Skip to comments.NY Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003
Posted on 03/13/2005 7:26:41 AM PST by MisterRepublican
click here to read article
That's what GWB said. :):)
After the Iraqi's get their new government going and things quiet down, I very much look forward to hearing from their people as to what and where theses WMD's went.
BIZARRE to be seeing this in the NYT, but I've been saying for a long, long time that Bush's biggest Iraq mistake was jacking around with the useless UN for six months while Saddam moved his WMD out of the country, most likely to Syria. It's so obvious that a third-grader could've figured out what was going on.
However not WMD Stockpiles....but they might have been moved.
See link at post #188.
Well, I'm sure Ronald Reagan's children, Sean Penn, Ed Asner, et al, will now apologize for their libels and slanders and rush to judgment.
Looting at Iraqi Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Official Says (RATS ARE WRONG AGAIN!!!)
The New York Times ^ | 13 March 2005 | JAMES GLANZ and WILLIAM J. BROAD
Posted on 03/13/2005 3:14:45 AM CST by txradioguy
"Looting at Iraqi Weapons Plants Was Systematic"
Sit on a story that is NOT detrimental to the President, until AFTER the elections, and AFTER it is obvious that their boy, John F'ing can no longer win by some last minute lying, cheating, or stealing (ala Washington state).
any links to the actual Slimes article??
wow.. I didn't know you were a communist to want to have a Pad in China.
I guess it's now commie to live in San Fran or New York as well.
I think you are right. A game is being played here.
Everyone in the know, knows what happened, but there must be reasons for it to be played out this way.
Maybe so the Russians aren't embarrased by the story. maybe the "blackmail" which will prevent them helping Iran too much, maybe the lever to get the Syrians out of Lebanon etc.
ie "We know where the weapons are hidden and if they get found in territory you control nothing will save you".
I think you hit the nail on the heed. If you're right, Pres. Bush took a very big political hit on the WMD issue in the run-up to the election. This is a true "profile in courage".
But using quotation marks
"monitored stockpiles" and other "dangerous" materials, along with the equipment to make more, [were] "looted" because the US blundered by not securing the sites.
to imply spin doesn't cut it.
Dangerous stuff was looted...and not because U.S. blundered but because we didn't have enough troops to protect everything that we knew needed protecting. We were forced into triage - we protected what we thought was most important. And what was that? Principally, the oil infrastructure.
So let me get this straight. The NYT is saying that it is the US's fault that the WMD's that didn't exist were not able to be monitored by the UN who could not find them and now are a danger because what didn't exist was moved to a different location?
I'm confused I think.
ping to post on al-Araji
This reads just like the Al Qaaqa missing tons of dangerous weapons story the NY Times ran right before the election.
As you noted the Al Qaaqa weapons 1) most likely went missing before in the run up to the war 2) and that given the US presence in the area once the war began, it was virtually impossible for that volume of material to have been carted off with the US tanks blocking road access 3) and this was not new news but was known for months but published eight days before the election due to what many thought was political motivations of the NY Times and El Baradei of IAEA.
What is interesting about the reappearance of this story after its post election disappearance is its timing. Byron York in NRO just published a piece on 2/28/05 called
Remember Al Qaqaa? With the election over, the New York Times forgets its big scoop.
Why was the Al Qaqaa story so important in the eight days leading up to the election that it merited two stories per day, and so unimportant after the election that it has not merited any stories at all?
The Times's "public editor," Daniel Okrent, told National Review Online that he has raised the question, at least in a general sense, with the paper's editors. Those editors, Okrent explained, believe that the story has been fully reported. "Their version is pretty much, 'What did we have to add to the story? The story held up,'" Okrent told NRO.
Nevertheless, Okrent believes there are aspects of the Al Qaqaa story that merit following up. There is, for example, the still-unanswered question of where all those highly dangerous munitions ended up. "I do think there is the matter of where did this stuff go," he told NRO.
So this was a follow up to demonstrate that, of course, the Al Qaaqa articles were not politically motivated. But the NY Times still has not bothered to vet whether the arms could have been moved from the various other noted locations after the war had begun without US awareness. The NY Times still does not acknowledge that the Al Qaaqa site was emptied prior to the war.
The other interesting thing is the revelation of a source -- a former Baathist government minister, Dr. Araji. Was he the earlier source? Was this information available since a couple of months post invasion also and just being released now? Why? And most important, is his information reliable especially vis-à-vis the timing of the looting or whether it was looting at all or a systemized retreat in the face of a looming invasion. Does Dr Araji, a former Baathist, have his own agenda?
The article mentions several times that the weapons might have landed in Syria (or Iran), impliedly due to US neglect in securing them. With the possibility of US action in Syria looming, is this some kind of prelude to an outcry over any US action in Syria, ie US military action causes proliferation, makes the situation worse? Or a warning that Syria is too dangerous and should not be provoked? Or am I just paranoid.