Iraq war supporters think they were just vindicated on Saddam's WMDs. They're wrong.

[Hissyspit]

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/15/6981493/iraq-wmd-saddam-chemical-weapons-new-york-times

Iraq war supporters think they were just vindicated on Saddam's WMDs. They're wrong.

Updated by Max Fisher on October 15, 2014, 11:30 a.m. ET @Max_Fisher [email protected]

A blockbuster story in today's New York Times reports that American troops in Iraq "repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein's rule." The American invasion of Iraq was premised on Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and chemical weapons are WMDs. So the story finally vindicates President George W. Bush and his decision to invade Iraq, right?

Wrong. The story, while important, is being widely misrepresented by Iraq war advocates seeking to exonerate Bush, who are also misrepresenting the Bush administration's widely-publicized rationale for invading.

Today's story comes nowhere close to backing up Bush's claims — and nothing ever has.

- snip -

Those claims have never been proven, including by today's New York Times report (the Times article is very clear about this). Rather, today's story reveals only that Iraq was sprinkled with aging, forgotten, and long-discarded warheads from Saddam's shuttered 1980s chemical weapons program — and that the Bush and Obama administrations have systematically covered up discoveries of those warheads, including the wounds they've caused American soldiers.

MORE

[CJCRANE]

1. They wouldn't have covered it up if it vindicated them.

[TwilightGardener]

2. I'd like to know how the story was compiled--

was it WITH cooperation from any government agency, or DESPITE no cooperation? Did anyone leak documents, or did they just follow soldiers' reports and what is already public in terms of service records and FOIA documents?