Skip to content

The New York Times is reporting the United States found 5,000 chemical weapons in Iraq

October 15, 2014

  According to this story in the New York Times today soldiers fighting in Iraq found 5,000 chemical weapons and this has been kept hidden from the American people.

  Here is more:

It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.

Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.

He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.

The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.

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.

  This, as we all remember, was the justification for going to war in Iraq and yet this information was hidden by both the Bush and Obama regimes. Why is that? Well, we know why the Obama regime would not want this information to be made public, but what about the Bush regime? Why would they not release this information to prove the President was right? It makes no sense to me whatsoever…

   In past years I would have used this story to gloat about George W Bush being right, but apparently he was not interested in proving he was right so there must be more to this story.

  One theory being floated is that these were older chemical weapons and were not in a condition where they could be used in the normal manner, but while they were degraded the chemicals are still deadly and if they fall into the wrong hands they could still be used in other ways to hurt people. This, to me, is not a reason to hide this from the American people.

 Could it be that the Bush regime weighed this on a political scale, deciding it would be more prudent to hide the fact that United States soldiers were actually injured by chemical weapons for years than it would be to inform a public, which had already turned on him, that he was right?

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.

  I think that is highly unlikely because releasing this information before the 2008 election might have helped John McCain so I think there is another, more nefarious reason–the Hegelian Dialectic. 


  If this does not shake your confidence in the government I do not know what will. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are on the same side, they are establishment elitists and they do not have our best interests at heart. What has come from the Iraq war? The PATRIOT Act, the NSA spying program, and warrantless wiretaps. More government control, mission accomplished…

  I apologize for the rambling nature of this post, but I am honestly baffled by this story and I am basically talking my way through this in my mind as I write this. I do not know what to think and any input would be greatly appreciated, am I missing something?

21 Comments leave one →
  1. October 15, 2014 6:58 pm

    A few years ago when my oldest son was a cadet in the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets he had a class with some other cadets who were veterans. Several of them had been in combat roles in Iraq. They told him that they did indeed find chem weapons and also saw the chem trucks high-tailing west toward Syria. So yeah, this isn’t news…except for maybe the fact that the info was suppressed for some unknown reason

    Liked by 1 person

    • October 15, 2014 7:15 pm

      We have known for awhile many of the weapons were sent to Syria so you are right, this is not really news. But the fact this information was suppressed really baffles me.


  2. lou222 permalink
    October 15, 2014 7:27 pm

    Why would anyone think we do not get told the whole truth?

    Liked by 1 person

    • October 15, 2014 7:36 pm

      Yeah, I would be more surprised to learn the government was telling us the whole truth…


  3. October 15, 2014 7:45 pm

    So, the NYT catches up with my friend at Spellchek, as I reported on his post yesterday. Why did the Bush administration keep this quiet? So, they could keep the war going?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Paul H. Lemmen permalink
    October 15, 2014 7:57 pm

    Reblogged this on A Conservative Christian Man.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Dr. Jeff permalink
    October 15, 2014 7:58 pm

    Add me to the list of people who don’t understand why Bush and company buried the information.

    The only thought I have is that in many ways Sadam’s possession of chemical weapons was irrelevant. There was never any doubt that he had them. He killed enough of his own people with them to confirm his capability.

    The important question was how would he use them. I have never seen any evidence that he ever used or planned to use them outside his own borders. If he wasn’t using them beyond his own borders, why did Bush make an issue of it? Many countries have stocks of chemical weapons, including us. Possession by itself doesn’t make much of an argument.

    Israel is a possible exception, but even there, he never did it. The SCUDs were armed with conventional explosives only.

    Liked by 1 person

    • October 15, 2014 8:11 pm

      That could be a possibility. The mere existence of chemical weapons did not prove he intended to use them against us so perhaps Bush did not think this would help at all.


      • Dr. Jeff permalink
        October 15, 2014 8:23 pm

        There really isn’t anything that makes sense. Someday Bush himself may address the issue, but until then, I don’t think we’re going to know.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. josiahe permalink
    October 15, 2014 9:10 pm

    Many weblogs carried the truth. Some even showed thousands of 18-wheelers hauling them into Syria’s Baca (Beqaa) Valley as we waited to begin the war. I reported that on my blog numerous times.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dr. Jeff permalink
      October 15, 2014 9:31 pm

      I’ve no doubt you did. Finding out what actually is happening usually isn’t that hard. The MSM’s failing was willful.

      Liked by 1 person

    • October 16, 2014 5:47 am

      I remember that as well, and yet nobody outside of the blogs really did any reporting on this. People should be asking themselves right now where Syria got the chemical weapons that were used a few months ago. We know the answer but are most people putting two and two together?


  7. MaddMedic permalink
    October 16, 2014 12:33 am

    Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word….

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Chris permalink
    October 16, 2014 7:45 am

    Long time reader, first time commenter. Steve I truly enjoy and appreciate your blog and insights as well.
    What always struck me as odd about the WMDs was the fact that if they had them why would they have not used them against US/NATO forces during an impending attack-or at least try?
    Keep up the good work brother, there are many out here now who rely on blogs such as yours to provide some semblance of reality vs what we see/here on MSM and from our “elected” “leaders”.

    Liked by 1 person

    • October 16, 2014 5:26 pm

      Thank you so much for the compliment. I think Saddam got most of them out of the country if they existed, probably because he had hoped he could buy some time before the invasion.


    • Dr. Jeff permalink
      October 16, 2014 5:56 pm

      Using war gasses has been looked on like using nukes. If you assault the soldiers or people of another country with them, payback is gonna hurt.

      Within the borders of a country, the use of poison gas has been condemned, but no one ever took any significant action until GWB and his invasion of Iraq. Up to that point and since, from the “Yellow Rain” in Viet Nam to the present day, using poison gas on your own population has been grudgingly accepted.

      There have been a lot of instances, mostly in the Mid East. Look it up.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. October 16, 2014 2:49 pm

    My impression is that the found projectiles were a decade or more older, left over from the Iran-Iraq war, and weren’t the weaponry Mr. Bush claimed was being developed in Iraq at the time he invaded that country.

    Why his Pentagon didn’t more loudly proclaim such discoveries eludes me as well, although they weren’t strictly kept a secret. It may have been that they were reluctant to make a big deal out of found ancient weapons that were so obviously not what they were looking for.

    The explanation for the secrecy surrounding the injuries from those weapons is more pernicious – a combination of communication failure and standard military-think, or more generally bureaucracy-think.

    Communication failure stems from doctors in the field not being told to examine for the effects of chemical weapons, and so they initially diagnosed and treated for other things. The culture of secrecy, inimical to bureaucracies in general and the military specifically, essentially is a CYA mentality, and results in the military classifying even weather reports from time to time. Reports of troops injured in the process of handling or destroying ancient chemical weapons might embarrass the Pentagon of the administration, and so they’re kept quiet.

    I agree with Chris – if they had them, why didn’t they use them? And I’m sure there were lots of trucks fleeing the country in all directions, including Syria, once it became clear a US invasion wasn’t a matter of if, but when. While I can understand the desire on the part of some to assume that every such truck headed for Syria contained massive quantities of WMDs, no dispositive proof has been offered.

    Take good care, and may God bless us all!


    Liked by 1 person

    • October 16, 2014 5:29 pm

      I heard that as well TGY; these were older weapons which were degraded and did not prove that Saddam still had an active program. Because of this Bush decided not to make a big deal out of this, according to the theory. It is plausible.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: