Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUChizad on October 15, 2014, 03:52:28 PM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html)
Cliffs of the narrative NYT is pushing with this story:
There actually were WMDs in Iraq, but they were inactive, unusable corroded artifacts from the 80s before the first Gulf War. And they in no way justify the Bush administration's rationale for invading Iraq. Bush lied about them too because handling them wounded at least six soldiers. However, now that ISIS controls the region where these unusable WMDs were found, they are suddenly usable again and it's Bush's fault because ISIS wouldn't exist if we hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place.
Seems like there's a lot of pretzelling to have their cake and eat it too.
-
Agreed Chad. There is a whole lotta waffling on this shit.
Well if they were inactive how were six soldiers hurt?
-
Its not a WMD when a dimocrat says it is old and unusable.
It IS a WMD when you open that shit up in said dimocrats house!
-
Well if they were inactive how were six soldiers hurt?
Pulled a hammy.