marshall wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Now, given that it was pretty obvious that Iraq didn't have WMDs in 2003, I find it even more ridiculous that 70% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was connected to the 9/11 attacks. How f*cking incompetent is the US media?
It's not a matter of being misinformed. It's matter of mistrusting any information source that goes against what you just
know is true deep in your gut. It seems a lot of Americans just decided that he most have had WMDs and aren't going to budge from that view. If it wasn't true then we wouldn't have been justified in invading Iraq and that's just too much for some people to take so it's easier to believe the self-serving lie. You get the same kind crap from some Vietnam vets. Some might literally fly into a rage and try to kill you if you so much as even suggest the cause they fought for wasn't just. What can you do.
Uh sorry, but you are rather ill-informed...
Quote:
There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.
The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.
The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.
--
New York PostAmerican ThinkerQuote:
By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.
--
wired.comWhile wired.com tried to downplay the discovery in their article, fact remains, we did discover WMDs in Iraq.
You fail to mention that the weapons were in a state of dis-repair hardly capable of being used for "mass destruction". The effective delivery of a WMD is a bit more difficult and complicated than you make it out to be. Sure, some terrorists and insurgents tried to get their hands on the old stockpiles
we invaded. Of course they tried then. Why wouldn't they? They were obviously unsuccessful in putting them to use.
26 Jun 2012, 10:19 pm
