More Than 600 Reported Chemical Exposure in Iraq, Pentagon Acknowledges
More than 600 American service members since 2003 have reported to military medical staff members that they believe they were exposed to chemical warfare agents in Iraq, but the Pentagon failed to recognize the scope of the reported cases or offer adequate tracking and treatment to those who may have been injured, defense officials say.Did we not hear, from 2003 until Barack Obama took office, how "BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED"? Were we not regaled, ad nauseum, with tales of how Bush lied?
The Pentagon’s disclosure abruptly changed the scale and potential costs of the United States’ encounters with abandoned chemical weapons during the occupation of Iraq, episodes the military had for more than a decade kept from view.
Hold on. The internet is forever...
Did Bush Lie Us into War?
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq
Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war
The Two Most Essential, Abhorrent, Intolerable Lies Of George W. Bush's Memoir
That's just a handful of what I found after a three-second Google search, which was hampered by the above news showing up in the hits. We were treated to stories like these for five out of eight years of Bush's presidency, with story after story of how there were no WMD in Iraq, how Bush fabricated evidence, etc. We were treated to fanciful guesses as to why he "really" wanted to go to war in Iraq, between "they went after my daddy" to theorizing he wanted to finish the job his father was unable to all the way up to G-d alone only knows what these people were thinking.
And the New York Times, eleven years later, vindicates Bush in an attempt to smear the Pentagon. You see, the Pentagon has been maliciously ignoring stories of soldiers who suffered chemical attacks in Iraq. You know, like THE ENTIRE MEDIA ESTABLISHMENT DID from 2003 - 2009. We heard NOTHING of any of this WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING.
I think we all know the answer to that question, don't we? Publicizing that soldiers were coming back with symptoms of chemical attack would negate the "LIED" part of "BUSH LIED". The media would rather soldiers suffer than commit acts of journalism that might vindicate a Republican president. That is both pathetic and horrific, that they would shirk their sacred duty to expose something like this because it would upset the narrative they helped craft.
And it's even more insidious, with comments like this:
This previously untold chapter of the occupation became public after an investigation by The New York Times revealed last month that while troops did not find an active weapons of mass destruction program, they did encounter degraded chemical weapons from the 1980s that had been hidden in caches or used in makeshift bombs.So, there WERE chemical weapons in Iraq, just like Bush said, and we knew there were. But because REASONS this just so happened to never come out. Ever. Oh, wait. I do distinctly remember folks mentioning, on more than one occasion, that we knew there were chemical weapons in Iraq because, well, Iraq used them against Iran. But, you know, those WMDs were totes gone, bro. Except that they weren't. And we knew it. And the media knew it.
Yet rather than publicize this news - which would have helped the soldiers affected by chemical weapon exposure - the media sat on it. Rather than commit actual acts of journalism, they ignored a major story so that their precious narrative could continue. In their zeal to smear and defame the president, they deliberately ignored honest-to-goodness stories of chemical weapons in Iraq that were hurting our soldiers. They waited until near the end of Obama's presidency to say, hey, you know, that evil military industrial complex is letting our soldiers suffer from these chemical weapons exposures to chemical weapons we swore for over a decade never existed.
Never trust these bastards any further than you can throw them, plain and simple.
That is all.