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.
Syria's WMD program and usage predate's Iraq's. They used poison gas to quell "discontent" in Hama, a Syrian city, back in 1982.
Congressional Record - HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES CONTINUE IN SYRIA (Senate - May 12, 1992)
"Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, the state of human rights in Syria is well characterized in the opening line of the State Department's 1991 document, `Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,' which declares: Syria is ruled by an authoritative regime which does not hesitate to use force against its citizens if it feels threatened....In 1982, Hafiz Assad demonstrated to the international community how ruthless his regime could be by his brutal attacks on the northern cities of Hama and Aleppo. At these locations an uprising developed, led by a group called the Muslim Brotherhood, which resulted in an enormous use of force by Assad's security forces. When the insurrection was finally subdued, between 10,000 to 20,000 people were dead. The city of Hama was literally bulldozed. But it is not only his own people that President Assad treats in such an appalling fashion...." [/snip]
"In the Syrian city of Hama, an insurrection by the Moslem Brothers was suppressed with rare brutality in modern history. The Alawite army isolated the city, cutting off any contact with the outside, and opened a ground and aerial bombing. According to Amnesty International, the Syrian military had placed rubber pipes at the entrance of buildings where insurgents were said to be hiding and pumped in poison gas. It is claimed that there were some 30,000 dead in Hama. The Alawite army attacked the entire population, both Christians and Moslems."
Historical Fact: Syria terrorism and war crimes - February 1982
So first it was that they had nothing, now its they had it but stupid Bush let it get away.
Next it was, Bush didn't let it get away but stupid Bush let even "badder" people get it.
Again, I find it hard to believe that "looters" would wait till the war started to start dismantaling this equipment and risk getting caught. They knew the war was coming.
They pulled the stuff they wanted out before the invasion and shipped it off to Syria.
I hope that the NYT conferred with Scott Ritter before publishing this article. The fact remains that Anti-Bush people will never ever believe that there ever was any WMDs or chemical weapons. The damage of the long lie by the MSM has been done.
Disgusting. This Syrian use of WMD is well documented albeit ignored in the rush to only recite crimes of US imperialism.
I guess this happened before Amnesty only documented Western human rights violations.
If the Slimes said that there were WMDs in Iraq in 2003, that means they knew that the WMDs were in Syria and maybe Iran. Now that secret is about to come out.
This whole No WMDs in Iraq was a controlled sham/trick from day one.
As soon as the last WMD left the Iraqi borders in 2003 for Syria or Iraq, the left wing maggot mediots in charge of the MSM of the world started screaming that there were no WMDS in Iraq.
At that time our warriors were still fighting the Iraqis and there was no way the mediots could know that there were no WMDS in Iraq, unless they were told the WMDS were gone.
Now it appears the NY Slimes is getting to do a 180 degree reversal on their screams of no WMDs in Iraq for close to two years. The only reason they are doing that is simple. We are about to find out where the WMDs went and when and who helped.
Could be, or at least stalling long enough to get WMD's out of the Bekaa if they are there. Especially with France suddenly involved I am suspicious, because they are one of the top materials suppliers for WMD programs in the Middle East. They have a vested interest in none of this being found, would love to embarrass the US while strengthening their own hand on the world stage.
Now with the Times jumping in again post election (but not vetting anything out as you said), and the source being former Saddam underling Dr. Araji (who himself has a track record of being anti-US and needs to be vetted himself), a malodorous smell is starting to rise of something pending about to happen.
I remember an article posted here on FR shortly after the invasion was wrapped up where Syria came out with a cryptic and out-of-the-blue statement that their chemical weapons program was now 'complete,' almost as if they were taunting us to do something about the fact they'd smuggled all those WMD's in.
I have also heard news reports recently that Saddam got alot of the cash we'd found from the Syrian govt, but again the story wasn't vetted as to what was offered in exchange for the cash. These two and many other pieces indicate some kind of exchange went on between Saddam and Syria.
Someone on another thread suggested we let them do this because we knew who was behind it and where the stuff would end up: Syria, so we set them up to later catch them red-handed. Which makes you think now things are in place to call Syria's hand, and this Lebanon thing is a foreshadow of things to come, and also why you see the Times rearing it's head again on the issue: trying to run interference.
AI's publishing of their report was probably a "bureaucratic snafu" as everyone knows anti-western dictators get one free case of WMD usage or genocide as a mulligan.
Have I drunk too much? The New York Times? This is New York, New York,USA and not New York, Fiji or something? New York, Nebraska, or...?
Thank you for that link! I was looking and couldn't find it.
From the story:
"the installations were left largely unguarded by allied forces in the chaotic months after the invasion."
Well *yeah* because they knew this story back in 2003! The stuff was already gone!
It's not a stunning about-face.
It's merely a reflection of the fact that the Presidential Election is over.
Carl, if you start purposefully misleading people like this, I'm gonna avoid your website.
It kinda makes me wonder if this doesn't have to do with Syria, at least mouthing, that they are willing to pull out of Lebannon......
Call Art Bell the aliens have taken over the NY Times!
It wasn't all of them.
by Khidhir Hamza
with Jeff Stein
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.