Posted on 10/08/2004 5:49:05 AM PDT by brookwood
The MSM doesnt give a rat's ass about 41 sarin rockets in Iraq.
They won't give up on the "no WMD in Iraq" angle until ONE sarin round explodes in Manhattan.
It's the administration and the RNC and the Bush Campaign that should also be all over it like white on rice.
Why is hot news like this always up to us peons to disseminate while the higher-ups in the Republican party sit on their hands?
Leni
The government-media complex has decided that unless it's a Wal-Mart sized warehouse full of nuclear-tipped ICBMs that were made in the last two years, it doesn't count as a legitimate weapon of mass destruction.
I have to suspect at this point that the mid-to senior level poeple at the CIA, as well as, at the State Dept, are doing all they can to elect Kerry and Edwards. I have often wondered why Bush didn't clean house when he took over. When the Clintons came to town, Bush/Reagan appointees in all departments, to include EVERY SINGLE ONE of the US Attorneys (50), were fired and replaced with the Clinton's thugs and henchmen. Some of the thugs/stooges Clinton were rewarded with federal jobs (see FEMA director et al)for crimes of omission and commision committed in Arkansas. Y'all remembuh Arkancide now doncha?
That's why I posted the screen shot. The link is the CIA website www.cia.gov - there is a link to the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD. Click on Volume 3 and go to page 30. The .pdf file is 65 megabytes so it takes forever to load it. The smoking gun is buried well but it is there.
The only way to inform people in America is grassroots--our lists and emails to the major media. C'mon folks, we need to get busy!
that's the source, but it took 20 minutes to load, so I posted a screen shot, saving some trouble for everyone.
If this unfortunate event occured, how would they spin this angle? My guess is they would say Bush let this atrocity happen on his watch with no further mention that this was a WMD from Iraq.
This bull$hit moving of moving the goal posts by using the words pre 1991 weapons and this "stockpile" word is just giving me a friggen fit.
And of course Joe Sixpack will never know that they actually did find over 50 WMDs that could leave a mark because he equates no stockpiles of WMDs = no WMDs.
And that matters precisely how? The Hussein regime was to account for and destroy all existing WMD's. The fact that these are pre-1991 is more condemning of his government, not less. It means that they have concealed records of these weapons in addition to the weapons themselves for over 12 years in violation of the cease fire agreed to in 1991.
If they had been of 1998 or later make, the argument could have been made that weapons inspections worked in the past and he had only been able to renew efforts since the weapons inspectors were removed. The fact that he was able to hide these munitions is clear evidence that weapons inspections had not worked nor were ever going to work.
What was the "use by" date?
This is a great arguement and I wonder why the Bush43 administration has not used it.
All US nuclear weapons are pre-1991 also. They still make good fireworks.
I must have blinked and missed it sometime in the last couple of weeks or so... What is MSM?
'Scuse me for not keeping current on the acronyms.
Obviously no one in the Bush administration read the CIA report. They just read the summary, or maybe they read what the Wahington Post said about the summary. If ANYONE can get this to someone who can run with it please let me know.
mainstream media
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.