It wasn’t the only justification for the Iraq War, but it certainly has often been held up as the biggest. Although it has been claimed before that chemical weapons had been found in Post-Hussein Iraq, the New York Times has finally conceded it in a piece, “The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons.”
While various news sources had reported the finding before, all assertions that Hussein had chemical weapons in some capacity (weapons-grade or not – they had been hidden from U.N. inspectors) were largely scoffed at as nothing more than supercilious bunk. Well, behold…
The news report from the Times explains the now not-secret revelation that there had been WMDs in Iraq, after all:
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.
The NY Times even published a map of all the cases when American military troops were exposed to the formerly ‘non-existent’ weapons of mass destruction:
As The Blaze’s Oliver Darcy pointed out, the WMD discoveries were kept partly hidden from Congress.
Retired Army major Jarrod Lampier, who was there when the U.S. military found 2,400 nerve agent rockets in 2006 — the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war – said of the finding’s import, “‘Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say.”
WMDs in Iraq vindicated, just like the “no blood for (no) oil” myth debunked? You know this is going to get good on Twitter. And it is.
The obligatory sassy Tweet:
Snark factor says a lot:
It’s funny how often people who just want the truth told are villified by the news media and the culture, and increasingly, they aren’t people who are “stuck in the past,” but are just ahead of the curve.
Maybe all Americans would benefit from diversifying their news sources, instead of relying on one kind of news outlet to tell them the objective “truth” about what’s going on.
Justen Charters assisted with the creation of this report. This article was edited after publication.
No comments:
Post a Comment