Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NY Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003
News Max ^ | March 13, 2005 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on 03/13/2005 7:26:41 AM PST by MisterRepublican

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-237 next last
To: MisterRepublican

where did they go...to the syrians in the bakkaa valley


151 posted on 03/13/2005 11:06:20 AM PST by freddiedavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican

While the UN argued over the resolution to impose serious consequences for about nine months, Saddam with the help of Syria, trucked them out and buried and stored them in Lebanon, in the Bekka Valley.
By the way, the Bible code, says chemical and biological weapons are in the Bekka Valley, Lebanon.


152 posted on 03/13/2005 11:07:03 AM PST by thirst4truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken21

Obviously something is getting ready to break and the NY Times wants to be out front with the story, hoping the US citizens have forgotten their earlier take.


153 posted on 03/13/2005 11:11:00 AM PST by gov_bean_ counter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ken21
how many rats based their voting in november 2004 on this one issue?

Maybe 10%. A low number to represent the number who would possibly vote other than Dem in the first place. Not to be confused with the larger number who cite WMD all the time, but would vote Dem in any case.

154 posted on 03/13/2005 11:14:26 AM PST by RightWhale (Please correct if cosmic balance requires.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican

ping for later today,...off to Home Depot


155 posted on 03/13/2005 11:20:25 AM PST by Dad yer funny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Modok

You nailed it.


156 posted on 03/13/2005 11:21:02 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Macroevolution is the last of the great Mystery Religions of the 19th century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

yeah,...that's a keen observation


157 posted on 03/13/2005 11:22:27 AM PST by Dad yer funny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4

I am going to read the article. I am pretty sure Newsmax is taking this completely out of context.


158 posted on 03/13/2005 11:24:15 AM PST by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dad yer funny
Can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. The print media is taking a beating at the hands of internet news. At some point major news organizations are going to have to chose between ideology and the bottom line. This article seems to be an attempt to have it both ways. Report bits and pieces of truth with an appropriate amount of anit-Bush spin. FWIW.
159 posted on 03/13/2005 11:32:21 AM PST by gov_bean_ counter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican; All
Newsmax twists the facts again, I see.

Here is what the Times article really says.

The looters may have taken, according to the Iraq govt.:

1) "Dr. Araji said EQUIPMENT CAPABLE of making PARTS for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's dormant program on unconventional weapons."
2) Al Qaqaa explosives.

The Iraqis mention nothing about any WMD stockpiles, contrary to the slant of the Newsmax piece. No, just equipment capable of making "parts" (not even a full weapon). Also, conventional explosives were missing.

This section of the piece that made it into the Newsmax title is background and not a reference to Iraqi claims: "Officials of the [UN] commission and the atomic energy agency have repeatedly called on the [post-Saddam] Iraqi government to report on what it knows of the fate of the thousands of pieces of monitored equipment and stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials." I.e...the UN wants to know what happened to the "stockpiles" of chemicals.....not chemical weapons, chemicals. The section in no way is saying there were stockpiles of WMD looted from the facilities, just that chemicals that could be eventually turned into weapons (hence why they were monitored) need accounted for.

Furthermore, there is no mention of the year 2003 in the stockpiles section as Newsmax claims. More twisting by Newsmax to serve their ends.

The NY Times isn't doing an about-face or anything, no matter how disgusting their reporting is. Folks, like it or not, no WMDs have been found so far (I am sure they are in Syria or still hidden really good somewhere). The NY Times article in no way does what Newsmax tries to twist it into doing, support the idea they were all stolen. That is not what the article says.

More dishonest Newsmax spin.

160 posted on 03/13/2005 11:58:46 AM PST by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeaBiscuit

see my post down at the bottom. Newsmax is just twisting things.

The NY Times in no way was claiming there were chemical weapon stockpiles in 2003.


161 posted on 03/13/2005 11:59:38 AM PST by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: speedy

Newsmax did a very good job of selectively piecing together quotes from the article to try to prove their angle, but if you read the entire article, you see Newsmax is just up to their usual game of flat-out LYING.


162 posted on 03/13/2005 12:01:08 PM PST by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Exactly. Although I would not call Newsmax stupid.

They know they are twisting the article to convince the gullible.

That is why they pieced together the quotes from the 4-page piece in the Times to try to present a coherent case that the Times claims there were stolen WMDs when that is not what the Times was saying.

