Why does the Media harp about not finding Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, then not report it when found?

Question

We have recently found weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Why haven't the news agencies reported this?

Answer 1

Cause the Liberal Media doesn't wanna admit Bush did not lie.

The smartest thing Hitler ever said was: The bigger the Lie the more people will believe it.

The Liberals have been lying day in and day out acting as if they never said Saddam was dangerous before Bush was President.

Answer 2

Because they're not the ones that Bush said was there. The Washington Post reported that a recent de-classified document shows that in 2004, US forces have discovered chemical weapons in Iraq. The problem is, even though they are WMDs, they're not the ones that Bush said Iraq has in his State of the Union Address. Also, the weapons are said the be pre-1991, not the ones after the Gulf War.

Answer 3

The media did report it, then they realized that it was nonsense. Senator Rick Santorum, together with Congressman Peter Hoekstra, announced today (June 22, 2006) that newly declassified evidence proves the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq after the 2003 Iraq invasion. Senator Santorum went on the Senate floor and touted this "new" information. Finally here was proof that George W Bush’s little adventure in Iraq was not totally pointless.
Senator Santorum’s press release on the subject states in part:
"The information released today proves that weapons of mass destruction are, in fact, in Iraq," said Senator Santorum. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq. I will continue to advocate for the complete declassification of this report so we can more fully understand the complete WMD picture inside Iraq."
However...Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”

Answer 4

They weren't. A few 14 year old cans of Mustard gas do not constitute "a grave and urgent threat to the United States", as Pres. Bush called WMDs. The Duffler report remains unchanged....there were no WMDs in Iraq. Saddam didn't sneak them into Syria, and he didn't bury them. They were destroyed before Bush got selected.

Even Fox "News" has dropped this. Santorum was just using it for political gain.

Answer 5

I'm curious where we have found weapons of mass destruction. Even President Bush has had to admit that there were none found.If they were found recently, they're probably ours. We've been there a long time without finding any. But if they have been found, I'd like to read about it. What's your source? Thanks.

Answer 6

Because a majority of the mass media doesn't like GW Bush or his cabinet, no matter what happens. It is a shame, but it is true.

They will not report anything that might make our President look good.

Answer 7

Because the news only wants to tell one side of the story. That's the way it has always been and always will be. I have seen them cut people off that they were "interviewing" when the person was about to speak some truth the (liberal) media does not want all the people to know.

Answer 8

Weapons of mass deception, you mean.

Saddam had chemical factories - used them against Iran; we all know about it.

Where are the nuclear bombs? Maybe Bush hid one there, for us to find and report on it now.

Dont believe the hoax being spread by FOX news.

Answer 9

They Hate America?

Answer 10

Please tell us the story the media won't! Where were they found, what were they?? LINK? LINK? I found it....................................................

"Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions, which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent "

Degraded = no good.

You = idiot

You forget Bush and Ruinsfeld told us they KNEW where they were at. Ruinsfeld knew where the WMDs were......