It boggles the mind at how openly fickle, irresponsible and biased our American media can be. A recent study undertaken by a citizen journalist proved that the New York Times is an echo chamber… yet even this echo chamber can produce honest journalism from time to time.
An example of that is their recent report on the discovery of caches of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) by American troops across Iraq in the years after we initiated Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Five years after President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, these soldiers had entered an expansive but largely secret chapter of America’s long and bitter involvement in Iraq.
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.
Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of “wounds that never happened” from “that stuff that didn’t exist.” The public, he said, was misled for a decade. “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’ ” he said. “There were plenty.”
Of course, the New York Times, being the liberal mouthpiece that they are, couldn’t help but attack the Bush administration even while spilling the beans that there were WMD’s in Iraq.
The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.
The Times says that the rationale was Iraq had an “active” WMD program. Sadly, that is simply a bold faced lie…,
In a great piece, Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades HQ uncovers the lie for us and reminds the Times that the WMD claim was not just about an “active program” at all.
So you find again—and I’m sorry for repeating this so many times, but it seems that it has been forgotten—the three themes of Bush’s war plea: Iraqi resistance to disarmament, Iraqi ambition to arm once more, and terrorists. Those were the casus belli for the Iraq War. Not solely an active weapons program, as the NYTimes would have you believe.
Even if it were true to the American public the war was about finding and destroying WMD’s – new or old, it didn’t matter. Imagine if the government would have told the media about what they were finding buried in the Iraq desert… the “Bush Lied” and “No WMD’s” memes would have never existed! The American people wouldn’t have cared if the WMD’s found were just built our 20 years old – they would have been happy to know that the WMD’s were being found and disposed of so that Saddam Hussein would never be able to use them again.
Over at the National Review Online Deroy Murdock tries to understand why the administration would have stayed silent even while being attacked for lying.
New media accounts — including coverage by NRO’s Patrick Brennan — confirm what I repeatedly have written since the depths of Operation Iraqi Freedom: The late dictator Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass death, and the United States of America was correct to invade Iraq, find these toxins, and destroy them.
Team Bush’s near-silence about Saddam Hussein’s 3,894 pounds of uranium points to this story’s second outrage: the Bush administration’s phenomenally flaccid response to its most vociferous detractors on the WMD question.
Then-president George W. Bush’s critics used the most bitter and vicious tones to accuse him of deceiving America and the world about weapons of mass death. “Bush lied, people died” was the Left’s relentlessly repeated anti-Bush indictment. The liberal fever swamps were rife with theories that Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their pals at Halliburton concocted the WMD charges from whole cloth. Why? To justify a U.S. invasion in order to seize Iraq’s oil fields. Lifting sanctions and simply letting Iraq’s oil flow must have been too much trouble.
The notion that Operation Iraqi Freedom rested upon a giant foundation of even bigger lies severely damaged the reputations of the United States of America, Bush, the conservative movement, and the GOP — the latter two of which tended to support the Iraq invasion.
It is outrageous that the Pentagon and, apparently, Bush’s political team concealed proof that America’s chief casus belli actually existed. Instead, the howling hyenas of the Left were allowed to gnaw away at Bush’s political corpse.
Why did anyone involved in this disaster think that this would be good for America domestically or globally? How thick were the skulls of Bush’s political advisers not to see the importance of presenting this information amid deafening shouts that the president and those of us who supported Operation Iraqi Freedom were a pack of filthy liars?
Take the time to read Murdock’s entire piece, as he reminds us that even way back in 2004, he was writing about the discovery of WMD’s in Iraq. Whatever the reason the Bush administration had for hiding the discovery of thousands of WMD’s from us – it wasn’t worth the damage left by allowing the Left to paint the administration as liars and failures. The belief that there were no WMD’s tarnished the Republican brand and led to the crushing defeats of 2008 and 2012. By allowing the left to paint Republicans as liars, the Bush administration basically handed over the next decade of political leadership to the corruption of the Democrat Party.
This discovery is big news, but don’t be surprised when the media and the liberals work together to bury the lede by implying that Bush was still lying and the Iraq war was a failure. In fact, the Times piece that uncovers the story works hard to try to make it sound like the story itself doesn’t matter and that Bush is still a liar and the invasion still a failure.
Why? Let’s let Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades HQ explain it…
Progressives deeply invested in the lie during the Bush years that no WMD were found in Iraq. Bush gave many reasons for the war, but progressives seized on just the presence of WMD and then pretended it was the only reason for war. We’ve known they’ve been wrong about the lack of WMD for many years now. But, upon the chance that ISIL will find and use any remnants of WMD, however, progressives have had to modify their story even more.
Now, progressives have finally admitted that Hussein’s stockpiled weapons were found during the Iraq War, but claim these were not the weapons Bush said would be found. This is just one more lie. And they’ve compounded it with another lie: that the sole reason for the Iraq War was an active weapons program.
As I have demonstrated from Bush’s own contemporaneous words, an active weapons program was not the sole reason for war. In fact, an active weapons program was not even mentioned in the multiple speeches Bush delivered to the American public and to an international audience.
Do not let the NYTimes get away with its false history of the Iraq War. The war was not made solely based on claims of an active Iraqi weapons program. It was made because, as President Bush explained repeatedly to the American public: Saddam Hussein possessed old weapons of mass destruction, desired to evade inspections so as to keep them, hoped to restart his weapons programs in the future, and could pass weapons to terrorist groups with ambitions to harm the West.
Don’t let the liberals lie about this. It’s a huge deal. Educate the people around you, share this article with those people who pretend there were no WMD’s in Iraq and with the liberals who know better but like to pretend Bush still lied. The GOP has spent the last ten years being attacked over this… it’s time the truth came out and the GOP was vindicated.