Newsmax is pretty good at patching together quotes that are not related to try to make up stuff.


163 posted on 03/13/2005 12:03:50 PM PST by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

You are reading the article wrong.

Newsmax is just hyping up things up as usual.


164 posted on 03/13/2005 12:06:40 PM PST by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe; All

REPEAT AFTER ME: THERE IS NO ABOUT-FACE.

At MOST, the NY Times article says the UN was wanting to know what happened to MONITORED CHEMICALS..i.e. stuff that was not in violation of UN resolutions but they were keeping track of it.

CHEMICALS......NOT CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

Newsmax is just once again lying to try to twist the facts and get readers.


165 posted on 03/13/2005 12:10:26 PM PST by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Yeah, that is the stretch. There apparently was a large, coordinated, efficient effort planned in advance to get all this stuff out of the country if we invaded, so they knew:

A. Where to go (90 different sites, how many hidden?)
B. What they wanted (who had that knowledge?)
C. Where to take it (lined up ahead of time)
D. What equipment and manpower they needed (lined up ahead of time cranes and many many heavy trucks, fuel and manpower)
E. How to get it out of the country (TONS of machinery from 90+ sites, without being conspicuous)

Now, how exactly did this shadowy group get all this coordinated so well before the war, in a country with a dicatatorship that had spies literally everywhere? How was that possible?

Not only that, but they managed to loot 90 sites right under our very noses using cranes and lorries, all witnessed by govt workers and officials but not by us, and, managed to get the 'tons of machinery' out of the country over a several week period, again right under our noses. How exactly did all this happen?

The times says that the sites were left 'essentially' unguarded. What does that weasel word mean? It only takes one soldier to see cranes and truck carting stuff off to send up the red flag, so if anyone was at any of these 90 sites, the alarm would have been raised.

We in fact had no more wrapped up the invasion and we had troops swarming over all these sites for weeks looking for weapons. How did they manage to get all this stuff out while this intensive search was going on?

I am very curious as to how 90 sites were cleaned up in mere weeks in a very coordinated effort, who was involved, and how it was coordinated. That would take a massive amount of equipment and manpower. I am curious as to all that equipment got out of country without being a massive convey coming from various parts unknown and trying to get out of the few exits out of the country capable of such traffic, unseen. I am curious as to how al-Araji came upon this information.

Interestingly Dr. Sami al-Araji came up twice in Google, once about the Allies use of depleted uranium in an anti-US article in Le Monde, http://mondediplo.com/1999/06/08duarms. The other was in something called 'A Letter from Baghdad,' a propaganda article put out by the Iragi govt possibly and circulated on the left-wing websites (http://www.northside.greens.org.au/stuff_4.html) about the final UN inspections before the invasion.

It's also interesting that it was al-Araji that worked as the point man with the final UN inspection team and took them to the various sites. This means if there was any diversion or misdirection, al-Araji would have been the person carry out the orders of the regime. He was not in the 'deck of cards' issued by the U.S. for wanted Iraqi officials.

Meaning then that al-Araji would know most if not all of these 90 sites and what was in them. The question then is what does he know and when did he know it. He could have easily been one of the players in this dismantling operation, making you wonder if he is duping the NY Times in misdirection to get the issue out now and let the anti-US screeching drown out the real truth before it is uncovered. Being that he was a former Iraqi official, he is immediately suspect in terms of the ability to believe that he is telling the truth.

My guess is that this is a thin and desperate cover story for dismantling that occured BEFORE we invaded, maybe even being some kind of stalling measure so as to not speed up events even faster. With Lebanon in the process of being freed, we could be close to being able to get CIA and Spec Ops assets in the Bekaa valley easily to find the missing weapons. Meaning there may be time needed to get them out?

At any rate, there is more to this than meets the eye, and I don't think this is the end of this story, nor do I think we have seen the truth what what really happened.


166 posted on 03/13/2005 12:29:00 PM PST by Free Vulcan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: jriemer

Great analysis, jriemer! Thank you!


167 posted on 03/13/2005 12:36:48 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

BTW, this is still damning for the liberal media, as they said that Saddam didn't have the capability to manufacture weapons. Apparently now he might have. They can still maintain the story of no WMD's, and maybe even blame Bush for losing the equipment, but they can't take back what they have said about Saddam's manufacturing capabilities.


