Saddam Did Have WMDs. Americans Found 5000 Of Them. Has ISIS Found The Rest? New York Times Confirms.

BREAKING: NY Times Drops Bombshell about WMDs in Iraq… Liberals Are Scrambling

The New York Times has finally admitted what conservatives have been saying for over a decade — that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq regime possessed weapons of mass destruction in violation of United Nations resolutions and international law.

But they’re still calling Bush a liar, of course — and, not surprisingly, they are themselves lying to do it.

The Times confirmed that American troops located an estimated 5,000 chemical munitions in the eight years from 2004 to 2011, when American forces withdrew from Iraq at the order of President Barack Obama.

In addition, an investigation by The Times found 17 American troops and 7 Iraqis had been exposed to chemical agents during this period. Unnamed officials confirmed those numbers, even saying that the number of exposed Americans, which is classified, is “slightly higher” than 17.

The Times also verified its facts with “dozens” of interviews of both Americans and Iraqis, as well as “heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.”

One would think that The Times, given these indisputable facts, would issue an enormous mea culpa to President George W. Bush for years of “Bush lied, thousands died” claims from the left.

Instead, they rewrote history.

“After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk,” The Times wrote. “United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.”

That first sentence is nothing short of a lie. President Bush insisted that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical munitions, the will to use them, the ability to provide them to terrorists, and the ambition to develop further programs, including the development of nuclear weapons. He never posited the existence of an “active” program, despite The Times’ claim.

In his State of the Union speech on Jan. 29, 2002, Bush told Congress and the American people that Hussein had “plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade” — hardly the description of an active program.

When the president gave Saddam 48 hours to leave the country just prior to the invasion in 2003, he said that Iraq “continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” but made no mention — none — of an active program.

All of what Bush claimed about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction turned out to be true, as verified by no less a liberal mouthpiece than The New York Times.

The closest he ever came to claiming an “active” program in any of three major speeches given in the run-up to the Iraq War was when the president addressed the U.N. on Sept. 12, 2002. At that time, he said that Hussein was “rebuilding and expanding facilities” that could be dedicated to the production of WMD’s in the future. Again, he made no claim of an “active” program.

But the best evidence that Bush never made such a claim comes from The Times itself, not in what the article says, but in what it does not say. If Bush had argued for the existence of an “active” WMD program as justification for the invasion of Iraq, you can be sure that they would have quoted him. The fact that they don’t is strong evidence that they can’t.

Did Bush suspect that Saddam Hussein was operating a clandestine WMD program? Perhaps — so did much of the rest of the world. Did he use that belief to justify an invasion of Iraq? No — despite what The Times would have you believe.

The Times was so desperate in its refusal to exonerate Bush for his supposed rush to war that it contradicts itself about the nature of the 5,000 weapons discovered. First, it claims that all of the munitions found were old and unusable, and therefore were no excuse for war. But the same article cites concerns  about these supposedly useless weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.

“These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the Islamic State, a Qaeda splinter group, controls much of the territory where the weapons were found,” it said.

If the weapons are unusable, who cares who finds them? If they remain potent, then Iraq’s possession of them was just the casus belli President Bush said it was.

The last munitions found, according to The Times, were in late 2010 or early 2011, which means that The Times is correct that the continued existence of chemical munitions in Iraq is “worrisome,” for two reasons.

First, the late date of the last discovery increases the probability that such weapons remain on the ground in Islamic State territory, waiting to be found — or perhaps already discovered.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, it means that discoveries of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq occurred under President Barack Obama.

Looks like The Times isn’t alone in lying to the American people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.