The New York Times’ tweet Tuesday night claiming that U.S. troops found thousands of chemical weapons during the Iraq War already has conservatives and liberals re-fighting that conflict on Twitter.
During the Iraq War, U.S. troops found thousands of chemical weapons. The war's untold story: http://t.co/ksfkwjsySC pic.twitter.com/jy49WTAygF
— The New York Times (@nytimes) October 15, 2014
@NoahCRothman Wait a minute. The NYT is now admitting WMDs in Iraq? What's the game here?
— charlie (@charlieseattle) October 15, 2014
Don’t be fooled into thinking that the New York Times is contributing in any way to the rehabilitation of President Bush’s legacy, though. The Times’ report is on soldiers who were injured by chemical weapons — thousands of them — left behind since the early ’90s.
We didn’t find an active WMD program in #Iraq – our troops found the rusty remnants of an old one. By @cjchivers: http://t.co/nkcEpxQaZr
— Molly Hunter (@mollymhunter) October 15, 2014
@nytimes What a TOTALLY FREAKING MISLEADING TWEET. There were no USEABLE WMDs! Tweet should be US soldiers injured disposing of rotting WMD!
— David Gondek (@mutex7) October 15, 2014
@nytimes Chemical weapons, NOT WMDs. There's a difference. Read the article!
— KeepTheFaith ? (@Noudidant) October 15, 2014
https://twitter.com/GomesBolt/status/522211609272668160
@GomesBolt guess chemical weapons can't massively destruct humans or something.
— ML (@just_mindy) October 15, 2014
https://twitter.com/GomesBolt/status/522213446952448000
Speaking of:
Of course Saddam had WMDs stupid! He just didn't use them because his evil master plan was to get killed. Duh.
— John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) October 15, 2014
Unfunny and unhelpful as usual, Mr. Fugelsang.
https://twitter.com/GomesBolt/status/522220027324686338
The presence of even these weapons wasn’t a secret to many of those who were there in Iraq.
https://twitter.com/GomesBolt/status/522207383070973952
https://twitter.com/GomesBolt/status/522207575170113536
https://twitter.com/GomesBolt/status/522208394984566784
https://twitter.com/beybeyskid/status/522208666007523329
https://twitter.com/GomesBolt/status/522209268117024768
https://twitter.com/beybeyskid/status/522209473289404416
https://twitter.com/GomesBolt/status/522209530806296576
https://twitter.com/GomesBolt/status/522215582037704706
True.
The New York Times is vastly, vastly overstating the claim that the justification for the Iraq War was an "active weapons program."
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 15, 2014
In 2002 and early 2003, the major concern was that Saddam Hussein was violating the inspections regime established to disarm his old weaps.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 15, 2014
Saddam was rumbling that he would restart his programs for chemical and nuclear warfare, and denying access to the inspection teams.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 15, 2014
As Saddam Hussein threatened to end inspections and restart his programs, Bush 43 attempted to get the UN to enforce stronger restrictions.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 15, 2014
The UN refused to step up inspections or sanctions and Bush 43 determined that a war coalition would deal with the threat instead.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 15, 2014
https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/522216336983085056
All three speeches, at the UN, the SOTU, the war eve speech, mentioned Hussein's ambition and his prior weapons programs.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 15, 2014
And those prior weapons are exactly the weapons the NYTimes has suddenly "discovered" today.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 15, 2014
In sum, the Democrats have invented a lie for you to believe, that the Iraq War was aimed at an "active weapons program." Don't fall for it.
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) October 15, 2014
https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/522218916660400128
https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/522219662030147584