everyone with a brain told him to do to secure Iraq? That doesn't make sense.

Ronald Hatt Loc: Lansing, Mich

It's....NOT.......a stunning revelation.........It's a "stunning" admission, of what Conservative America, knew all along! John "coward" Kerry, knew it, & "Killery" Clinton Knew it.....But....Libtard America, just couldn't give George W. Bush, the credit, ......[ or respect ]...... he deserved! Now, Libtard America can hang their heads in shame, & degradation.....[ something they should do everyday].......I want a ***public apology*** from all the stinking Democrats, that Vilified Mr. Bush for so long.....These Dumbocrat, Libtards, are not honorable, & deserve "Q

CowboyMilt

Just another example of the Left wing & their Lame Stream Media failing to report the truth that WMD were found & many of our Servicemen were injured by them being exposed to them...Why the American public are continually kept in the dark when it comes to the TRUTH...it just goes on & on...I remember someone reporting it & it wasn't any of the Lame Stream Media...perhaps Fox News...

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

I find it amusing that a newspaper that get's such derision from the right, most times, suddenly becomes their hero - when it says something they want to hear.

That's brilliant logic at play. If something matches the preconceived and narrow minded paradigm - it must be the truth - because we want it to be.

Just to be clear. It makes no sense whatsoever for the Bush administration to have kept secret, the very thing they used as an excuse to invade Iraq.