http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/op...an-region&_r=0
http://conservativetribune.com/nyt-wmds-in-iraq/
But still blames Bush for invading because of chemical weapons.
Printable View
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/op...an-region&_r=0
http://conservativetribune.com/nyt-wmds-in-iraq/
But still blames Bush for invading because of chemical weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
I thought the liberal media said there were no WMD's in Iraq PERIOD..
Odd thing that there is ...
Too old to be a danger in 2003, with a country's worth of scientists and billions to invest; dangerous as f*ck in 2014 in the hands of a bunch of goat lovers who burn math books.
Nothing to see here...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...report-claims/
It's Bush's fault that this news didn't come out sooner.
Hilarious, the stupid keeps getting stronger.
Well the original article was written by CJ Chivers, hardly the NY Times. The Times is just turning it into another story on the ineptness of the Bush era.
sent from a soup can and some string..
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
The old stockpiles were left in Iraq. The newer good stuff was shipped out to Syria prior to the 03 invasion. There was an Iraqi general who wrote a book about it. Once the media heard, they made him disappear from any further publication. Didn't fit with their narrative. Then low and behold those weapons were used along with Syria's own stockpiles. And now they are being destroyed. No more evidence, no problem.
So.....the current administration is going to use these chemical weapons that are now in the hands of the ISIS nutbags, that they ridiculed the prior administration for going to war in Iraq for, and supposedly never existed, to justify going to war with ISIS & co. Riiiiiiight....[facepalm]