General Discussion

underpants

(195,849 posts)

45. Let's look at it another way - why wouldn't we have heard about it?

Thu Oct 16, 2014, 02:23 PM

Oct 2014

Aside from the Pentagon wanting to diminish Vet claims in the future, why wouldn't this have been trumped up by the Bush White House? The press would clearly carry their water on anything. If they could have just shown a giant pile of these warheads that would been enough. All the follow up expert comments on how outdated and useless they were would have never reached the general public. The initial story gets cemented and that's it.

So why not a photo op? Were they scared people would say "that's it?". Were they scared of the links to them (Cheney specifically) and the Germans and every other nations mentioned?

Seriously why wouldn't they have played this up? We know that they found staggering new ways to screw up, maybe this was just another one.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Big NYT Story: The Secret U.S. Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons [View all] Hissyspit Oct 2014 OP

K&R Solly Mack Oct 2014 #1

I read it. Everyone should. AngryAmish Oct 2014 #2

Everyone should - though it is sickening karynnj Oct 2014 #6

A very long time ago (a couple of decades) I was sitting on the metro reading The Washington Post Samantha Oct 2014 #8

From this Report...Further Snip: KoKo Oct 2014 #3

Wait, so Sadam really DID have chemical weapons? I thought that was suposed to be made up kelly1mm Oct 2014 #4

I'm confused too PAProgressive28 Oct 2014 #5

These are not the WMD. Hissyspit Oct 2014 #11

No the claim was for a then current active program - and nuclear was implied karynnj Oct 2014 #7

Link to reports on this incident: JHB Oct 2014 #16

Thanks - karynnj Oct 2014 #19

No, we mostly knew about these old ones SeattleVet Oct 2014 #9

No. Read. The. Article. Hissyspit Oct 2014 #10

Seconded n/t Strelnikov_ Oct 2014 #13

Yes, youre confused markpkessinger Oct 2014 #17

No- from the article underpants Oct 2014 #30

Yes, we gave them to Iraq when poppy bush was ruling in rayguns name. They were old and probably jwirr Oct 2014 #34

Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2014 #12

Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2014 #14

K&R ReRe Oct 2014 #15

So what they are saying is, Bush was right Iamthetruth Oct 2014 #18

If you read the article you will find that Bush was indeed wrong Johonny Oct 2014 #20

Then why are they reporting Iamthetruth Oct 2014 #21

If you read the article you will find that Bush was indeed wrong Johonny Oct 2014 #22

And you can keep making spinning Iamthetruth Oct 2014 #25

BULLSHIT Hissyspit Oct 2014 #27

Well unlike you Iamthetruth Oct 2014 #36

No. Hissyspit Oct 2014 #38

Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs. Gormy Cuss Oct 2014 #39

So having 5,000 chemical shells Iamthetruth Oct 2014 #40

All aged, some empty, many rusty, corroded, leaking pinboy3niner Oct 2014 #44

No, it doesn't. Hissyspit Oct 2014 #46

Youarenotthetruth, please read this article Hissyspit Oct 2014 #33

I did read the article Iamthetruth Oct 2014 #37

No there's not. Hissyspit Oct 2014 #41

Because Iamthetruth Oct 2014 #47

Let's look at it another way - why wouldn't we have heard about it? underpants Oct 2014 #45

They control the site that was a CW factory before 1991... JHB Oct 2014 #23

Saddam did not have an active WMD program. Hugabear Oct 2014 #24

That was one long article underpants Oct 2014 #35

NO. READ THE GODDAMNED ARTICLE. Hissyspit Oct 2014 #26

This explains the conversation I just heard at lunch underpants Oct 2014 #28

It's insane. Hissyspit Oct 2014 #29

He and others already got this packaged and spun underpants Oct 2014 #32

Check out this crap: Hissyspit Oct 2014 #42

No - from the article underpants Oct 2014 #31

K&R woo me with science Oct 2014 #43