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

  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. 

  Thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis.

  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?