168 posted on 03/13/2005 12:39:34 PM PST by Free Vulcan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican

I hope no one believes the trash the NYT's puts out. I'm not that stupid.


169 posted on 03/13/2005 12:47:09 PM PST by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs Zip

ping


170 posted on 03/13/2005 1:06:03 PM PST by zip (Remember: DimocRat lies told often enough became truth to 48% of Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
Key word there is "monitored." The monitored stuff wasn't in violation of UN resolutions. This isn't exactly some startling revelation.

Right!

171 posted on 03/13/2005 1:08:02 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jriemer

That could be the new Game Plan ....would fit with their MO....


172 posted on 03/13/2005 1:09:27 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Wishful thinking I guess.


173 posted on 03/13/2005 1:12:17 PM PST by Happy2BMe (Government is not the solution to our problem, government *IS* the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican

174 posted on 03/13/2005 1:12:25 PM PST by evangmlw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican
NYT:

Officials of the commission and the atomic energy agency have repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to report on what it knows of the fate of the thousands of pieces of monitored equipment and stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials.

NewsMax "quote" of NYT:

In a stunning about-face, the New York Times reported Sunday that when the U.S. attacked Iraq in March 2003, Saddam Hussein possessed "stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials," as well as sophisticated equipment to manufacture nuclear and biological weapons, which was removed to "a neighboring state" before the U.S. could secure the weapons sites.

In what universe is that an accurate quote?

175 posted on 03/13/2005 1:16:04 PM PST by Half Vast Conspiracy (It's the tag line you're upset about, isnít it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RottiBiz; usgator; Strategerist; Phsstpok; SeaBiscuit; Howlin; MeekOneGOP; Dog
The threat posed by these types of facilities was cited by the Bush administration as a reason for invading Iraq, but the installations were left largely unguarded by allied forces in the chaotic months after the invasion. I believe the NYT's underlying purpose for this article -- to once again blame the President -- can be found in this paragraph.

I think you nailed it....somewhat similar to the news reports that always cite how a dangerous SUV caused an accident, without mentioning the dangerous driver.....

Bush was concerned about the driver of the WMD program....

176 posted on 03/13/2005 1:21:24 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

You are correct. NewsMax's interpretation of this article is wrong. READ THE ARTICLE FREEPERS!


177 posted on 03/13/2005 1:26:08 PM PST by Half Vast Conspiracy (It's the tag line you're upset about, isnít it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: SeaBiscuit
In a stunning about-face

.................... this may be an "in your face" to a lot of Dems. ;-)

178 posted on 03/13/2005 1:26:52 PM PST by beyond the sea (Colonial Script........... or nationalize The Federal Bank..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion; Alamo-Girl; Strategerist; rwfromkansas; jriemer; NormsRevenge; Grampa Dave; ...
See comment # 176 and #81, in trying to get a clue about what NY Times is trying to do with this article.

I mean, where is any real new news,.....the news is only that the Slimes has repackaged the facts with some kind of follow on intent!

179 posted on 03/13/2005 1:28:20 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican
dems are stupid EOD! And there stupidity is a threat to America.

Mark my words
180 posted on 03/13/2005 1:29:58 PM PST by ezoeni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican

bump


181 posted on 03/13/2005 1:31:19 PM PST by chaosagent (It's all right to be crazy. Just don't let it drive you nuts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

interesting take.


182 posted on 03/13/2005 1:33:26 PM PST by ken21 ( today's luxury development. tomorrow's slum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
I urge all to read the Times original report and see what it says.

Aren't you afraid that we'll figure out that your "quotes" aren't really in the article?

183 posted on 03/13/2005 1:36:07 PM PST by Half Vast Conspiracy (It's the tag line you're upset about, isnít it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
Well the place was filled with ordinary munitions, "Bad Stuff", and most interesting to me was all the "barrels of insecticide" found at military installations, yet nurseryman couldn't afford to buy it....so why was that?

But in terms of Stockpiles of FULLY prepared and READY ? "Stockpiles of WMD"...they haven't been found.

184 posted on 03/13/2005 1:46:23 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: jriemer

This was a VERY interesting article; I wish the Pubbies would talk about these matters more often when they appear on the political shows.


185 posted on 03/13/2005 1:50:06 PM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Samwise
The Bush Lied strategy failed, so let's switch to Bush let stockpiles get away.

This is exactly what these shameless Dumbasscrats will do!

186 posted on 03/13/2005 1:58:22 PM PST by CurlyBill (The difference between Madeline Albright and Helen Thomas is a mere 15 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican

So what. That was then, this is now. The NYTimes doesn't bother itself about past lies.


187 posted on 03/13/2005 1:58:26 PM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jriemer
Possible connection of more dots beyond the article we have Syria doing it's thing in this article:

Syria Pulls Out a Third of Its Troops ~~ 10,000 troops ... mainly in the Bekaa Valley ...

Is the Bekaa Valley the most logical place to have them????

188 posted on 03/13/2005 2:15:52 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Your absolutely right, the NYSlimes has wrote nothing more than another hit piece. The title alone should be an indicator of what their intent really was.

"Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic"

This is a side piece along side the article, notice the title.

"U.N. experts say at least 90 weapons sites have been looted or razed since the invasion in 2003."


Two paragraphs below makes it clear that the Times is not only making it look like we were inept in securing chemicals and parts, but that we also allowed important economic structure to be destroyed.

"Dr. Araji, whose tenure with the ministry goes back to the 1980's, is now involved in plans to use the sites as manufacturing centers in what the ministry hopes will be a new free-market economy in Iraq. He said that disappointment at losing such valuable equipment was a prime reason that the ministry was determined to speak frankly about what had happened.

"We talk straight about these matters, because it's a sad thing that this took place in Iraq," Dr. Araji said. "We need anything that could support us here."


And the final paragraph of the story is the kicker!

"During the American presidential election last fall, news of that letter ignited a political firestorm. Privately, officials of the monitoring commission and the atomic energy agency have speculated on whether the political uproar made Baghdad reluctant to disclose more details of looting."
189 posted on 03/13/2005 2:21:26 PM PST by SeaBiscuit (God Bless all who defend America and the rest can go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: SeaBiscuit; Carl/NewsMax

Talk about a camoflaged piece!

So maybe Newsmax had the right idea....spin it our way.


190 posted on 03/13/2005 2:24:07 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
LOL!! If the Slimes can spin so can NewsMax.. and they do!

Actually, neither spin does any good, it just adds to public confusion as a 'he said, she said' debate. We need the straight truth, which is right here at FR after FReeper's run their spin through analysis.
191 posted on 03/13/2005 2:33:52 PM PST by SeaBiscuit (God Bless all who defend America and the rest can go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: SeaBiscuit

Another outstanding job by Freepers on BOTH pieces.....


192 posted on 03/13/2005 2:36:23 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (This tagline no longer operative....floated away in the flood of 2005 ,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]


193 posted on 03/13/2005 2:37:57 PM PST by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noachian

"Is this an alternate reality?




That or a major KISS UP!! Reader beware. These homosexuals who run these papers, think they run the country, If they don't say it is so it isn't, Until they say it's so. Or so they think.


194 posted on 03/13/2005 2:49:36 PM PST by gidget7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Yes, I'm afraid you are right about Newsmax.


195 posted on 03/13/2005 3:13:04 PM PST by speedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Big Steve; deport; blackie; nickcarraway; Salvation; Howlin; PhiKapMom
"The top Iraqi defense official said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's WMD program."


PING!

196 posted on 03/13/2005 3:23:22 PM PST by Lady In Blue ( President 'SEABISCUIT' AKA George W Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MisterRepublican

Well, well, well! Isn't this something?! And from the NY Times no less. Thanks very much for the thread.


197 posted on 03/13/2005 3:24:41 PM PST by Lady In Blue ( President 'SEABISCUIT' AKA George W Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lady In Blue

Those are NewsMax's words, NOT the NYSlimes, that statement is not present in the Times article.


198 posted on 03/13/2005 3:31:41 PM PST by SeaBiscuit (God Bless all who defend America and the rest can go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
THANK YOU!! I also read this article as saying that the so-called looting was done BEFOREas well as doing the invasion.
199 posted on 03/13/2005 3:41:38 PM PST by Lady In Blue ( President 'SEABISCUIT' AKA George W Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

I'm sure people at DU wants to read it that way as well. Won't work.


200 posted on 03/13/2005 3:43:21 PM PST by Lady In Blue ( President 'SEABISCUIT' AKA George W Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-237 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson